Shared publicly  - 
The irony - IT BURNS

NRA President Wayne LaPierre says those with mental health problems should not be allowed to own a gun.

NRA President LaPierre received a draft deferment to avoid going to Vietnam because he had a history of mental illness.  Labeled then as a "nervous disorder."


[edit]  For the fact checkers:
Josh Eftink's profile photoMarco Meijer's profile photoBryan Conway's profile photoKyl N's profile photo
Skeptical. Any references that this is true?
I hope his mommy keeps her guns locked up.
In war I'm sure we all would be labeled with a 'nervous disorder'. So don't make him out to be some crazy person whos a hypocrite. 
Bryan Mitch
I'm more troubled by a man who isn't nervous to take another human's life... He failed to be fit for action for the Vietnam war which is much different from being mentally unstable in civilian life. 
+nigel vandewal

The problem is he had a documented series of visits with the doctor before that was ever an issue.

In other words, he is mentally unstable.

Not scared of going to war.
Lee Smith
I think US congress will not pass the assault rifles ban, because the US congress do not want to lose their careers. NRA has done a fabulous job to protect the Second Amendment rights. 
Serious gun owners do not support the craziness that is the NRA. Even my police chief is saying NRA is fucking nuts.
More hypocrites in America. I'm not surprised.
The nra is the only group trying to save our rights. All you liberals will try anything to discredit us. Good propaganda though.
You have no fucking clue who I am or what I stand. I was the captain of my varsity rifle team and hold an expert marksmanship card from NRA.

And I am telling you they are ducking nuts.
Scott Bunn, if you think the NRA is trying to save your rights, you are the one who has mental health issues.  The NRA represents those who profit from the sale of guns and ammunition; if they were representing individual rights, they would be working harder to be a part of any legislation that is passed, to make sure those rights are protected.  They are doing the same thing the Republican party did to protect the wealthy against tax increases:  refusing any, I repeat, any legislation that would reduce profits.  If you think they are looking out for you, either you are a wealthy gun dealer yourself, or you are just not very bright.
+Margaret Courtney I guess you think the one trying to tear down our constitution is helping you. Funny joke if he is allowed to tear down one amendment how long till he attacks the others. Get real.
Thanks +fan tai, sounds like he scooted out of serving, but I'm reading a lot of qualifiers like "allegedly" and "apparently" when I read the stories coming up on google. We'll see how this plays, but I don't think it will amount to much in the broader debate. 
Romney also got out of serving just like this fool. That really gets me angry. I'm a Viet Nam vet and I sure didn't have a choice. I didn't have the choice to use my religion nor my mental health to get a deferment.
Interesting to note: most of the congressmen and senators who voted for the war did not have kids in the military who would be risking their lives overseas. 
Lew Bloch
+Scott Bunn You attack people without logical basis, as "all you liberals" stated without knowledge of whether anyone you addressed is a "liberal" by your definition, fail to follow elementary grammar and spelling rules indicating an arrested education, make conclusions without even supporting your premises let alone substantiating the reasoning thence, and spout the shallowest of slogans, and you think you are contributing to the discourse? All you are doing is giving pro-gun constituents a bad name. Stop it. You're embarrassing. 
+Lew Bloch and make it difficult for pro gun owners to have a reasonable debate with people who want to ban all guns.

Apparently for some segments of the population, being able to see the other side's argument and concerns is equivalent to surrendering and you must support "your side" no matter how fucking stupid they are.
+fan tai a 'nervous disorder' can be induced due to circumstance, not a chronic mental health issue. I'm stating that because of a historical comment it does not show pure validity of the situation or circumstance. It gives you the wow statement rather than validated fact of mental health problems like schizophrenia.
Which is a mental health issue that would enable someone to be rejected when trying to get a gun.
+Scott Bunn I hate the "tearing down the constitution" comments. Its such a crock of shit. Tell me, even if the assault rifle ban passes, are there going to be people knocking on your door trying to take your assault rifles? Here I'll answer for you, absolutely not! 
He can show us what it really is by releasing his medical records.
Also, more than a couple of visits will indicate long term issues.

NRA life Member / Instructor , Veteran , Front Line Heathcare worker. Owner of bad black rifles. Serious gun owner who STANDS behind the NRA.
Fan may shoot but you AIN'T the NRA. 
I never claim to be NRA. I am saying NRA is fucking stupid. That makes me not a fan of NRA.

Shouldn't be that difficult a concept you know.

I am for responsible gun ownership. I am strongly against the idioticy that is the NRA.
+fan tai more than a couple visits does not indicate long term issues. if the circumstance does not change (IE your still going to war) it is not characterized as a chronic mental health issue.

nervous disorder is called " anxiety disorder" which then means by this comment that everyone who has ever experienced anxiety should not have a gun.  
ps +fan tai being against an organization who is supporting responsible gun control but yet wanting responsible gun control does not make sense. 
the NRA president is regulating a control on those that are mentally unstable. without this regulation those with mental disorders would be able to get guns. so you should be supporting this decision. 
+nigel vandewal Why do you think they didn't let him in the military? Especially during the time of a draft. I'm sure its not because he doesn't get others. That is of course, if this is all true.
I don't know what the purpose of the NRA is other then to buy politicians. But I guess you need a mentally unstable person as president for an unstable membership
Obviously because I believe the organization is NOT FOR responsible gun control and is in fact actively subverting it.
so to regulate mental stability is not creating responsible gun control?
+Joseph Pesante The reason he was able to chicken out on the military is because he had money. That's where he learned to buy politicians and probably mind doctors as well.
Notice had this been something bad about obama a lot of us would have found out that we were members of the Klan...  Give people respect if you want respect.
Right on. No guns for the president of the NRA 
+Lew Bloch spelling,grammar or anything else has nothing ti do with this debate. What you ate trying to do is elementry. With every word you wrote i can tell what you are. You have not a way to get your point across so you start with the attacks. I am a life member of the nra and proud of it. I also have a lot of money to throw at the nra to keep the fight going. We will not anyone violate our constitution.don't worry we will help keep your rights safe also

+nigel vandewal And just how does he intend to regulate mentally stability? We need to regulate gun ownership not mentally stability. If you're mentally unstable maybe therapy will help but regulations won't. 
omg +Scott Bunn did you draft that in crayon ?  Please proof read what you type or you really do come across as a toothless hick.
We need to eliminate guns and Scott also. The last people I want fighting for my rights is gun nuts. Thanks Scott, but no thanks.
In the UK the Government have a simple policy if they can't tax it they ban it and if they can't ban it they tax it. It was difficult to tax guns so they banned them.
Mike M
Yeah its called draft dodging alot of people did it back then probably alot of your father's that didn't serve back then did the same thing. 
I failed in that respect +nigel vandewal.  You may live vicariously through me.  I find it frustrating that people cannot see past the fact that those that want to sell guns will do absolutely everything in their power to skew or ignore facts.
+Mike M As a person who was a part of that time you are right
Many people evaded the draft. But the only way you could was if you burn your draft card and moved to Canada or Mexico, or if you had money to go to college or to buy a politician or if you claimed conscientious objecter due to your religion. Needless to say, we had many religious oeople during that time.
I'm all for guns but these guys take it too far. Borderline whack jobs... 
+Scott Bunn I'm all for responsible citizens having as many guns as they want, whether in the U.S. or anywhere else. You have no idea what I am, or what you are either, for that matter. Your mode of discourse is polarizing and damages the pro-gun position. Your presentation absolutely does matter, because it portrays you as yet another gap-toothed, mindless parrot for the oppressive elements of our society. What one hopes to find is intelligent presentation of relevant matters that inform and influence in a beneficial way. Your defensive derogation of any intellectualism in the approach is extremely counterproductive and again bespeaks possible deficiencies in your character or capabilities. Now for all I know beneath your net presence of a drooling psychopath lies a penetrating intellect with an abiding wisdom anent the ailments of society, but if that were true I'd rather you revealed it. 
The source you linked doesn't have a credible source. You are making an argument based off something you found on the internet. 
+Lew Bloch have you got it all out of your system now? Psychopath and gap-toothed really. Can we get back to the topic now. Like the cat by the way.
Hmm but would this effect people with ADHD or ADD? as some see it as as a disorder
+Richard Hobson The Internet is a very easy tool to use.  Google, in particular, shines at helping you find information.  You can choose to educate yourself, or if you find contrary information, present it so that we can have an open discussion.

Simply saying "your info sucks" without presenting anything to back it up is...  well, like a playground argument.
Joe M.
Taken completely out of context. Who wanted to go to Vietnam? He got out through a family doctor who wrote him out of it as I image quite a few others did. And who cares anyways? It's still what he believes so if that passes it isn't up to him to pick who owns guns. It is a 3rd party so they would determine if he can own one or not. Useless post. 
+Joseph Mock so you are saying he actively lied?  Then how do you decide which statements of his you can believe, and which statements are lies?

Also how is it out of context?  It is EXACTLY in context of what he said.
Joe M.
You didn't give the full story. And yes I am. And that is exactly what each person has to decide for themselves. And maybe you can't believe what he says. 
Either he has to admit to being a draft dodger or he has to give up his guns. 
RULES AS WRITTEN! If people with mental health problems don't have a right to bear arms, that's an infringement.
For everyone screaming about the constitution (actually, second amendment), I have a couple of questions:

1)  Are we living in a democracy?  Does the word democracy mean anything to you?  If 99% of the population want to pass an amendment to ban guns, what do you think?

2)  How do you feel about the recent attempt to pass a new amendment stating that marriage is between one man and one woman?  Should that be passed?  If the majority wants it?
Thought he would have relished the thought of going to Vietnam... plenty of guns to play with! 
So, basically, anything you are pro, should be allowed, anything you are against, should be banned.

OK, got it.
Its so good to go in the philippines to enter the war in mindanao so he can use plenty of guns.
Judges and legislators, however, know that the 2nd as written is unworkable, so they come up with all kinds of doublethink to restrict weapons without explicitly restricting weapons. So in practiceit's a full employment act for lawyers.
The second amendment was written when a "gun" was an inaccurate, not-very-long-ranged weapon that took 5 minutes to load. Now we have guns that can pop off caps as fast as you can pull the trigger. Gun laws should be altered. But not by too much.
I am agree on that, gun laws should be altered but too much.
This particular thread really isn't about gun control, but more so about how hypocritical and a liar NRA (or NRA's head) is.
+fan tai I agree 100% with you. In democracy the person or law that the majority vote should prevail not some gun lobby.
Unfortuately money buys votes.
The point to the second amendment is that it is up to the citizen to decide if, and what sort of weaponry they will own. It's not the governments choice, or anyone else's. It's my right as a citizen to arm, or not to arm as I see fit.
I knew that this guy was mentally ill. Now this got confirm. Also in 1998 or 1999 this guy was all in for universal background check without any loop holes, now he's against what he said then. 
Unfit for the military is not unfit to carry a weapon. It may come as a surprise to you morons, but not a single gun owner gets stressed over carrying a gun. 
+Bill Sparks Have you read the 2nd amendment?  The initial important phrase states that:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
It is not about defending AGAINST the state, but defending it !!!
It is about being not just regulated, but WELL regulated  and part of a group for checks and balances...
John, in a democracy what you said is true. The U.S. is a republic. We protect the individuals rights, not the whims of the majority.
Why is this left wing bullshit showing up in my feed?
If Obama can fake his birth location & citizenship to steal two elections then the democrats have no room to point fingers at anyone for any reason.
+Robert Soyars because the many right-wingers only read the right half of the 2nd amendment, and many left wingers only read the left half ... we need to pay attention to both!
+Diego CDeBaca that is soo funny... sorry, two Republcan Hawaiian governors have already attested to the validity of Obama's birth certificate. Don't you think they would have said differently if what you say is true?
i was a NRA member a long time ago. then i realized what kind of organization they are. they should be disbanded and replaced with a responsible organization.
Complicating things is just a method.
The NRA as you refer to it is everyday average people. You probably pass them on the street, wait in line at the store with them every day of your life. Several million Americans, some you probably have said good morning to. 
People like this have an easier time supporting something that involves a war...... But will never send their kids to serve.. Or server themselves. "someone else, not me or my kid". You want to own a gun? Serve in the Armed Forces... Earn it... 
Victor, it seems like you're projecting your own flaws onto us. You know you're too unstable for a gun, so you assume everyone is too unstable to carry a gun. The problem with that thinking is that much of the world is simply more stable than you. Just because you're a freak, doesn't mean everyone else is as well.
+David Gillis correct... and, for the most part, they are quiet, law-abiding citizens. They are horrified as many of us are of our neighbors who harbor hatred or fear or desperation and exhibit it by using guns to express it.
what about all the unstable people in wash .d.c.
+Victor Barry most gun owners are unstable. the only stable ones are generally hunters and collectors. states like colorado allow anyone with a driver's license to own a gun. because of that, gun ranges here are terrifying and most gun owners i meet here, REALLY should NOT own a gun!
Y are U anti gun? is it because Kids get killed  well thats a good reson but if U whant to save kid's lives stop abortions  about 10 2 100 thousand are killd a yr
Why do gun enthusiasts bring in the abortion issue??!

There are people who are pro life and believe in rational gun safety regulations!!!

Some of us are pro-life after the birth of the baby too. We don't think children aren't important once they are born!!!

Why don't you think the lives of 6 yr olds are as important as those not yet born???
i am not anti-gun. i love firearms, hunting, trap shooting, etc. when i lived in new jersey, guns were strictly regulated and all gun owners i met were responsible people, ranges were enjoyable. colorado has basicly no gun laws. most gun owners here, should not be owners! and i wont set foot on a gun range in this state. 5 were shutdown in the past 3 years because of people getting shot.
+adam kittel "the people you know" is such a small sample size of gun owners. It's reckless to think that this is a true representation of them. Some are quite adamant and passionate in their rights.

Using money is no new thing when it comes to avoiding draft. People paid off to avoid serving in the Civil War as well. 
I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-taking-the-2nd-seriously.
+Zachary Melvin no one should have the "right" to buy a gun. it needs to be a regulated privilege. when i lived in new jersey, guns were strictly regulated and all gun owners i met were responsible people, ranges were enjoyable. colorado has basicly no gun laws. most gun owners here, should not be owners! and i wont set foot on a gun range in this state. 5 were shutdown in the past 3 years because of people getting shot. most people now-a-days are simply not trustworthy.
No one? Too bad we do have the right. Regardless of what you think.
People have been known to recover, you know.
As someone heading into the mental health profession, we need to take a look at this stigma attached to people considered to be mentally ill. Americans long ago forgot about the art of personal responsibility and accountability. Humans are constantly trying to find a scapegoat and a quick condemnation of something hoping it will evaporate a problem, instead of actually attempted to fix the issue.
Uh I can hear him loading up his fun with more bullets now.
+adam kittel it's not going to get a rewrite, it's going to get more doublethink from legislators and judges to try and get some kind of rational regulation in the face of people who think the Constitution is the DM's Manual. RULES AS WRITTEN!
+Zachary Melvin good point. but, as you go thru your day, ask yourself, how many of the people you encounter you'd trust with a gun? in my state, anyone driving can buy one. i just think we should be smarter about who we let buy them. 
Barri R
Well, all the good people need guns to stop all the bad people with guns right?.. I mean, you could say.. 'How about NOBODY has a gun then we wouldn't have to worry about stopping anything?' But weirdly, that's just considered crazy talk.. (And sadly, will take decades to achieve) As for what happens if someone invades your country? Well, They're gonna come with Nukes, fast jets, Apaches and Tanks. So if that's your mindset, then actually ... You should all be allowed to buy one of those each too right? Hmm.. 
Wayne LaPierre isn't the president of the NRA. David Keene is. Calls the whole poster into question.
GUNS GUNS GUNS.  Sorry. I thought I'd add to the retard fest here.  Seriously guys...  take a break and get some fresh air.
Go figure. Wayne is out of touch with reality. So is the Nazi nra homo queers.
Just curious:  why wasn't there any screaming about 2nd Amendment rights when it was determined that felons could not own firearms?  Because rational restrictions on gun ownership are not seen as a threat to 2nd Amendment rights by anyone with a functioning brain?
The problem here is not gun control for America is the millions the government will lose from nra lobbyists, the president needs some way to disinfect the sandy hook shooting, not taking a closer look at our schools
Oh, the grand irony of it all. Then again, he may not have a mental disorder. He may just be a pragmatic.
This isn't hypocritical unless he himself actually owns a gun. He said that people with mental health problems should not use guns. He did exactly what he said he should do. He had a mental health problem, so he refused to own or use a gun. I think the true irony is in this post.

Also, I don't give a flying muffin about politics or gun laws. I'm not trying to support this guy. 
Bill Clinton got an educational deferment. At least check google before you make up lies. 
" which will you choose of the lesser evils then? "
Obviously, the constitution as written is word of god. And neither interpretation not content should ever change.

Wait, what was that thing about there being "amendments"? How can that be?

And why isn't the second amendment still interpreted the way it used to be? Where the "well regulated militia" clause was considered to modify "the people", ie, you could own arms — as long as you were in a well-regulated militia?
Now GW Bush, different story. He work on Daddy's friends political campaign when he was supposedly in the National Guard. 
+Peter da Silva the fact there are people complaining about it showing up in their stream unwanted suggests what's hot, yeah.
+Corban Hoppins I have seen him holding gun parts up on TV just yesterday. He certainly does not restrict himself from handling guns. I am counting the days when the 2nd Amendment is erased and all these petty, ridiculous and pointless conversations can stop!! 
The problem is defining mental illness. What constitutes mental illness? Also the guidelines for military acceptance is very strict but I'm sure no one on here would ever enlist. 
We spend more on education for our children than most nations and yet we have some of the worst scores in the industrialized nations.  Americans need to realize that it is personal accountability and responsibility that will save our country. I oppose gun bans because they are a double edged sword.  They strip us of our 2nd amendment right, take away all personal accountability and responsibility.  The Fed needs to set aside funding for proposed government agencies and task forces and give the funding to current agencies that has been promised to them for almost twenty years.  This way current gun laws can be actively enforced and the left with their urban female household voting block will realize how strict our gun laws really are.
War is a bit different than the whole issue of gun control. There's a whole lot of other factors that go into fighting a war
The strong gun laws in New York, and New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts seem to be working to lessen gun deaths. And guns are still legal in those states.

There are about 1/4 as many gun deaths as those states per 100,000 people compared to those with weak laws!

So stop the whining that "they're going to take my gun"! 
Long live the nra and our constitution.
Firearm homicides are lowest cause of death with about 11,000 people per year. Restrictions aren't needed
11,000 oh, you're right. Who cares if only 11.000 are killed???

The FBI did a study and found that the number one weapon used in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Why not put restrictions on those? 
Post the link. I did. 
More than 11,000 a day are killed by drs. daily
Lol- the conservative news??? Are you serious!?!?
We regulate Doctors!!
Then ban firearms. You'll have to ban knives next. Look at the United Kingdom. 
Who ever said they wanted to take away all our guns. I haven't heard that one just yet. So pay attention to these questions.

Do your drive? If yes, did you plate your car according to how the government wants it done.

Did you get a drivers license that the government requires you to have?

Do you drive within the posted speed limits that the government has recommended for us?

Do you have a job? If yes do you pay taxes?

Imposing laws are different from banning guns. So don't be so narrow minded. The issues isn't with law obiding citizens. So where is the issue. I think the gun manufactures are making far too many guns for no reason. Is it a coincidence that large shipments of guns are stolen on a routine basis. I think not. I think guns should be made on a per order basis, this will eliminate most of the guns that end up in the streets. You know "those guns that are stolen in large shipments routinely".

For the record, I own guns, I'm not afraid of the government, and I'm not afraid of laws. 
PROPOGANDA against a private corporation with its own paid members. Demonising management in order to influence a population against them. Dispicable AND weak move :(
I'm not being narrow minded. Driving is a privilege and so is owning guns. And when those guns are stolen and get into the hands of bad people who is to stop them when good people don't have them? 
Fake that is absolute false, it is from Onion... too said people did not realise that!
Criminals use guns to kill others. Punish them and STFU about lawful gun owners. Seriously, you lefty minorities get wayyyy to much airtime and need to learn to worry about your own pathetic lives instead of scheming to control everybody else's.
You NRA supporters making out its about your rights and the second amendment what a load of rubbish. are you still waiting for Mexico to invade or maybe it's the Chinese!!! the right to bare arms is as old as the second amendment itself maybe when billy the kid was roaming around holding up stage coaches you could argue that for protection you need to bare arms and even now fair enough a handgun maybe but a gun that can fire 100 bullets per second come on!! you have well equipped law enforcement and a legal system other in the world can only dream about but some how you scream second amendment second amendment when after a massacre of children people talk about gun control I would say that just Wanting to own guns like I've described you are mentally ill and on top you shouldn't be allowed to drive let alone own a gun come Obama stop these nuts from killing innocents on a daily basis you might not pull the trigger but by arguing against gun control your just as guilty....
And I bet most of them are owned legally 
There is no need to take guns, but there is a need to regulate them. The only actual issue right now is if the regulation is state or federal. The problem is some states are crazy and have almost no regulations.
There is no one even trying to disarm the public, but that is all the ring wing nut jobs pretend is the issue. They also pretend they could do something to stop tyranny, while they support everything that pushes a nation to fascism.
I love how the pro-gun people blindly parrot lies.

Places strong gun laws have higher gun deaths. LIE

Most murders aren't with guns. LIE

Want to tell some more lies???
Nino did you notice I posted a link from. GOVERNMENT web site. Not a blatantly liberal site.

Lol post sats from a conservative?

Can you say BIAS?
+stacey fredd so going by your logic we should ban cars because someone died in a car accident. The car didn't cause the death nor did the gun. It's the shooter. If guns kill people, pencils misspell words
You gun people are borderline nuts!!

Who has said anything about banning guns???

Can you read!??

Maybe you've gone over the edge?
Paranoia is a mental illness. If we follow Wayne's ideas you loose your guns.
Still like Wayne's ideas? 
Can't remember which post I read, but someone talked the right to bare arms to protect them-self from the government. Who here has what it takes to confront, take on, or slow the kind of firepower or military has? That's the funniest thing I've seen in my life.

I'm not a republican, or a democrat. They are both worthless thieves if you ask me. I vote for the person that will ruin the country a little less than the other person will.

There are no hidden messages in my prior post. I, intentionally dumbed it down so everyone cold understand it. I guess a metaphor was never taught at the gun shows they go to. Must have been too complicated for people to understand.

Maybe next time.
+Jasper Janssen Guns or gun parts? The image didn't mention anything about him holding or using a gun, only him refraining from using a gun. I guess it assumed that you know that he held guns on other occasions? 
The backwards taliban seem to be capable of doing it with weapons from WW1.
Almost as funny as you using the wrong form of the word "bear'. The way you wrote it means that they have the right to wear tank tops.

I also find it incredibly ironic that you say you "dumbed down" your previous post. People in glass houses and all that you know...
Jay A
Oh my word!
I support gun rights, but I really don't like this guy, he bugs me for some reason.
It would be nice if we lived in a utopia.  Then gun laws would be sensible and there would be no need for weapons of any kind. The harsh reality is we do not live in a damn Utopian society.  Every year regimes democratic, autocratic, theocratic of all nature are toppled and built up by violence.  Europe as many of you would like to look at as a model is a cesspool of hypocrites who will drop a bomb on an orphanage if there is enough gold under it.  We live in a violent world full of disease, war, and death.  Our politicians will not secure our borders, and will not respect our sovereignty and will not enforce their own legislation unless it is profitable to their wallet.  Our tax codes are a prime example of how elected officials are just pawns of interest groups both for profit and non-profit.  The fact that we Americans still own guns along with a few other constitutional amendments keeps our politicians from openly coming out and saying we are slaves to them and their puppet masters. If I wake up tomorrow and every last person, corporate entity, militia, and nation in the world decides to melt down their guns and blast all their missiles and other weapons of war towards the sun then I will join in. Until then good luck stopping your overzealous, and greedy slave drivers from cracking the whip harder each day.  With their mouth they give you praise. With their mind they laugh at you and pity your ignorance.  With their pens they insult your human dignity and life.  We are not waiting for a military invasion.  The invasion has already happened and it perverted our educational system and worked its way up to the top.  
Mental health is varied and diverse. Not everything deemed a mental illness should exclude someone from owning a firearm. That is painting everyone with the same brush and is very wrong.
I $aw a video of Wayne la Pierre $upporting univer$al background check$ made in 1999, he wa$ testifying in from of a committee. Why did he change hi$ po$ition $$$ ? 
Mike C.
... Not irony. 
He's still not the NRA president.
Please forgive my grammar. Sometimes I trust my phone too much when it tries to finish my words.

With that said, looking for bad grammar, or spelling in order to ridicule someone just proves a point. You don't understand the true issue at hand.

Beside, lets face it. Nothing is going to happen with gun control laws.
Why? The guns industry is a profitable business, the government won't do anything that will hinder a profitable business.
I'm a second amendment supporter and a CCW holder, I support background checks and mental health screenings because some people should have some type of deterrent preventing them from casually buying guns. If it was left up to the NRA we would have guns being sold out of vending machines. Whenever I start to read a post and someone States that the government wants to take all of our guns I just stop reading because that's ridiculous.
+James Fields That is exactly the point.  The government will NOT be able to take away the guns no matter how much some people dream about it.

There's too many times and places where people NEED guns.

However, with great power comes great responsibilities, and gun owners should make sure only responsible people can get guns.  There has to be some give and take.  Mentally unstable people should not get guns.  Felons should not get guns.  Ex-felons should or should not get guns - that should be open to discussion.

Everything should be open to discussion.
So having a "nervous disorder" over 40 years ago warrant a lifetime ban on firearm ownership? Sounds like the anti-gun movement is getting really desperate
Finally. Someone that makes sense. Thanks James. There are few of us in here. But sometimes you should read a bit more. It can become quite comical to read some of the responses.

I thought it was ignorance at one time. I am starting to believe it is arrogance of those believing they at entitled to have all these rights with no form of accountability, or responsibility.
+fan tai I submitted paperwork for every firearm I own and that process did not violate my second Amendment in any shape form or fashion.
That is a really not a solution anthony, police and military personnel are human also and have the same probability of harming innocent people.
+Anthony Angeles I don't believe you would have to take some kind of psychological exam, its more like if you've ever been found to be mentally unstable that information is entered into a database and shared through the same system that checks your criminal background history. The supporters of this type of legislation are fully aware it will not stop every situation, but also realize doing nothing at all it's not answer.
Bout right too. *facepalm *
I don't think Anthony is from this planet.

But he mentioned something that has been on my mind for many years now.

Warning! This is just an idea.

When people want to get married through they need to go through some session with the pastor, father, minister, or whatever for several months to see if they are ready to married to one another.

So add that to the process for people who want t get guns. Multiple screening to clarify their intentions.

Next example/idea

When we own cars we need to get emissions testing on them to make sure they are ok for the road. Some states need to pass an additional safety inspection.

So maybe people should be reevaluated every so many years.

Possibly even bring in your firearm to be checked out to confirm you are still in possession the firearm.

Bryan. If someone shows the slightest hint of mental instability, they can no longer be eligible to join the military. In addition, it can prevent you from joining the police force.

So even after someone has gotten proper therapy, and has improved their psychological thinking, they may never be able to own, a gun, nor will they be able to join the force or military.

These conclusion come after much research, and debate. I know a lot of people are skeptical, but the research is there for a reason.
+Andres Santiago I have to re apply for my CCW every 5 years, so if at any point within that time frame my status has exchanged I will be denied a renewal license. That's an interesting idea, but people woukd start to jump out of windows because the process would be too long.
That's the idea. Make it difficult. People with bad intentions will give up sooner than people who actually care about "not just the second amendment" the constitution in its entirety. I love when people argue for or against something that only benefits them.

Should also make it more expensive. Gun manufactures should produce using just-in-time thinking. Not mass production. Only produce what is needed, when, and for who, exactly. No more, no less.

I don't want to sound crazy, but I do like laPierres idea of arms guards at the schools. Not some average civilian that is trained. Real police, and only police. That is how
Most colleges are trying to keep their campuses safe. It's not the best idea, nor is it the worst. Believe it would be a good deterrent. 
+Bryan Conway , it's really just pointing out how much of a nonstarter the NRA's focus on mental health is. If implemented, it would be kinda like the TSA No Fly List. Easy to get on, impossible to get off.

Either the NRA didn't think about it for very long (it took me about three minutes to see the flaw), or they know it's a bad idea for citizens, but not a problem for gun makers. Either way, they clearly cannot be trusted to protect the rights of citizens.
Oh wow. A nervous disorder. He must be bloody insane.

Ok so when u have someone break in your house run at them with a knife as they shoot u fucking idiot 
You are right,nobody should own a gun.
Ya that's not what I ment maybe in a communist country in USA we have
Kyl N
Oh ok.
Kyl N
#1 Study history
#2 Study the word "Tyranny"

Just waiting how to see how legislation on mental illness plays out when 30-40% of our soldiers come back with PTSD to a bad economy. They are trained to kill on top of that.
Kyl N
Feels nice to read the comments here. Seems it is good guns cannot be owned by everybody in India. The chances of surviving a gun shot seems so less.
Kyl N
Is That why some women in India are signing a petition to own guns due the
latest rape with an iron rod on a woman that lives there? What next? Ban
iron rods?
What genius, take his guns :)
+Kyl Newberg Knew that coming :-) The thing is if the rapists were sons of politicians or gangsters you would never have had a chance to hear the news. 
Kyl N
But the fact is Solomon, it did happen and they did try to petition for personal protection. Study history and the word "Tyranny" 
Kyl N
And Solomon, you said "you knew that coming" but can give no facts on how to defend yourself? You are obviously controlled or in a controlled environment of some sort....
Kyl N
And one more thing Solomon, Shame on you for disregarding the incident and what happened to that poor lady
+Kyl Newberg I did not disregard the incident. What I meant to say is that if they had been politicians or gangsters or people with connections (who own guns legally) as is normally the case guns/swords are never going to help. I feel it better to leave guns with only the police and nobody else. Otherwise everyone would want to be a don. And unlike your country we've a shortage of police over here. So in many places the Village Head is the judge, jury and executioner. Probably guns can result into this also
hey they banned all guns in Illinois.... How has that been going for you liberals?   
He was also for background checks before he was against them. The only short term measure that will help to address the issue is to get background checks in place - close loopholes and give the ATF the authority to do their jobs and no gun would be taken away from law abiding citizens.
AR bans and other things are knee jerk measurements that sound good but won't really help.
Pls don't make the clown feel important, there is power in voice, its America against a few
Fan tai for politics! He can spout sh#t all day long and ignore the Constitution. 
Some of you guys talk about the second amendment or any amendment for that matter as if it was written by god! It was written by men and perhaps suitable for the time it was written. 
Im calling bullshit. All things considered he's not trying to force anything on anyone or take anything from you... as a matter of fact he IS defending your rights... so you may call him crazy or not but who is taking what from who?
Lastly IF this was true, has he been treated & now cured of this "disorder"?
Again... this thread was irrelevant.
+Douglas Jenkins so two Republican Hawaiian governors are 100% honest? ROFL, so do you trust all politicians or just those two? Yeah. Politicians never lie or cheat for an agenda, power or influence... 
NRA = top notch of hypocrites. "Shoot everybody as long it is NOT MY KID" is their device.
+stacey fredd. You have not been honest on here. FACT: locations with "gun control" have higher gun related death than locations without. Gun Control - DOESN'T.
Pro-gun laws however do not protect you from yourself, so you can be a victim as long as you like but when you need it or want it, I will defend your 2nd Amendment rights so you & everyone can choose to own a firearm when that time comes.
+Eraj Rostaqi to be honest I among many others hold the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights in the highest regard, second only to the Bible & 10 Commandments.
None of which have an expiration date. Some parts of each may have fallen into disuse but no parts have become out of date nor will that time ever come...
I thought his lack of mental stability was obvious as soon as he opened his arse. Sorry I meant mouth.
+Diego CDeBaca Most maybe timeless but there is room for legitimate discussion on some parts of it, the second amendment being one, without certain people finding it blasphemous. What I find most annoying is people using the amendments to push their own self-interest, NRA being the prime example of that.
There's lots of room for discussion of the second amendment. There's no room for discussion of laws which make an end run around it. My message to gun control advocates is amend or STFU.
Maybe he just didnt want to die and managed to get that diagsnosis so he doesn´t have to go. It is btw a very low niveau using personal information for campaigning. Use propper arguments, if you find any. 
Allowing the public to obtain firearms is simply to allow people with mental disorders, some of them undiagnosed, to obtain firearms. In some people, mental disorders may only appear later on, possibly under stress or other circumstances. It could also be a genetic problem that becomes apparent later in life. Some might be trying to hide their problems.
You can't allow firearms and expect madmen not to try anything funny with them. That's a simple fact. I'm not saying it's easy to make things safer at this point, but I'm saying that the current situation has practically the opposite of safe.
Not allowing people with mental disorders to have a gun would be a great start at least, though. It's the minimum that one might expect. It's already batshit insane that no one introduced this before.
+Martin Espinoza I think all circumstances should be concerned. Even if, and it is the most logical explanation, he was diagnosed with a nervous disorder doesn´t make his statement less legit. Mentally dissordered people shouldnt be allowed to buy firearms.
I agree, but with the caveat that I don't trust this government to determine who is mentally capable. It does, after all, support genocide, terrorism, etc etc
What the US needs now is proper mental health checks. I know enough people that think this would make half the US lose their firearms. Americans do NOT have a good reputation when it comes to their mental health.
In my country we have the following policy: Categorized weapons in classes A,B and C. A class weapons include fully automatic rifles, Pump Action shotguns, granedes etc. "War material".
Class B weapons are semi automatic carabines, shotguns including a magazin and all kinds of handguns.
Class C Weapons are Bolt Action Rifles and Shotguns with drop barrel.) 

Class C Weapons are available for purchase for everyone who is 18 or older without a criminal past.
Class B requires a document. To get that document you need to go through a lot of paperwork AND need a psychological certificate that you are mentally able to handle a gun. Also you must name a reason why you want to buy a handgun or a SAR.

Class A is generally forbidden and can only be purchased by collectors who face very strict restrictions.

If you have a Category B permission the police can and will come to your house any time and check if your weapons are stored safely (Weapns and Ammunition must be stored in seperate safes, children or ppl without permission must not have accsess and so on) 
Also, when you are permitted to buy Class B stuff you can only buy two guns (it is a slot system). After a certain period of time you can ask for another slot. 

It´s pretty hard and there are some things that need to be improved and deregulated, but it makes sense more or less. 
+Ivan Hennessy the focus on criminal gun violence needs to be on the shooter, not the inanimate piece of metal in his hand. The NRA is trying to make mental health the focus of the debate, since the left seems to think that restricting gun rights for the 80 million + gun owners that play by the rules will alter the behavior of the mentally ill and criminal elements that will certainly be unaffected by additional restrictions
+Bryan Conway I utterly disagree. That is a very responsive and passive attitude that will only cause more harm. Passive attitudes will only cause victims. Be it guns, computer security or something else, what is currently needed are preventive measures. Less harm, death, frauds, etc. Just responding to a problem means doing something only when it is much too late and will not avoid the damage. It needs to be more difficult to do damage to begin with. If guns aren't banned directly, then at least make it harder for mentally ill to get bullets, weapons, etc. It is not enough, but it is at least better than no preventive measures at all. Being passive will only cause deaths, frauds and will be all that's needed to give the dollar the final push over the edge and make the financial crisis even worse. It's not just gun control, the whole attitude of the US (and many other western countries) is only one that will destroy this world in the long run. Take computer security for example. Are hackers the problem? They are definitely a problem, but the problem is that no one gives a shit if anyone can retrieve data they should never have access to. In the current economy, you see many similar behaviors. It's prevention, or total destruction of your country. And a lot of people seem to prefer total destruction.
So, let me get this straight. It's only criminals and the mentally ill that shoot people in America?
+Kris Brady I wouldn't be surprised if it is mostly them. I have my doubts about the only part. But too many Americans don't mind these shootings happening as long as it means keeping their own gun.
So if someone shoots someone in self-defense, are they a criminal or mentally ill?
The whole problem with your debate is that anti gun ownership activists don´t think of illegal weapons. The problem with killings by gun doesnt come from the people who legally buy their firearms, but from people who don´t.
If he allowed that mental instability to keep him from going to the war he should wear that diagnosis as a badge of honor because he's a coward unwilling to fire shots and our enemies, but support shots being fired at fellow Americans because it turns his ass a profit.
+Michael Vanaric I'm sure some of those killed were shot from guns bought legally. Regardless, isn't the problem of illegal firearms related to the quantity of guns in circulation in the US? Aren't the volumes so high because it's everyone's right to own a gun, legally purchased or not? Aren't there so many guns because of lax regulation?
+Marco Meijer  +Kris Brady Of course you need regulations when it comes to gun laws.  I have to say that I dont perfectly know about every gun Law in every state in the U.S. for I come from Austria, but I often heard people demanding a "complete ban on guns" which is absolutely irresponsible and will worsen the problem.
All I want to say is that guns are not automatically a bad thing. It´s a good, if not even the best way to defend yourself. And every sane human being should have the right to defend his oer her family, freedom and property.
It needs regulations, definitely (a fully automatic rifle for example isn´t really necessary to defend yourself) but the problem with illegal weapons (wherever they may come from, stolen "legal" guns, smuggled guns) is the bigger deal I think.     
+Michael Vanaric I do not believe in firearms being any proper way to defend yourself. You're not likely to pick up your gun before the one you need to protect yourself from is already aiming his at your head. Trying to gun down a threat is more likely to get yourself killed that end successfully. The offender will already have a tactical advantage where he will already have his gun drawn. Any suspicious movement from the victim, and he's dead.
+Kris Brady there are so many guns because we have a constitutional right to keep and bear them, and because people choose to exercise that right. given that we have that right, a regulation is required to support it or to not exist, as the constitution is the highest law of the land.
+Marco Meijer  this is where we get into U.S. constitutional history. The reason we have the second amendment is as a defense against tyranny. No one imagined that it would be perfect, only a part of a complete defense. People who have been involved in resistance and people who have had their guns made illegal or literally taken away as a prelude to denial of still more rights understand that they have value. The issue is bigger than one person's life.
+Marco Meijer That strongly depends upon the Situation and the experiance level of the victim. Just buying a gun wont help you alot, I agrre with you, but for me, buying a gun goes hand to hand with exercising with it. If you are propperly trained you can very well turn a life threating situation into a safe one.
+Marco meijer passive / reactive is focusing on a piece of metal and not the person who misuses the said piece of metal. People kill, not guns. Maturity and common sense dictate a focused response to the root cause of the problem, rather than a knee-jerk, reactive, emotional response that punishes those that are hurting no one.
+Bryan Conway Guns just so happen to make the killing remarkable easy. Of course we must not forget to punish the people who pull the trigger, but if that was all that's needed to make the streets safer, then why have there been so ridiculously many massacres in so little time? The current attitude is hurting people (assuming massacres are hurtful), and if anything is an emotional response it's locking people up after harm has already been done. Things need to be done BEFORE it is done, not after. And this neglect of active and preventive measures will, if it is continued, eventually be the end of the entire US. Not just because of massacres, but because of every other area where it present as well. You can see it everywhere, IT, economy, and it is destructing the whole country. It will eventually destruct ANY country that fails to provide proper measures. I want to vouch for a logical preventive response, and not doing anything about the current situation is definitely not preventive.
+Marco meijer. Without trying to sound insensitive, these gun massacres are shark attacks. Highly visible, disturbing, shocking, but statistically not indicative of anything resembling normal behavior. Legislating to the exception is illogical and destructive to society. The fact that a very small minority of idiots lash out and kill in schools and movie theaters should not negate the rights of the 80+ million gun owners who harm absolutely no one and possess their firearms in a responsible manner
+Marco Meijer We have the laws on the books.  If you want to follow the Liberal mindset of more preventive measures look at Chicago and Washington D.C.  I don't want to here the bs that they can go to another state or outside the city. If that is the case then we will simply get guns from Mexico or Canada.  Military personnel will create a black market.   The fed needs to adjust the Brady act to insure that background checks are done wherever a gun can be purchased, sold, bought, traded, bartered, or swapped.
Kyl N
Solmon, I do not think you at all understand American History, Our Second Amendment, and the word Tyranny. I have mentioned these topics directly and you start off on another topic. World History has proven gun confiscastion leads to Tyrannical Dictators
Kyl N
HEY MARCO! According to the FBI’s annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outpaces the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Awr Hawkins, writing for Breitbart, cites the government figures: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618, Hawkins writes.
Moreover, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by rifles. CONFISCATE HAMMERS!
Hammers are trickier, since killing is not their sole purpose. I think I can safely assume you don't use your gun to eat your dinner or fix your roof. If you do, you really need to have your gun taken away.

And gun confiscation leading to tyrannical dictators? Yes, that must be why the Netherlands has a queen who has barely any actual power at all and a government composed of parties that were chosen by the people, and a police force that only harasses you if you have something to answer for, and why you don't get arrested when you say something bad about the government... Actually, that's not tyranny at all. If anything, many people there consider themselves much, MUCH, better off than they would be in the US. I'm afraid history has even more countries where it did NOT lead to tyranny. If there is one government agency I would like to call tyrannic, it's the FBI. They ocassionally get people from other countries exported to the US for doing something in their own country that might be considered illegal in the US. They tried to do that to Kim Dotcom, who probably never even set foot in the US, and they've done it to many others. It was New Zeeland's job to judge him, the US had nothing to do with it. Enforcing your own laws on other countries, that's what I call tyranny. Or how about people in the US who were innocent but got sued. They're practically considered guilty until proven otherwise. Probably under the assumption that the US law system is perfect, so people who get sued must be guilty. Of course reality doesn't work like that. Or people who share 24 MP3-files on the internet and get a fine of over a million US dollars. They'll be paying that off for the rest of their lives. I'd rather be in prison for 10 or 20 years, at least then I'd be done with it before I die. The punishment for sharing a few files on the internet is almost worse than the punishment for murder. That is something I would call tyranny. It's a thing the US does a lot. If you can't see that, you're either only using biased propaganda news papers/videos, or simply utterly retarded.

And then there are countries like Columbia, a country that makes the rant from before look like flowers and sunshine, where half the populace has weaponry, and there is definitely a lot of tyranny, not from the government, but from armed militia. People get killed with guns on a daily basis. The government is nearly powerless thanks to these militia. It's a dangerous place to live, but at least they have firearms (which make it only much more dangerous).
I daresay this is what the future of the US will eventually be, if not more control is passed. If you prefer living in a warzone over not having a gun, fine by me. I'll make sure to stay far away.
So what's that about weaponless states being free from tyranny?
Is it really worth all of this hammer induced death and destruction just to drive a nail? Are we that obsessed with carpentry? Why cant we use screws instead? Not the dangerous Philips head variety, but the cuddly flathead ones. Once we eliminate hammers, baseball bats will be targeted, then we'll work our way down to nail clippers, maybe even paper because of the risk of vicious paper cuts. We cannot rest until the most dangerous risk in society is the possibility of getting hugged too tightly
Kyl N
Marco, You clearly don't understand the History of the Second Amendment. No one here that is opposed to one arming his or herself has been able to define how the Second Amendment came about. "Live Free or Die" Where did that derive from Marco?
Kyl N
Proven fact, Criminalizing guns has only increased gun crimes there is No Spinning that.
Add a comment...