yep

dr who does not report mental illness should be held accountable

and perhaps there should be a mental check before issuing guns

as obviously, seeking medical assistance is not MANDATORY in this country

those who sought help should be in the books as potential danger
and those who may not have sought help should be checked that they arent a potential danger,,,

no because that opens the door to corruption and blocking lawful
possession

just like when they had tests in the south to see if you could vote

any on can be a potential danger but you cant show prejudice on a
maybe

but an already proven danger is different

you could say the same thing about motor vehicles after all more
die from motor vehicles than anything else in history

the tests were biased because of educational differences built into the segregated culture, noones actual physical life and death depended upon voting however, the way they do with guns in the hands of mentally ill

if it is applied to all applicants, and the mental evaluation is professional,, I think its prudent to do so, as I truly believe most of the assailants have mental and emotional issues that could have been detected professionally to keep them from so easily obtaining guns



our culture is too violent in america, for whatever reason, to make it so easy for people to get their hands on these things,,,,

the best way to deter crime is make the punishment hurt

make them earn there keep

get rid of the air conditioning and workout rooms and tv

make them work together to survive if put shock collars on them
so if they are out of line or try to be violent they hit the ground
from the shock

convicted of 3 violent crimes you are done forever

make the first sentence hard and fast

if another crime committed mark it harder and slower

and like i said another one and you are done public televised execution

punish criminals and quit showing their evil acts on tv and never
speak their name in a public forum they are city name and number

example chicago criminal 132 did such and such not the city they are
born in but city or town crime is committed

thus no fame for being evil and no discrimination to innocent family
members

the only things I can agree with are not making them infamous,, and creating environments where they have to depend upon and work with each other instead of attack and harm each other,

the rest , to me, is inhumane and unreasonable,, especially considering how broad 'violent crime' is and how subjectively those laws are enforced,,,

Our criminal justice system is a joke. Historically, perpetrators of violent crime were hung... bank robbers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, etc. Once they are hung, they usually aren't much trouble.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

A natural right is a right that is not granted by society but is an inherent human right.

The text of the 2nd amendment actually says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "abridged".

"Abridged" means "changed", "altered", "limited", or "controlled".

Any measure that limits or controls the right to keep arms is therefore a violation of the second amendment. And more importantly it is a violation of the natural law that predates civilization, the right to defend oneself against oppression.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence".

In other words the right to bear arms for the purpose of resisting oppression existed as a human right before the constitution was written and even the constitution has no authority to limit it.
---------
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of
the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to
infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and
independent of the lawmaking power.

Texas Court Decision
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Joe Biden said "We don't have time to enforce existing gun laws,let's add new ones".

the second amendment says, (with terrible sentence structure,,lol)


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



so


a well REGULATED Militia is necessary to the security of a free state

a well REGULATED Militia shall not be infringed


a well REGULATED Militia would require people (of the militia) having a right to bear arms to secure a free state



this being written when we had no STANDING ARMIES , and the population itself had to be its own STATE protection,,,


abridged is actually not in the second amenmdment