Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?

I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.

Except that when they say "crazies" and are pushing for mental health reform instead of gun reform they mean something different from what your saying here. Yes everyone is talking about spree killings, that's media gold. But the "crazies" are a slipperier slope than gun laws IMO. I'd gladly trade the freedom to buy a certain rifle to ensure I wont be locked up in a psych ward for having "crazy" thoughts anyday.

OK you do that. I'm sane and your tradeoff won't keep the crazies from killing people.

Further I'm not saying all the crazies have to be locked up. I'm saying:
1. People who are taking psychotropic drugs and are potentially dangerous should have firearms removed.
2. People who are dangerous to themselves, and others, and after extensive reivwe includingmultiple doc signoff, can be temporarily constrained. Lets get real we can put safeguards in for the truly crazy.
3. Access to medical care for mental health needs to be greatly expanded: PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE HELP THEY NEED.
mental illness is a disease. treat it like that.

So anyone that's ever taken Zoloft should be barred a gun? Who decides who is a danger? The doctors? Lawyers making statutes on what defines a danger? The government? Oh wait you don't trust them with your Constitutional right to own a gun, but are willing to hand them the keys to decide your mental health?

Until liability laws change I won't support these vague "mental health reforms". Too many doctors are going to just sign people off because nobody wants to take the liability if the person turns out to be a danger at a later point.

Guess I should note that I have a very low opinion of mental health providers in the US strictly from my own personal experience, so that does cloud my judgment.

In Canada at least if you've suffered from mental health issues in the last 4 years or are taking prescription drugs for them I beleive you aren't allowed to be given a gun license. That said there are ways to get around that, if you had a gun license and then lose it I don't believe you have to give up your firearms. Also, if you live on a farm you are allowed to own guns for the protection of livestock or for the killing of pests. However, you still need an ammunition license for purchasing amuunition, but you can legally purchase all of the requisites to load your own without an ammo requisition license.

That said, if you go around buying quantities of explosive powder for your casings you can expect a call from CSIS in the near future.

So intestead of saying someone who is taking Zoloft shouldn't have a gun while they are taking Zoloft you're just going to ban all the guns (so again the person taking Zoloft wouldn't have a gun).

Note: Frazzled doesn't know what Zoloft is. Frazzled does know know that TBone takes Class 3 Narcotics or some such because I have to give 27 forms of ID and take a freaking lie detector test to get the prescription for him.
"Are you TBone Frazzled?"
"No."
"Well he'll have to sign for it."
"he can't write."
"Sure he can."
"well if you'd like I'll come back and he'll leave his mark. Better have a bucket handy though because he pees like a racehorse."
"?"
"He's a wiener dog."
"Ooooooooh"

As to that law proposed in Missouri, the school notification thing is dumb, but the ability to be charged with negligent storage of a firearm is actually a decent idea as long as the execution is done correctly. ie, they don't nail you if someone broke into your safe and took it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zoloft is an anti depressant/anti psychotic prescription drug if memory serves.

 Frazzled wrote:
So intestead of saying someone who is taking Zoloft shouldn't have a gun while they are taking Zoloft you're just going to ban all the guns (so again the person taking Zoloft wouldn't have a gun).

Note: Frazzled doesn't know what Zoloft is. Frazzled does know know that TBone takes Class 3 Narcotics or some such because I have to give 27 forms of ID and take a freaking lie detector test to get the prescription for him.
"Are you TBone Frazzled?"
"No."
"Well he'll have to sign for it."
"he can't write."
"Sure he can."
"well if you'd like I'll come back and he'll leave his mark. Better have a bucket handy though because he pees like a racehorse."
"?"
"He's a wiener dog."
"Ooooooooh"

Wait... what meds are you giving that dog? o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
As to that law proposed in Missouri, the school notification thing is dumb, but the ability to be charged with negligent storage of a firearm is actually a decent idea as long as the execution is done correctly. ie, they don't nail you if someone broke into your safe and took it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zoloft is an anti depressant/anti psychotic prescription drug if memory serves.

Yup:

Zoloft (sertraline) is an antidepressant in a group of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Zoloft affects chemicals in the brain that may become unbalanced and cause depression, panic, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

Zoloft is used to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

Wait... what meds are you giving that dog? o.O

Oh wow ok. A bunch. Some of these are several a day.
*med for seizures (thats the weird one)
*laisec (sp) for heart
*another heart medicine thats expensive
*pregnazone (sp) to help stabilize his blood sugar because of the tumor.

Zoloft is one the most commonly prescribed anti-depressants in the US, similar to Prozac its an SSRI. If I recall exactly its around 30 million or more Americans currently on anti-depressants. This is because its the first line of offense used by mental health professionals, most often along with therapy.

So Frazz again, should anyone who's had mental health issues be banned from owning firearms? Only certain firearms? No firearms? Depends on the drugs? See its tricky. I understand why people want to blame all these shootings on "crazies" because its just more shifting the blame.

The truth is its normal, everyday people committing these murders, and that scares people. So we blame guns. We blame video games. We blame mental health. Instead of blaming ourselves. And then we go ahead and pass a bunch of gakky laws that don't help anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:

Wait... what meds are you giving that dog? o.O

Oh wow ok. A bunch. Some of these are several a day.

*med for seizures (thats the weird one)

-Phenobarbital and/or bromide... possibly the class 3 narc you're referencing... 'umies can take those too.

*laisec (sp) for heart

Lasix (furosemide)(Salix)... we 'umies take that too

*another heart medicine thats expensive

Might be Enalapril? There's a bunch...

*pregnazone (sp) to help stabilize his blood sugar because of the tumor.

Not sure what that is... Prednisone? It's a steroid...

Any hoo... I'll send some extra prayers for those mighty-mites


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Zoloft is one the most commonly prescribed anti-depressants in the US, similar to Prozac its an SSRI. If I recall exactly its around 30 million or more Americans currently on anti-depressants. This is because its the first line of offense used by mental health professionals, most often along with therapy.

So Frazz again, should anyone who's had mental health issues be banned from owning firearms? Only certain firearms? No firearms? Depends on the drugs? See its tricky. I understand why people want to blame all these shootings on "crazies" because its just more shifting the blame.

The truth is its normal, everyday people committing these murders, and that scares people. So we blame guns. We blame video games. We blame mental health. Instead of blaming ourselves. And then we go ahead and pass a bunch of gakky laws that don't help anyone.

.
Truth be told... you can't ban the crazies... there's too many guns.

Please, do explain how we "ban the crazies"

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Please, do explain how we "ban the crazies"

LOL... I meant I don't think it's practical to ban gunz from "the crazies" (however we categorize them).

It's really no diffferent than Felons being prohibited from owning guns... but, they do (at least the ones caught).

See what I mean?

Wait... what meds are you giving that dog? o.O

We once had to give out cat Opium because he had a pulled tendon.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Wait... what meds are you giving that dog? o.O

Oh wow ok. A bunch. Some of these are several a day.

*med for seizures (thats the weird one)

-Phenobarbital and/or bromide... possibly the class 3 narc you're referencing... 'umies can take those too.

*laisec (sp) for heart

Lasix (furosemide)(Salix)... we 'umies take that too

*another heart medicine thats expensive

Might be Enalapril? There's a bunch...

*pregnazone (sp) to help stabilize his blood sugar because of the tumor.

Not sure what that is... Prednisone? It's a steroid...

Any hoo... I'll send some extra prayers for those mighty-mites


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Zoloft is one the most commonly prescribed anti-depressants in the US, similar to Prozac its an SSRI. If I recall exactly its around 30 million or more Americans currently on anti-depressants. This is because its the first line of offense used by mental health professionals, most often along with therapy.

So Frazz again, should anyone who's had mental health issues be banned from owning firearms? Only certain firearms? No firearms? Depends on the drugs? See its tricky. I understand why people want to blame all these shootings on "crazies" because its just more shifting the blame.

The truth is its normal, everyday people committing these murders, and that scares people. So we blame guns. We blame video games. We blame mental health. Instead of blaming ourselves. And then we go ahead and pass a bunch of gakky laws that don't help anyone.

.
Truth be told... you can't ban the crazies... there's too many guns.

yep those are the meds. Fortunately TBone has no problem with meds.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think Fraz got grandfathered in. I hear he has an old dusty high capacity wiener from way back when.

TBone is a Blackpowder wiener dog.

Where do you apply the match?...

Never mind don't answer that.

Andrew

 SOFDC wrote:
You might be surprised at how many of us support those "pinkos" on issues OTHER than gun control.

I wouldn't. I've seen the polling numbers. The cross over is incredibly small.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

We wrote:
Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.

But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end

This is a US issue to be decided by the people of USA.

But information is information no matter the geography of the person who holds it. Knowledge it knowledge no matter the geography of the person who holds it. And the lack of knowledge on both sides of the gun debate in the US is so glaring, I think you guys really ought to welcome anyone who comes bringing information of some kind of substance to the debate.

So maybe instead of just looking at the little flag icon, read the post. Think about the information given. Accept or dismiss based on the quality of the argument, no the geography of the poster.

(edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).

The dakka flags have a keen sense of irony

At the risk of getting shot down for ignorance, do you require any form of insurance for owning a firearm?

Could that be one way of the government to sidestep the issue? Make it a requirement to have insurance and let the insurance companies regulate it?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
At the risk of getting shot down for ignorance, do you require any form of insurance for owning a firearm?

Could that be one way of the government to sidestep the issue? Make it a requirement to have insurance and let the insurance companies regulate it?

Cheers

Andrew

Nope...no requirement.

It's being bandied about in various states though... but insurance companies would fight it.

Injuries from firearms may already be covered by your policy depending on the circumstances.

Another reason having gun insurance is a bad idea is because the Insurance Company could use you owning a Fire Arm as a reason to jack up your other insurance policies. Bad idea all around.

Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.

Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.

Cheers

Andrew

 whembly wrote:
Your honor.. I object to this line of reasoning! Various civil rights infractions doesn't equate to full-bore tyranny.

No, but the slide to tyranny is a slippery slope. It's why it is important to, for instance, ensure that even a serial rapist gets his day in court, because once he's denied the right it becomes a little easier for anyone else.

Still vocal here in the states... but, since Obama been president, the MEDIA is quiet on this front (and you still don't think there's bias? )

There isn't a media bias, at least not in the MSM are all lefties style you're implying.

Obama is getting away with that because lefties can do right wing stuff easily... but it is just as easy for righties to do left wing stuff. Consider the gak storm that was Obamacare - that was a leftie putting across a left wing bill. No consider Bush passing the pharmaceutical bill - that was a massive unfunded spending bill, and it scored moderate news interest for a few weeks.

It's just how the system works. Because when a leftie does something rightwing, who's going to complain about it? The Democrats aren't going to go on the news media and complain against their own guy, and the conservatives aren't going to complain about Obama doing something they want. Same thing when a right winger does something left wing.

Another example is immigration. Bush's policy was, if anything, more progressive than Obama's. But Bush's efforts flew entirely under the radar, while Obama copped an absolute gak storm over the issue.

We don't torture... (okay, we don't know about the black sites)

You did. Waterboarding is torture. And you also delivered captives to friendly blackhole countries for the express purpose of having them tortured.

This... I kinda do have a problem with in principle. To me, the current administration is treating these sorts of things as if they're "police actions"... which is a very bad precedent in my opinion. If we're going to use these sorts of weaponary, then we need to be in a "Declared War" state with the full backing of Congress. As to American citizens in the Warzone? Sorry, they're fairgame.... they should've been aware of the risks.

Either that, or each action needs full and proper judicial oversight before happening.

There's plenty of other groups very vocal about certain policies.

Groups like that exist, but are a scarce minority of the overall gun rights movement. On the whole concern over other elements of civil liberties, and concern over gun rights are strongly negatively correlated.

Which we have every right to do so!

You have the right to cover yourself in honey and jump into beehives. The question is whether or not it is sensible to do so.

And loading up on guns in case you one day have to overthrow your government... but doing nothing about protecting your rights today is, in my opinion, not sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
And now more interesting legislation from "fringe groups." Its like they woke up and wiped their ass with the Bill of Rights

http://fox2now.com/2013/01/22/gun-owners-must-contact-schools-in-proposed-legislation/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Sigh... something believed by one state senator is a fringe belief. How are you not getting this?

 AndrewC wrote:
Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.

Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.

Cheers

Andrew

So then only the rich get to enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd amendment? Only people who can afford the insurance get to have a weapon for self-defense? Yeah, everyone is going to love that idea.

 AndrewC wrote:
Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.

Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.

Cheers

Andrew

It's already not exactly an inexpensive pursuit, at least if you want to reliably hit what you aim at.

Tye_Informer wrote:
But they are trying to take their guns. People in California had to ship guns to another state because as of an arbitrary date, they were illegal and must be turned over for destruction. (without compensation, I might add.) Folks in New York will be forced to do the same thing before March 1st, or be breaking the law.

Read the thread. The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban. That is not happening.

People are declaring their opposition to a fantasy in their own heads.

 sebster wrote:
Read the thread. The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban. That is not happening.

People are declaring their opposition to a fantasy in their own heads.

Opposition to a fantasy in the heads of committed leftists in this country, actually.

 Hordini wrote:
So then only the rich get to enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd amendment? Only people who can afford the insurance get to have a weapon for self-defense? Yeah, everyone is going to love that idea.

Isn't that the norm these days? How many things are there that have now become the domain of the rich? Gas, up. Insurance, up. Property, up.

I have no say in what's happening to you all, just tabling an idea.

Cheers

Andrew

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So anyone that's ever taken Zoloft should be barred a gun? Who decides who is a danger? The doctors? Lawyers making statutes on what defines a danger? The government? Oh wait you don't trust them with your Constitutional right to own a gun, but are willing to hand them the keys to decide your mental health?

Reading about a lot of cases that ended in one or more deaths, I couldn't help but notice that none of them came out of the blue. There were always warning signs, always a trend of escalating behaviour.

Building better systems that pick up those trends and respond before disaster happens could prevent a lot of deaths.

I get what you're saying about the decision making of healthcare professionals now, and that's part of the above reforms shouldn't just be more systems of intervention, but better systems.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Your honor.. I object to this line of reasoning! Various civil rights infractions doesn't equate to full-bore tyranny.

No, but the slide to tyranny is a slippery slope. It's why it is important to, for instance, ensure that even a serial rapist gets his day in court, because once he's denied the right it becomes a little easier for anyone else.

Well sure... we may be paranoid as all get out. Be we only need to be wrong once.

Still vocal here in the states... but, since Obama been president, the MEDIA is quiet on this front (and you still don't think there's bias? )

There isn't a media bias, at least not in the MSM are all lefties style you're implying.

Obama is getting away with that because lefties can do right wing stuff easily... but it is just as easy for righties to do left wing stuff. Consider the gak storm that was Obamacare - that was a leftie putting across a left wing bill. No consider Bush passing the pharmaceutical bill - that was a massive unfunded spending bill, and it scored moderate news interest for a few weeks.

It's just how the system works. Because when a leftie does something rightwing, who's going to complain about it? The Democrats aren't going to go on the news media and complain against their own guy, and the conservatives aren't going to complain about Obama doing something they want. Same thing when a right winger does something left wing.

Another example is immigration. Bush's policy was, if anything, more progressive than Obama's. But Bush's efforts flew entirely under the radar, while Obama copped an absolute gak storm over the issue.

That's true... isn't that what the "bias" I'm talking about though? Maybe, "bias" is the wrong choice of words... maybe... um, the "narrative" is driven in large part of the Media in order to elicit response?

We don't torture... (okay, we don't know about the black sites)

You did. Waterboarding is torture. And you also delivered captives to friendly blackhole countries for the express purpose of having them tortured.

I ain't going to sugar coat it. If you claim that's "torture", fine... we waterboarded folks (tortured that is) in order to get information. Do I have a problem with it? Nope. And I'm not getting involved in any holier than thou discussion because of this... because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. (my idea of torture is much worst than waterboarding).

This... I kinda do have a problem with in principle. To me, the current administration is treating these sorts of things as if they're "police actions"... which is a very bad precedent in my opinion. If we're going to use these sorts of weaponary, then we need to be in a "Declared War" state with the full backing of Congress. As to American citizens in the Warzone? Sorry, they're fairgame.... they should've been aware of the risks.

Either that, or each action needs full and proper judicial oversight before happening.

Sure...

There's plenty of other groups very vocal about certain policies.

Groups like that exist, but are a scarce minority of the overall gun rights movement. On the whole concern over other elements of civil liberties, and concern over gun rights are strongly negatively correlated.

Really? How so? From my perspective in the "trenches" here in the states, the "gun rights movement" is quite large... albeit disorganized.

Which we have every right to do so!

You have the right to cover yourself in honey and jump into beehives. The question is whether or not it is sensible to do so.

And loading up on guns in case you one day have to overthrow your government... but doing nothing about protecting your rights today is, in my opinion, not sensible.

? how are we NOT protecting our rights?

The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban. That is not happening.

Oh, you mean like the one being proposed tomorrow? The one that was based on the one we actually had from 1994-2004? The same one that is already in place in a few states? The same kind of ban that has been proposed almost every year since 2004?

I truly wish I could agree with your statement, but if it DOESN'T happen, it will be precisely because people wish to continue keeping a federal AWB a fantasy or a memory of the bad ol times, not because our politicians just up and decided to have a change of heart on the matter.

Isn't that the norm these days? How many things are there that have now become the domain of the rich? Gas, up. Insurance, up. Property, up.

Well this WAS why the NFA tax was so ridiculously high. After all, them rich folk are the only ones who can be trusted.

 Seaward wrote:
Opposition to a fantasy in the heads of committed leftists in this country, actually.

Which is a bit like asking if you will oppose the seizure of the means of production by the state. I mean sure, that's something that is in the head of some small number of 'committed leftists'. But its relevance to politics on the whole is just non-existant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Well sure... we may be paranoid as all get out. Be we only need to be wrong once.

I'm not saying its wrong. I believe it's important to protect our rights and freedoms from the state, not only to oppose tyranny but to oppose the well meaning nanny state as well.

I just think that people who believe strongly in having guns so they are ready and capable of overthrowing their government, but who are indifferent to or even supportive of government encroachment on civil liberties are entirely in the wrong.

That's true... isn't that what the "bias" I'm talking about though? Maybe, "bias" is the wrong choice of words... maybe... um, the "narrative" is driven in large part of the Media in order to elicit response?

Oh there's all sorts of narratives in the media. They're just all over the shop, left wing here, right wing there, based on whatever the simple, explain in 30 seconds or less story ends up sounding like.

And no doubt there's a lot of stupidity in the media when it comes to guns. It's a different country, I know, but a guy on the news this morning mentioned the drive to ban military weapons like AK-15 used at Sandy Hook. I could even look past the AK part as a slip of the tongue, but it isn't a military weapon, it's the civilian version.

I ain't going to sugar coat it. If you claim that's "torture", fine... we waterboarded folks (tortured that is) in order to get information. Do I have a problem with it? Nope. And I'm not getting involved in any holier than thou discussion because of this... because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. (my idea of torture is much worst than waterboarding).

Which is fine, to some extent. When it comes to the security of the state I'm more and more inclined to think, well, gak has to be done. What matters is really strict processes and authorisations.

But it is torture. It is referred to as simulated drowning... but it is actual drowning. The whole point is to put water into the lungs of the victim. They put Navy Seals through it because experiencing that makes them much more likely to survive any other kind of torture. It was one of the three methods authorised for use by the Spanish Inquisition.

Really? How so? From my perspective in the "trenches" here in the states, the "gun rights movement" is quite large... albeit disorganized.

That's true. But groups that are active in both forwarding gun rights and advancing other civil rights are pretty scarce on the ground. And then when you read surveys asking people about all kinds of matters of policies, and start seeing that strong importance in gun rights negatively correlated with importance in other civil liberty issues like due process, and it becomes clear why those groups are rare.

? how are we NOT protecting our rights?

What I'm saying is that there are people who are full on for protecting their right to own a gun because they think they might one day need to overthrow the government... but who are otherwise indifferent to or even in support of government encroachment on other matters of civil liberty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SOFDC wrote:
Oh, you mean like the one being proposed tomorrow? The one that was based on the one we actually had from 1994-2004? The same one that is already in place in a few states? The same kind of ban that has been proposed almost every year since 2004?

You don't see the difference between a ban on guns, and a ban on a very specific type of gun?

Don't get me wrong, the AWB is a stupid, stupid piece of law, and if passed it will jerk around some lawful gun owners and achieve little else, but that really wasn't what that FOX piece in the OP was talking about.

 AndrewC wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
So then only the rich get to enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd amendment? Only people who can afford the insurance get to have a weapon for self-defense? Yeah, everyone is going to love that idea.

Isn't that the norm these days? How many things are there that have now become the domain of the rich? Gas, up. Insurance, up. Property, up.

I have no say in what's happening to you all, just tabling an idea.

Cheers

Andrew

Even if other things that should be accessible to everyone (gas, health insurance, etc.) have become more accessible to the rich and less accessible to the poor, that doesn't make adding one more thing to the list right.

Everyone has the right to bear arms, and guns and ammunition, and gasoline, and health insurance are expensive enough. We don't need to add more bs taxes to keep people in low income brackets from getting firearms. Better education and job opportunities would do a lot more good and be a much longer term solution.

You don't see the difference between a ban on guns, and a ban on a very specific type of gun?

A very specific type of gun....that encompasses half the guns currently on the market? I don't think you fully realize how far reaching the bans proposed are. This also assumes that the efforts to ban and control firearms and ammunition will STOP with an AWB...which...doesn't take much looking to prove wrong.

if passed it will jerk around some lawful gun owners and achieve little else

If by "Some" you mean "millions"...yes. "Some" of us will get jerked over.