• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Poll needs help!

vt357

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

"[font="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"][size="-1"]Should the General Assembly enact new laws to expand the required mental health information on gun buyers?"

The scary thing about expanding the mental health checks on gun purchases is the definition of a mental illness. Until as recently as the 1970s homosexuality was considered a mental illness. How long until normal people are arbitrarily declared mentally ill to keep guns out of the hands of the public?

Ex: You have an unhealthy fascination with guns so you might become violent or a "danger to the public" therefore you are mentally unstable and cannot purchase a firearm. Or you have a politically incorrect so you must be mentally ill to think that way and are unfit to own a firearm. Or you were treated for post tramatic stress disorder after you returned from Vietnam 40 years ago, now you cannot be allowed to own any more guns in case that disorder resurfaced in the future.

I think those scenarios are MUCH more likely than any door to door general confiscation. The public will support keeping guns out of crazy people's hands. Eventually anyone who wants to have a gun will be considered crazy.
[/size][/font]
 

roscoe13

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Catlett, Virginia, USA
imported post

vt357 wrote:
[font="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"][size="-1"]I think those scenarios are MUCH more likely than any door to door general confiscation. The public will support keeping guns out of crazy people's hands. Eventually anyone who wants to have a gun will be considered crazy.
[/size][/font]
Exactly...
 

ParaWarthog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
206
Location
, ,
imported post

Yes
class="verdanasmall"
1.gif
65.97%
No
class="verdanasmall"
1.gif
30.31%
Undecided
class="verdanasmall"
1.gif
3.73%
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

You have already voted, so your vote has not been counted. Here are the results as they stand now.

  • Yes
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    55.17%
    No
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    41.07%
    Undecided
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    3.76%
    Total: 2715 votes
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

I quote Michael Savage.

"Liberalism is a mental disorder..."

If we could be assured that this would be the defining criteria of mental illness, I suppose I might have a different view. However, we would be at the mercy of variables in a profession that does not agree on all the terms in their practice.

Imagine- youre diagnosed as mildly obsessive complusive, you go to buy a new gun and ammunition and you discovered your purchase was declined. Or how about being diagnosed as having ADHD as a child, and the record following you into adulthood.
 

67GT390FB

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
860
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
You have already voted, so your vote has not been counted. Here are the results as they stand now.

  • Yes
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    55.17%
    No
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    41.07%
    Undecided
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    3.76%
    Total: 2715 votes

cato,

delete your cookies and chicago vote, early and often.

joe
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
It seems that it is almost a split decision.

The problem is that the question is vague and open ended - of course certifieably craxzy people shold be committed, provided help, and temporarily banned from gun possession while they are a certifiable danger.

But the question speaks to larger use of mental health data - seeking help, seeking counseling, should this all be reporterd and used against everyone? No.
 

chefjustin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
34
Location
Vienna, Virginia, USA
imported post

class=arialbigShould the General Assembly enact new laws to expand the required mental health information on gun buyers?


  • Yes
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    53.86%
    No
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    42.41%
    Undecided
    class=verdanasmall
    1.gif
    3.73%
    Total: 2865 votes
  • it will only let you vote once. But you can vote on one of the others and then go back and vote again. We need some more votes to get it in favor for us.
  • come on vote
  • CHEF
 

kle

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
348
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://home.hamptonroads.com/pollNews/poll2.cfm?id=5532&vote=field2
(ID 5532 is the poll number, field2 == "no" (no, General Assembly should not enact new laws to expand the required mental health information on gun buyers))

I could do the script-kiddie thing and write a script to open a telnet session to port 80 on that server, do an HTTP get for that URL, wait for a response, close the connection, wait a second, and then do it all over again...

But I like Chicago-voting better =)
 
Top