The Second Amendment is past its Use-By date

[Nice Squirrel]

When did "gun-grabber" become a slur? I always though we wanted to grab our guns to protect the community from the Russians, Cubans, or the "Godless tornadoes".

I see what you did there, Les.

 

[SimpleDon]

Of course rights are up to popular vote.

That's how the 18th Amendment was repealed; how the 13th was adopted; and it's how any other part of the constitution can be amended.

If the right to bear arms was anything other than a consequence of the US Constitution - which can be amended - then the other 95% of the world population would be claiming that right. But they are not, because it isn't. There is no such thing as a natural right; just rights granted by law.

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states

If enough people want a change, things will change.

The US Constitution is a piece of paper. It has been changed before; It can be changed again. It was written by human beings, and has been and will be amended by (or perhaps one day scrapped and replaced entirely by) human beings.

Human laws are not laws of nature.

We don't really need to change the constitution to get some sanity back into this question. The Supreme Court in the Heller vs. Washington DC decision pointed the way to some rational containment of the problem. A belief review, the majority found that,

1. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right.
2. As a fundamental right the states and local governments can't interfere with it.
3. That there are weapons that are too dangerous for the public to own.
4. That the federal government has the final say in the question of its scope.
5. That is the federal government determines which weapons are too dangerous.
6. That licensing and registration requirements of guns would be constitutional.

These clarifications were needed because the Court ruled that the whole "well regulated militia" thing was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. That rhetoric had been the basis for deciding which weapons the public could own. They couldn't own crewed weapons for example, an individual militia member can't use a crewed weapon, e.g. an artillery piece. Or they couldn't own a sawed off shotgun because the rules of war also prohibited them. This is why it isn't technically illegal to own a fully automatic assault rifle or a machine pistol. You have to be licensed to get one and you have to pay a tax on each one you own.

This leaves us a lot of room to work in under the second amendment, if we can generate the required support to do it. As is always the case when we are restricting people's rights we should do the absolute minimum required that makes the situation tolerable as to the gun violence.

You could for example, decide that any handgun is too dangerous, that only long guns are permitted. You just need the political will to do it at the federal government level.

 

[SimpleDon]

Reading through this and Loren's gun control thread, there are certain problems that I need to point out.

The gun rights advocates accuse the gun control side of secretly wanting to slide down a path to gun confiscation. That if they give an inch that the day after the government will be after our guns. But these same people haven't been asked what is the limit to their slippery slope. This is important because we are demonstrably sliding down it. We now have concealed carry laws in many states. Where almost anyone who wants to can carry a concealed pistol almost anywhere that they want to. My legislature here in Georgia trips over themselves removing restrictions on where concealed carry license holders can carry their pistols. They can now take them into airports, churches, schools, bars and theaters, all places that they were previously barred from going.

Texas has an open carry law now. You don't have to conceal the pistol you can threaten people with it in the open. There is no reason to open carry a pistol for self-protection, it is in fact, counter-productive to open carry it instead of concealing the pistol. The only reason to open carry is to intimidate unarmed people with the pistol without having to draw it.

So how much further down these dangerous slopes are the gun's rights people willing to take us?

 

[maxparrish]

I doubt 95 percent of the world's people are capable of agreeing on what natural rights are, or are not - the North Korean communist, Yemeni Muslim, and stick-hut dweller of Niger could not agree on the functions of indoor plumbing fixtures, let alone on the scope and meaning of natural rights.

Yet it is true that human laws are not natural laws, nor are they laws of ethics, morality, or philosophy. What they are, and on what basis they are made, is made by choice - be it the choice of a Stalin or by the parliament of Australia. But then, are we to assume, given your tone, that all "piece of paper" are the same, justified only because they are the will of the strongest and most powerful?

If not, then laws should also be based on something more, namely; a philosophical/moral view of the nature of men and what is right and wrong. One such view is that of natural rights and liberty - that of the individual as sovereign and entitled to free choice. And whether or not you agree, it remains true that the natural right to possess and use arms was not invented 'de novo' upon the creation of the Constitution.

I won't go into the history (although I am more than happy to provide citations for your reading) but many legal scholars have traced the beginnings of these rights in both ancient Chinese and Western philosophy, as well as Judaic and Islamic law . Invariably they derive from several other views of 'rights' and/or moral imperatives. In sum:

- The right of self-defense, and the use of weapons to harm or kill others.
- The right of a class, group, or citizenry to defend their interests against tyrants or oppressive classes.
- The duty to defend one's community or sovereign.
- The right to hunt or kill game, predators, and vermin.

Weapons are far more "natural" to human experience that are weapon bans. From the paleolithic to our own era the possession of weapons by both males and females has been ubiquitous and highly valued. So much so, skill in the martial arts has been a measure of every man's worth since antiquity - at one time, every proper "gentlemen" was expected to learn the sword or the bow or various other weapons (and to carry them in daily life).

Of course, there were ancients who opposed such rights - anyone defending the absolutist divine right of Kings or the Emperors "Heavenly Mandate" looked askance at such rights. Others, such as Muslims, saw nothing wrong with weapons as long as they weren't owned by the Jews and Christians within their empires. And some tyrants actually confiscated weapons from their common citizenry, fearful of rebellion or to secure a ruling class (e.g. the ban on sword ownership for non-Samurai peasants).

But deadly hand weapons are are more 'natural' (came before) than even the plow or the wheel. What could be more natural, more "human", than that?

Who gives a shit? Dying of dysentery at the age of 35 in a mud hut is far more natural than living in an air-conditioned apartment until the age of 95.

Your equivocation about the word 'natural' is both pointless and silly. Laws are made, and modified, by people; So to answer your rhetorical question, Yes, all "pieces of paper" are the same, justified only because they are the will of the strongest and most powerful.

There is nothing equivocal in pointing out that natural rights derive from nature, the necessary preconditions for existence as shown through natural experience; including the necessity of self-defense as well as collective defense with arms.

You and other posters have either stated and/or implied that the very idea of a right to arms is a oddity, a uniquely American right on some "piece of paper", unrooted to the experience of other societies past and present. That is, of course, utter nonsense.

The debate about gun control boils down to "Are people better protected by unregulated gun ownership, or by regulated gun ownership?"; But as this is a 'no brainer', the answer to which is easy to see, those who oppose regulation of gun ownership have to cloud the issue to turn a simple question of fact into a philosophical discussion of the meaning of liberty; or they fall back on arguments from authority, using the immutable word of God the founding fathers as set out in (the second half of) the second amendment as their rock.

It's transparent, pathetic and childish.

What is "transparent" is to assume that the gun debate boils down to utilitarian argument of "what is best" for the great collective. You have to FIRST defending your premise; i.e. that "what is best for society" (or the majority) is the unitary criteria for imposing state coercive actions on the members in society. If so, then we have no need of minority rights, do we? Pogroms and camps is it, if that is "best for society"?

As a member of a social species, you have no rights, other than those given to you by the law; and the law can remove and/or amend those rights. Your only recourse is revolution;...

If "you have no rights" as a member of a social species, then repressed peoples have no rights, because it was not granted to them by the laws of their oppressive government...end of story.

On the other hand, most folks think they have rights apart from government, and demand that their governments acknowledge and enforce them in the law - an uncontroversial fact experienced by 100s of millions in the last few centuries (or more).

and despite the fevered imaginings of the NRA and its supporters, the 2nd amendment has been incapable of rendering a revolution more easy at least since WWI; The government has air supremacy, and overwhelmingly better arms and training at its disposal, so a successful revolution must include a sizable portion of the armed forces on the rebel side - which would render privately owned arms irrelevant.

Privately held guns can't beat the army if the army opposes your revolt; If the army isn't opposing your revolt, then privately held guns are needless.

Your "argument" is fine except for its half-dozen fatal flaws:

- People have a need and a right to self-defense.
- People have a right to revolution or secession when the government fails to secure and protect the liberty of its people. Whether or not well-armed Jews, Ukrainians, Kurds, or anyone else has a chance does not negate that right to resist.
- People have a right to own and use products aside from whether or not you think they "need" them.



-

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I do not believe the people have a right to revolution or secession.
People do not have a right to own everything that ever could be created.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

- People have a need and a right to self-defense.

Except that the consensus of studies on the matter show that owning a gun makes you less safe instead of more safe. If the ability to defend yourself from harm is important, you do better at that without a gun.

- People have a right to revolution or secession when the government fails to secure and protect the liberty of its people. Whether or not well-armed Jews, Ukrainians, Kurds, or anyone else has a chance does not negate that right to resist.

Owning guns isn't going to protect you from the government or allow you to fight against them. That may have been true a couple hundred years ago, but having a hundred assault rifles in your basement doesn't actually give you an edge in fighting a revoution over the government that you wouldn't get from picking up a stick from your yard and taking it to war with you.

- People have a right to own and use products aside from whether or not you think they "need" them.

But when the ownership and use of that product negatively impacts others, as it does with guns, that right is mitigated accordingly.

 

[Roller]

Ammosexuals freak out at a concept of "smart gun" yet think that founding fathers would agree with owning AR-15?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SimpleDon]

Reading through this and Loren's gun control thread, there are certain problems that I need to point out.

The argument that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few really isn't a very strong one. No law is enacted on this basis. The fact that few people would murder someone is no reason to make murder legal. The vast majority of people could be trusted with an atomic bomb, only a madman would set off one. And yet, not too surprisingly, we don't allow private ownership of atomic bombs.

We base restrictions of rights and individual actions on a scale balancing damage and benefit. There is no advantage to private ownership of atomic bombs and a large possibly of harm from a single misuse. We allow people to command three ton masses of metal barrelling down highways at high speeds because there are benefits to this even though we kill tens of thousands of people a year doing it. But we require training, licensing, registration and liability insurance before we allow someone to drive.

I see little benefit to the private possession of guns, especially handguns and military type weapons. And the cost is great, tens of thousands of people who are killed every year.

Since Justice Scalia's decision didn't leave any constitutional impediment to outlawing these guns because we can have the federal government declare them to be too dangerous, see above, we must ask the gun rights advocates to provide a list of the benefits to private gun ownership that justifies it, especially in the case of handguns and military type weapons.

This is the only way that we should be deciding this question. Not how difficult it would be to outlaw handguns and military type weapons, such as, "there are too many in circulation and then only criminals will have them" or "it is too hard to define them." Or for that matter, how long that it will be before such a ban would be become effective, (decades?)

And certainly not the puberulent "I don't need a reason ... I want my guns."

 

[Trausti]

Reading through this and Loren's gun control thread, there are certain problems that I need to point out.

The argument that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few really isn't a very strong one. No law is enacted on this basis. The fact that few people would murder someone is no reason to make murder legal. The vast majority of people could be trusted with an atomic bomb, only a madman would set off one. And yet, not too surprisingly, we don't allow private ownership of atomic bombs.

We base restrictions of rights and individual actions on a scale balancing damage and benefit. There is no advantage to private ownership of atomic bombs and a large possibly of harm from a single misuse. We allow people to command three ton masses of metal barrelling down highways at high speeds because there are benefits to this even though we kill tens of thousands of people a year doing it. But we require training, licensing, registration and liability insurance before we allow someone to drive.

I see little benefit to the private possession of guns, especially handguns and military type weapons. And the cost is great, tens of thousands of people who are killed every year.

Since Justice Scalia's decision didn't leave any constitutional impediment to outlawing these guns because we can have the federal government declare them to be too dangerous, see above, we must ask the gun rights advocates to provide a list of the benefits to private gun ownership that justifies it, especially in the case of handguns and military type weapons.

This is the only way that we should be deciding this question. Not how difficult it would be to outlaw handguns and military type weapons, such as, "there are too many in circulation and then only criminals will have them" or "it is too hard to define them." Or for that matter, how long that it will be before such a ban would be become effective, (decades?)

And certainly not the puberulent "I don't need a reason ... I want my guns."

That it's a natural and constitutional right is enough. These rights aren't up to majority vote, ya know.

 

[SimpleDon]

Reading through this and Loren's gun control thread, there are certain problems that I need to point out.

The argument that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few really isn't a very strong one. No law is enacted on this basis. The fact that few people would murder someone is no reason to make murder legal. The vast majority of people could be trusted with an atomic bomb, only a madman would set off one. And yet, not too surprisingly, we don't allow private ownership of atomic bombs.

We base restrictions of rights and individual actions on a scale balancing damage and benefit. There is no advantage to private ownership of atomic bombs and a large possibly of harm from a single misuse. We allow people to command three ton masses of metal barrelling down highways at high speeds because there are benefits to this even though we kill tens of thousands of people a year doing it. But we require training, licensing, registration and liability insurance before we allow someone to drive.

I see little benefit to the private possession of guns, especially handguns and military type weapons. And the cost is great, tens of thousands of people who are killed every year.

Since Justice Scalia's decision didn't leave any constitutional impediment to outlawing these guns because we can have the federal government declare them to be too dangerous, see above, we must ask the gun rights advocates to provide a list of the benefits to private gun ownership that justifies it, especially in the case of handguns and military type weapons.

This is the only way that we should be deciding this question. Not how difficult it would be to outlaw handguns and military type weapons, such as, "there are too many in circulation and then only criminals will have them" or "it is too hard to define them." Or for that matter, how long that it will be before such a ban would be become effective, (decades?)

And certainly not the puberulent "I don't need a reason ... I want my guns."

That it's a natural and constitutional right is enough. These rights aren't up to majority vote, ya know.

This constitutional right like all constitutional rights is subject to limitations. For example, you are not allowed to falsely yell "fire" in a theater. It isn't protected by free speech.

Do you believe that there are weapons that are too dangerous for the general public to have?

 

[Rhea]

I'm still trying to figure what's "natural" about owning manmade things. Especially manmade things that are designed to end "natural" life.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm still trying to figure what's "natural" about owning manmade things. Especially manmade things that are designed to end "natural" life.

You have to be a real man's man to get it. Like this guy:

Show

 

[maxparrish]

Reading through this and Loren's gun control thread, there are certain problems that I need to point out.

The argument that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few really isn't a very strong one. No law is enacted on this basis. The fact that few people would murder someone is no reason to make murder legal. The vast majority of people could be trusted with an atomic bomb, only a madman would set off one. And yet, not too surprisingly, we don't allow private ownership of atomic bombs.

I believe your sentence (I italicized and bolded it) was intended to convey that a prospective law is not avoided simply because it punishes the vast majority for the actions of a few. If so, it is equally true that most ethical people would like to try and avoid punishing the innocent multitude for the actions of the few; for example, punishing most American Muslims for the actions of a few Muslims.

Be it Muslims, blacks, Christians, young males, gun-owners, or any other group it is not a weak, but a strong argument that punishing many innocent just to get at the few guilty is to be generally avoided, if possible.

We base restrictions of rights and individual actions on a scale balancing damage and benefit. There is no advantage to private ownership of atomic bombs and a large possibly of harm from a single misuse. We allow people to command three ton masses of metal barrelling down highways at high speeds because there are benefits to this even though we kill tens of thousands of people a year doing it. But we require training, licensing, registration and liability insurance before we allow someone to drive.

I see little benefit to the private possession of guns, especially handguns and military type weapons. And the cost is great, tens of thousands of people who are killed every year.

First, a free society need not ban or coerce speech, private conduct, religion, trade, products, services, etc. based on some persons idea of 'balancing benefit and damage'. That much of this society has chosen to do so without regard to human rights or alternative measurements of benefits is a regrettable given, not an imperative.

Second, in a free society the presumption that what a person contracts for, does, or owns is legal, unless otherwise restricted by law. And some of it, such as speech, is protected from many restrictions by law as Constitutional rights.

Third, I see many benefits to private ownership of guns. Primarily they provide recreational and sporting benefits, of much enjoyment to 10s of millions. For many others they provide personal security. Finally, someday they may provide a necessary counter-balance to government over-reach.

A-Bomb ownership provides almost no benefit; it can't be used recreationally, and are lousy at individual self defense. Given the downside, I am not sure they are worth making legal just to threaten government over-reach (although they would do a great job in making the feds come to the negotiating table).

Since Justice Scalia's decision didn't leave any constitutional impediment to outlawing these guns because we can have the federal government declare them to be too dangerous, see above, we must ask the gun rights advocates to provide a list of the benefits to private gun ownership that justifies it, especially in the case of handguns and military type weapons.

If you are referring to the Hellar opinion, you are badly informed. It confirmed the right to own and possess personal arms, including firearms.

This is the only way that we should be deciding this question. Not how difficult it would be to outlaw handguns and military type weapons, ... And certainly not the puberulent "I don't need a reason ... I want my guns."

Wrong. You need demonstrate a compelling reason to ban firearms, and show that such bans will work. THEN we can discuss reasons why you should not.

 

[maxparrish]

I'm still trying to figure what's "natural" about owning manmade things. Especially manmade things that are designed to end "natural" life.

You wonder about what has been "natural" about possessing man made things; like the flint tools of homo hablis and homo erectus, and then the confirmed clothing and "ending of natural life" weapons of homo sapiens 150,000 or more years ago?

You need a course in anthropology - run, don't walk, to your nearest community college.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm still trying to figure what's "natural" about owning manmade things. Especially manmade things that are designed to end "natural" life.

You wonder about what has been "natural" about possessing man made things; like the flint tools of homo hablis and homo erectus, and then the confirmed clothing and "ending of natural life" weapons of homo sapiens 150,000 or more years ago?

You need a course in anthropology - run, don't walk, to your nearest community college.

When your community college professor was telling you that it was natural for you to own nuclear weapons in your backyard, you should have asked for a course refund.

 

[SimpleDon]

max the second amendment's due by date

I believe your sentence (I italicized and bolded it) was intended to convey that a prospective law is not avoided simply because it punishes the vast majority for the actions of a few. If so, it is equally true that most ethical people would like to try and avoid punishing the innocent multitude for the actions of the few; for example, punishing most American Muslims for the actions of a few Muslims.

This is also true. Like I said, it is a matter of balancing the rights of the individual to the ones of the many.

Be it Muslims, blacks, Christians, young males, gun-owners, or any other group it is not a weak, but a strong argument that punishing many innocent just to get at the few guilty is to be generally avoided, if possible.

We base restrictions of rights and individual actions on a scale balancing damage and benefit. There is no advantage to private ownership of atomic bombs and a large possibly of harm from a single misuse. We allow people to command three ton masses of metal barreling down highways at high speeds because there are benefits to this even though we kill tens of thousands of people a year doing it. But we require training, licensing, registration and liability insurance before we allow someone to drive.

I see little benefit to the private possession of guns, especially handguns and military type weapons. And the cost is great, tens of thousands of people who are killed every year.

First, a free society need not ban or coerce speech, private conduct, religion, trade, products, services, etc. based on some persons idea of 'balancing benefit and damage'. That much of this society has chosen to do so without regard to human rights or alternative measurements of benefits is a regrettable given, not an imperative.

Second, in a free society the presumption that what a person contracts for, does, or owns is legal, unless otherwise restricted by law. And some of it, such as speech, is protected from many restrictions by law as Constitutional rights.

There are no absolute rights granted by the Constitution. You can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. At some point an assembly can turn into an illegal riot. And yes, any restrictions on gun ownership would be enacted in the law. Ownership of heavy machine guns or artillery for example.

Third, I see many benefits to private ownership of guns. Primarily they provide recreational and sporting benefits, of much enjoyment to 10s of millions. For many others they provide personal security. Finally, someday they may provide a necessary counter-balance to government over-reach.

Wow, I thought that you didn't need to justify gun ownership. And yet, here you are trying to justify gun ownership.

Once again, we have to balance the benefits with the damage that is done. This is done all of the time in the real, adult world. Recreational drugs, gambling, prostitution, financial market speculation, and many more are examples where individual rights are balanced against the damage that they cause.

A-Bomb ownership provides almost no benefit; it can't be used recreationally, and are lousy at individual self defense. Given the downside, I am not sure they are worth making legal just to threaten government over-reach (although they would do a great job in making the feds come to the negotiating table).

So you do agree that there are weapons that are too dangerous to allow in private ownership. That the damage that they can do outweighs the benefits. Good, from here it is only details.

Since Justice Scalia's decision didn't leave any constitutional impediment to outlawing these guns because we can have the federal government declare them to be too dangerous, see above, we must ask the gun rights advocates to provide a list of the benefits to private gun ownership that justifies it, especially in the case of handguns and military type weapons.

If you are referring to the Heller opinion, you are badly informed. It confirmed the right to own and possess personal arms, including firearms.

This is the only way that we should be deciding this question. Not how difficult it would be to outlaw handguns and military type weapons, ... And certainly not the puberulent "I don't need a reason ... I want my guns."

Wrong. You need demonstrate a compelling reason to ban firearms, and show that such bans will work. THEN we can discuss reasons why you should not.

This is a lot of effort from someone whose previous one was to declare that we must allow individuals to own guns because you want guns.

The compelling reason to limit the ownership of weapons is because they kill tens of thousands of Americans every year from irresponsible use. An absolute right to own arms would increase the carnage as individuals started owning and using heavy machine guns, for example. There are weapons that are too dangerous for the general population to own. This has been true since the beginning of the nation and it is even more so today, with the damage that modern weapons can inflict on the human body.

The Heller decision did much more than to confirm the right of people to own firearms. I listed all of the pertinent points in a section a separate post that you apparently didn't read. I will repeat them here for your benefit along with the all of the interconnecting logic that I mistakenly thought that anyone could make.

Justice Scalia, the justice who wrote the majority option in the case, had the age old problem of what to do with the well regulated militia phrase of the amendment. The Constitution is a marvelous example of the use of spare language, hardly a word is misplaced, every phrase has meaning. That every phrase in the Constitution has meaning has been a tenet of the Supreme Court since the beginning, until Heller.

If the authors of the amendment had wanted to grant individuals the right to own firearms there is no reason for the militia phrase at all. The only reason to include the phrase would be to somehow limit the right to own firearms. And that is how previous courts had treated the phrase. That the militia phrase limited the right to own firearms to those weapons that an individual militia man could use. This meant that the government could prevent individuals from owning crewed weapons like machine guns or cannon, for example. It meant that the government could prevent the private ownership of sawed off shotguns, because these are not allowed by the rules of war.

In order for Justice Scalia to interpret the second amendment as providing a fundamental right to bear arms he had to do something with the militia phrase. He decided to ignore it. He simply declared it to be a meaningless preamble to the amendment, a mere rhetorical flourish. In a document known for its spare use of language. In a document in which there is no examples of amendments with such rhetorical preambles.

But since he rendered the militia phrase meaningless, he had some housekeeping to do. The militia phrase had provided the rational for limiting the scope of weapons that could be covered under the right to bear arms. As you admitted there are weapons to dangerous to be owned by and in the possession of the general public. Since he had declared the right to bear arms a fundamental right, that the federal government has the last word on the right.

So he decided that the federal government is who decides which weapons are too dangerous for the public to have.

I realize that for those of us here who fear democracy, this is not acceptable. But I believe that there is no better way to make these decisions. It is the same way that we have been doing it since the beginning. It is the way that the Constitution is supposed to operate. And it means that we don't have to pass a new amendment to cancel out the Second in order to ban handguns or military type weapons.

Justice Scalia also ruled that gun registration would be constitutional too, as well as gun licensing. And that entire classes of people can be prevented from owning guns, felons, the mentally ill, children, and so on.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The mentally ill thing would be the hardest one to justify Constitutionally because it crosses into privacy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The mentally ill thing would be the hardest one to justify Constitutionally because it crosses into privacy.

There's an issue with implementation and enforcement. Let's say someone takes a low dose of an anti-depressant, does that mean they can't get a gun? Or do we exclude people from guns who are psychotic? What's the exact divide? and how is it enforced to look up people to check veracity of what they enter on a form? Like you wrote there's also privacy, so the govt will have to make a change to go around hipaa?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The mentally ill thing would be the hardest one to justify Constitutionally because it crosses into privacy.

There's an issue with implementation and enforcement. Let's say someone takes a low dose of an anti-depressant, does that mean they can't get a gun? Or do we exclude people from guns who are psychotic? What's the exact divide? and how is it enforced to look up people to check veracity of what they enter on a form? Like you wrote there's also privacy, so the govt will have to make a change to go around hipaa?

Yes you are right, but to go even further...
It would rely on "voluntary" reporting, but is the right to own a firearm limited by the requirement to "voluntarily" submit private information proving you are sane?

Big legal unresolved Constitutional questions lie within the "mental illness" restrictions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you believe that there are weapons that are too dangerous for the general public to have?

Why yes. I believe government is too dangerous a weapon for anyone to have.