I think I would have to broaden this statement a bit prior to agreeing. We should expand mental healthcare, not simply take people off meds, as many need them. Those that are truly insane require a combination of meds and treatment, as well as, close supervision.

We lack the "supervision" part these days. We also require a larger volume of medical professionals that specialize in this area. Meaning; its very difficult to effectively treat all types of mental illness as a physician if the patient you have is one of 300.

Furthermore the biggest issue with mental health is medication noncompliance. Medications that treat psychosis often leave the person feeling "dull". And often when a psychotic episode occurs, one can gain a certain euphoria, further decreasing the desire to take medications (hence the need to closer supervision). I can't help but wonder if those who were on anti-psychotics and committing violence, were simply not taking their meds.

The biggest disappointment in all this is back in 2012, liberals, behaving very irrationally, declined the NRA's off to help fund our country's mental health. Instead they just wanted to ban scary-looking weapons.

In response to the OP. I believe our Bill of Rights is more important than ever. Technology has changed, but human nature, paths of governments, and tendencies of people haven't.

One could give examples of how gun regulation or lack there of "makes people safer". One could bring up examples of other countries and how they "fixed" their violence issues by passing strict laws. You can also counter this argument, just as easily. Some time ago there was crime statistics on the FBI's website that showed trends of crime in certain areas like Washington D.C. If one were smart, you could see that there was no change in gun violence before and after they lifted the weapons bans/strict regulations. You could also see there was no impact from Clinton's assault weapons ban from the 90's. You could follow through with the lift on Chicago's weapons ban, etc. The violent crimes followed the same statistical curve.

So, one could conclude that gun regulation, in the U.S., as little effect on violence. What does have an effect is the economy. When people have more to lose they risk less. Furthermore, I can't help but theorize that focusing on mental healthcare would help treat the mentally ill. Focusing on either mental health or the economy, rather than attack rights of the people intended to preserve "checks and balances", would create a win-win. Interesting to me how no one wants to do so. Especially since most would agree to do so across party lines.

Its sad to see Americans loose their principles of independence and request more regulation/laws, rather than maintain personal responsibilities.

The Supreme Court has ruled that firearms may be kept in the home so some definition and clarification has been provided.

i agree for the most part moe, where i disagree is the full auto's and 50 cals. i personally dont see anything wrong with owning a 50 cal, or a full auto. its still small arms, which can be used for defense.

i do.. militias, gangs, anyone that wants to take over part of a city/state, criminals, and/or the occasional crazy that just wants to "make a bigger hole"... the government should have bigger/better

"... the government should have bigger/better" mm

It's a delicate balance mm.

Lord Acton warned:
[ paraphrase ] Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If we give government power, that power shall eventually be abused.

i agree, but the government needs an edge do to the fact that not everyone is unhappy with the government... if the people were just as armed as the government, there's no guarantee that the militias trying to overthrow the government would better or worse than whats there now...

Nooooooooot a real quote. Not by Hitler, anyway. A lie made up by people who want to use Hitler as a boogey man to ward off gun regulation thinkers.

Not only did Hitler not TALK about "disarming it's citizens," he didn't do it.

I'm surprised at how common false attribution is.
Here's one from the pro-gun side:

I'm an NRA life member.
I've encountered this countless times.

BUT:
this source says no:

http://www.republicaffair.com/fake-george-washington-quotes-liberty-teeth.html

There's a huge pile more; the ostensible Churchill "... I would drink it." quotation also reported false.

BUT!!

Psychologist Joy Browne says:

If a great man makes a false statement, should we revere the falsehood anyway?

If someone low on the pecking order ("from the mouths of babes") says something profound or useful, should we dismiss it because of who said it?

He left millions without arms ... or legs ... a head ... or a heart.

Hitler didn't disarm the citizens, he gave them guns and made them SS or soldiers. Similar to what federalizing the police would do for us.
Same results.

BTW

A BB gun is not a firearm.
An air rifle is not a firearm.
A black powder rifle is not "legally" a firearm even though it used to be.

Up to a 50 caliber is considered a firearm.

The next jump practically is the 20 mm which is considered a cannon. Cannon are designed to fire explosive shells and are considered explosives so fall outside of "firearm" typical legislation.

All guns larger than 20mm are considered cannons.

If you look hard, you can find exceptions such as potato guns but the above is pretty much a summary of what constitutes a firearm.

a) That's fine, but they are deadly weapons.

b) Technically 2A isn't only about "fire"arms.

It's about "arms", and thus I imagine would include:
- deadly blades, including box-cutters
- puncturing weapons such as a rapier
- bludgeons
- nukes
- doomsday bio-weapons

If not, why not?

If you were a Member of the National Socialist Party,SA or SS you were allowed to own Firearms,Jews and the rest of the Population were not!

C7,

I sincerely appreciate your what appears to be your conscientious effort to set the historical record straight.

Let us not fall victim to conceptual infiltration.

What's rare if not unique about firearms is that they empower the weak against the strong.

I don't dismiss the 2A implications.
But doesn't it seem likely that if families designated for extermination were capable, they'd have protected themselves?

What Hitler did was to:
- compel untermenchen to register, & then
- hustle registrees off in cattle cars to the crematoria.

The 2A issue is a distraction.
He murdered millions.

Again, a lot of people who are upset about certain issues, and who want to feel clever or feel that they have some historical famous person on their side, have MADE UP stories about them to try to use History to replace other logic and win their case.

When you use lies to support your cause, you tend to make everyone else suspect that your entire cause is itself a lie.

You can pretend that's a quote by a famous person if you like.

Anyway, no, the Nazi's did NOT play a coy game, and write subtle and complicated gun registration rules, with the express secret desire to one day sneak in and disarm the brave citizens piecemeal.

Actually, there has NEVER been a despotic government takeover ANYWHERE, in which that was the way it was accomplished. In all instances of people losing their self government, a combination of they themselves choosing to give away their freedom, and brute force by the invariably vastly more powerful and well organized government forces was the story.

Even here in the US, with the American Revolution, the myth that it was won against a superior disciplined Overlord army, by a ragtag collection of independent farmers using hunting weapons, is a lie too.

As for the Second Amendment as written, when I look at it, I see the word "arms" as in "keep and bear arms." The DEFINITION of "arms" isn't included. This is characteristic of the Constitution, because it WAS written by a collection of politicians, trying to please enough fellow politicians to sign in, by being vague.

But anyway, since 'arms' ISN'T defined, there's no support for the claim that it refers only to rifles, smooth bore muskets, handguns, and so on. If you check how the word "arms" is used in general throughout the rest of the world, you will find that it clearly refers to ANY weaponry at all, up to and especially including Nuclear Arsenals. So the argument COULD be made, if the Second simply said everyone has the right to do whatever they want with whatever "arms" they want, that this would mean that your next door neighbor who drunkenly screams at your children every day, could keep a loaded howitzer pointed at your bedroom 24 x 7.

However, if you do want to play the literalist interpretation game, and you actually read the entire amendment, it also says "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." It has the word REGULATED right there at the top of the mark. It could be seen to all but specifically direct the Federal Government to actively REGULATE all 'arms' of any kind.

And that doesn't even begin to address what the words "keep and bear" do and don't mean.

me thinks you might need to look up the meaning of Regulated in the Context of 18th Century usage!

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Is the Right To Life and the Right to defend it obsolete?

There is no "Right to Life" in the Constitution.

Here is the critical phrase from that site:

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

However, none of the rest of the site provides any support for that contention at all. They quote a dictionary, and the dictionary quotes were requotes.

Besides, "functioning as expected" and "calibrated correctly" does not mean "ignored entirely, and left to it's own chance devices," as this site (and you, apparently) wish to pretend that it does.

In fact, it means the exact opposite, closer to what I suggested as a possible interpretation.