I have an EVIL idea - thoughts, please.

[IdaBriggs]

Let me start by saying that I want *reasonable* gun regulations, including background checks.

I also don't really believe that "walking around in circles in protest" really has a lot of impact on our legislatures; frankly, I think this was a *huge* success in the 1960s because it was "new" and ever since it has become "normalized" to the point where the people in power don't even notice or minimize it. Realistically, while some people won't cross a picket line, others just use the back door so they can get to work, and I think "crowds of protesters" mean nothing, unless they are all swearing to spend money to defeat you for re-election. (I could be wrong - this is my perception.)

But what I want - and what I think *other people* want - is REASONABLE gun legislation, including background checks, so *ALL OF US* can be safer. We want to make sure the drug gang doesn't have AK-47s; that crazy Uncle Bob doesn't have a gun to shoot anything that moves when he's drunk; that our sister's crazy ex-boyfriend who used to beat her up can't kill her and her children because this time, when she moved out, she really means it; and that random nut-jobs can't walk up and down our streets shooting at people.

Those of us who possess empathy, compassion and a sprinkling of wisdom can figure out these things are REASONABLE without having to become a victim of gun violence - and then we have the Republicans. So, barring the bad karma that goes with wishing ill on people, how do we communicate the NECESSITY of these things?

I propose a protest intended to MAKE IT PERSONAL.

1) The protest needs to be in their home neighborhoods, preferably on their streets. It needs to be when they are home - either early in the morning, before they go to work, later in the evening when they are sitting down for dinner, or when they are mowing the lawn - no matter what, it has to be WHEN THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORS ARE HOME.

2) It needs to have a crowd of at LEAST 50 people or more. Most of the protesters should look as scruffy as possible. Some should wear prison garb, others should be dressed as zombies, others should be in wheelchairs, heck - throw in a couple of doctors/nurses/someone on a gurney to symbolize the toll of gun violence, and then maybe even weeping people following a make-shift child's casket. Get the idea? VISUAL symbols of the toll of gun violence, done as a theater parade.

and lastly, this part is the MOST important

3) EVERY SINGLE PERSON SHOULD BE CARRYING EITHER A "REAL" WEAPON, OR A FAKE ONE. Signs should proclaim the range - "If you can read this sign, this gun can kill you" and "100 Rounds in 10 Seconds - You Can't Run Fast Enough" and "Bullets Can Penetrate Your Walls" (maybe with a picture of some of the children killed this way).

I have to believe that if 50 armed "protesters" were walking through my neighborhood with "guns" that I might get the hint that it only takes ONE NUT to kill me and mine - and I am *NOT* advocating violence, please to note.

I am advocating making the people who don't seem to "get it" aware of just how vulnerable EVERYONE is - even them, in their neighborhoods where no one would ever think it could happen (until it does).

Thoughts?

ON EDIT: No bullets, of course, and "fake" guns, as well as interaction with the police to make sure it is clearly a "safe" protest.

[OneGrassRoot]

1. Great subject line :)

Last edited Wed May 1, 2013, 10:57 AM - Edit history (2)

Got my attention immediately.

My first reaction is that it's a potentially good idea.

I also wonder if a similar protest at gun stores and gun lobby/NRA and gun manufacturer locations? A concerted effort across the board.

EDIT TO ADD: (Not nearly enough coffee and didn't absorb your post thoroughly, even though I see you did make it very clear...my bad...)

I'm in favor of a protest with signs as you mentioned, but not the fake gun thing, although I understand what you're trying to do.

[IdaBriggs]

59. Thank you.

My husband regularly reminds me to "use your powers for good!"

I am glad you understand the point I am *trying* to make for them.

[Buzz Clik]

2. "If you can read this sign, this gun can kill you"

That should speed up the arrest process.

[pintobean]

3. Who will do the background checks

on the protesters? This seems extremely dangerous, to me.

[IdaBriggs]

14. Why would a background check be required for joining in a public protest?

Are you implying that someone with a "real" gun might commit a crime???

Where is my fainting couch?

Seriously, the idea has some kinks in it, but running screening checks to join a harmless public protest seems a little over the top when we can't get those types of things for people purchasing assault weapons.

[pintobean]

15. Inviting people in disguise and armed

What could possibly go wrong?

[IdaBriggs]

19. Are you suggesting some of these people might be *gasp* CRIMINALS?

Hmmm. Maybe we should pass legislation making it easier to keep artillery out of the hands of criminals?

No, that sounds like stuff.

Every 'Murican with a gun is a good 'Murican with a gun.

[Xyzse]

4. Interesting thought...

Still, since most of the ones you have to deal with are around the DC, MD, and VA area, you may want to bone up on carrying laws.

[darkangel218]

5. I would say you summerized your OP just right. evil.

If anyone would do what you sugested they would go straight to jail. Obviously that doesn't matter to you.

[IdaBriggs]

7. Please explain why protesters who aren't "brandishing" but carrying would go to jail?

Especially if the guns are fake or have no ammunition?

Open Carry is something that is allowed here in Michigan. Also at JC Penney's.

[darkangel218]

10. How would anyone know the guns are fake??

And signs saying if you can read this, this gun can kill you?? Please!

Mentality like this makes people divided and makes gun control laws hard to pass.

Goodbye.

[IdaBriggs]

12. Because it would be a protest arranged with police?

And some of the guns could be cardboard? Or water guns?

You could even have signs saying "if this was AR-15..."

The signs would be intended to "teach" about range.

[pipi_k]

11. Envisioning...

a possible scenario...

Some "gun nut" sees a bunch of scruffy looking people lurking outside his home with scary signs. Maybe some of those people brandish "fake" guns. Maybe some of them decide to brandish real guns. Emotions are running high.

The "gun nut", who is already quite paranoid, doesn't call the police, but instead decides to protect his family, and takes a few shots at the people trolling his home. Someone gets injured or killed.

Can the "gun nut" seriously be blamed for feeling like he was in danger or being terrorized outside his own home?

Who would be to blame for the outcome?

[IdaBriggs]

13. A Protest Parade in the Public Street.

People carrying signs. Some in costume.

Maybe it is just too "real" - heaven knows the carnage is.

[pipi_k]

31. Yes, the carnage is real

but if there's a possibility to add to it, what would be the point?

[Squinch]

78. But when the guy was carrying in JC Penney, we were all told that objecting to that

was simply hysteria.

Why is this different?

[pipi_k]

81. Because it was

one guy?

Because it was a different group of people?

I really don't know.

[Warpy]

6. Taking it to their neighborhoods would be good, only

most of these corrupt SOBs live in gated and guarded communities. Perhaps lining the road leading to those places outside the gate in the morning and evening when they're being driven to work might be a plan.

The background check idea was timid and would stop few crazies yet they still fought it tooth and nail.

I sincerely hope enough of them get defeated in 2014 that we can get legislation with real teeth in it, like taxes on ammo and liability insurance requirements on guns passed.

I would love to see the look on La Pierre's ugly face after a steamroller rolls over him.

[pipi_k]

8. Just my opinion, of course, but...

it seems to me that people who stockpile weapons or think they can't live without them are already feeling quite fearful.

So this:

I am advocating making the people who don't seem to "get it" aware of just how vulnerable EVERYONE is - even them, in their neighborhoods where no one would ever think it could happen (until it does).

seems to be only another reason for them to double down on their need for weapons to protect themselves.

Make them feel vulnerable and unsafe...see what happens.

[Half-Century Man]

9. One thing

Toy guns have to have an orange plug/ cover etc on the end of the barrel. Failure to have one will result in , at best, a charge of carrying a facsimile weapon, inciting a riot, or public disturbance (depending on local ordnances). The police have said the inherent danger in approaching armed subjects is greater than the duty to verify actual weapons vs toys. Bear in mind, people have been shot and killed for brandishing tv remotes on the street.

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. You get a picard for this one

[Brickbat]

17. Not an evil idea, just a bad one.

On so very many different levels.

[Progressive dog]

18. Partly agree

If people could be motivated to protest like this, it would make local news, and get free publicity. But, IMO, the gun part is not a good idea. Openly carrying guns, even at a gun death protest, is dangerous and could make the the demonstrators appear to be hypocrites.

[IdaBriggs]

21. I am not worried about being called a hypocrite. I want to be called "EFFECTIVE"

at making the point: currently we have too many people dying because of easy to use and over availability of guns.

Arming "everyone" is INSANE, no matter how much the NRA and the gun manufacturers might like it.

Sometimes, maybe, just putting it "in their face" just how it would "look" marching down their street --- without blood shed?



The scary thing in this thread is the automatic assumption that such a protest *would* result in blood shed -

[Brickbat]

22. The protest as you describe it would not be effective.

A shambling mob of "scruffy" people who look like "prisoners" and "zombies," some of whom are weeping behind a child's coffin, all carrying weapons and "this gun could kill you!" signs -- all of it together makes no sense at all.

[IdaBriggs]

24. An "Armed" Protest Parade in the Public Street.

With some "street theater" to get attention.

People carrying signs while wearing "gang colors" - "I can get a gun at a gun show without a background check."

Publicity. Pointed. Visual.

As opposed to the current methods (which, here is a big secret) aren't working.

I am an Evil Genius. I would love to try it out at least once to see if it worked to change any minds.

[Brickbat]

28. I was wondering when you said "scruffy" and "prisoners," but "gang colors" gives it away.

That's some straight-up racist shit, right there.

[IdaBriggs]

32. Since I want them to be SCARED enough to change their positions....

I was going for scruffy, like an armed vagabond.

Prison gear would be intended to symbolize that convicted felons can purchase guns without background checks at a variety of places.

"Gang colors" would be representing the fact that people who do "drive-by shootings" as "gang related violence" can easily get weapons without a problem.

As for racism, a good friend of mine insists that "gun control" efforts in the late 1960s/early 1970s weren't advocated until young men of African American heritage started doing "open carry" in California with some of the early civil rights leaders, but truthfully, I am not an expert on the matter.

It is interesting to me that you believe any of these things implies racism.

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

Gun deaths shaped by race in America
Posted by Dan Keating on March 22, 2013 at 11:19 pm

Gun deaths are shaped by race in America. Whites are far more likely to shoot themselves, and African Americans are far more likely to be shot by someone else.

The statistical difference is dramatic, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A white person is five times as likely to commit suicide with a gun as to be shot with a gun; for each African American who uses a gun to commit suicide, five are killed by other people with guns.

Where a person lives matters, too. Gun deaths in urban areas are much more likely to be homicides, while suicide is far and away the dominant form of gun death in rural areas. States with the most guns per capita, such as Montana and Wyoming, have the highest suicide rates; states with low gun ownership rates, such as Massachusetts and New York, have far fewer suicides per capita.

(snip)

For instance, African Americans tend to be stronger backers of tough gun controls than whites. A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month found that about three-quarters of blacks support stronger controls, compared with about half of whites. The poll also found that two-thirds of city dwellers support stronger gun controls, while only about a third of rural residents back them.

(snip)

Some experts say mass shootings such as the one in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December can often be seen as extravagant suicides rather than homicidal rampages. And the young man behind that massacre killed himself before he could be apprehended. Preventing these killings, experts say, requires better treatment of mental health problems and limiting access to weapons.

(more at link)

[pipi_k]

40. I think

you are not quite getting it...

They are scared already.

If you instill even more fear into them, why would that cause them to change their minds about anything they believe might hinder their rights to have a gun?

[Progressive dog]

25. I think it would be more effective without the guns

I don't have a problem with being in their faces, but I don't think that the guns are necessary. Maybe photos of drawings of guns?

[IdaBriggs]

58. Or "big fake guns" like the "super soaker" things?

Or "nerf" weapons?

[Progressive dog]

61. Super soakers would be good

[Squinch]

79. I like this idea.

And I think the idea for the protest would be effective. These guys fixed the airport lines because it was annoying to them. Bring it to their yards.

[pipi_k]

33. No...

not would...

might.

Might result in bloodshed.


I don't get it. You posed an idea and asked for thoughts.

You are getting feedback, most of it not aimed at you specifically...just at the idea.

Yet you appear to be getting defensive and all "WTF" about what I think is pretty sensible feedback from many people here.

People who don't want to hear another side really shouldn't ask for feedback.

[IdaBriggs]

63. The feedback is good. The *might* is okay.

Several of the posters suggested I was looking for a shoot-out. It was, frankly, an offensive interpretation.

There have been some good comments. There have been some useless ones. It is a message board.

At the moment it is just an idea. I need to chew on it some more. I think it might be an interesting exercise.

But I could be wrong.

[OwnedByCats]

86. Hypocrisy

is very rarely "effective"

[dminaz]

20. Umm, they already know...

"If you can read this sign, this gun can kill you"

because they will be looking at the sign from the scope of their rifle.

[Common Sense Party]

23. Drop your #2 idea completely. Dressing up as zombies?

Do you want to be taken seriously, or not? When you dress up in silly costumes, you just look foolish, and people think it's a joke by frivolous people.

[IdaBriggs]

27. The idea is to use "street theater" techniques to make the point.

People walking in circles holding signs isn't getting the attention anymore.

Street theater techniques might.

[Common Sense Party]

35. Street theater is a joke.

No one takes it seriously except the people "acting" in it.

[pipi_k]

43. Street theater...

you mean like PETA?

As much as I want to protect animals...and not just the cute, fuzzy ones...I think they're a bunch of clowns and I don't take them seriously.

They hurt themselves, and they hurt their cause with their antics.

I can't see where ruffians, vagabonds, and zombies protesting in the streets is going to change anybody's mind.

[IdaBriggs]

52. "ARMED" ruffians, vagabonds and zombies.

Just "ordinary folk" running around YOUR STREET.

With "guns" that *anyone* can get - and carry publicly.

Maybe it is "too subtle"?

[pipi_k]

82. Armed ruffians

zombies and ruffians are only going to cause me to believe there are crazy people in the streets from which I need protection.

Not sure I'd shoot any of them, but I would call the police, and who knows what might happen.

OTOH, I have some neighbors down the hill from me (very rural) who actually would shoot first and ask questions later.

One neighbor actually shot blindly out his back door one evening. When the area started to stink, someone investigated. It was a dead bear across the road. Could have been a silly ass protester trying to "scare him into giving up his weapons", but luckily for him it wasn't.

[OwnedByCats]

88. LOL

I didn't see your PETA comment before I made mine but I'm glad I am not the only one who made that comparison lol

I'm also huge on protecting animals, but PETA is a disgrace to the movement and makes us normal animal lovers look like nutbags - so I always disassociate myself from them at any given opportunity. This parade/protest idea to promote gun control just smacks of PETA ridiculousness.

[Squinch]

80. I think the undesireability of the people has some value. NIMBY and all.

[OwnedByCats]

87. I agree

This suggested stunt sounds like the PETA of the gun control lobby. Let's do something totally outrageous and offensive to get a point across! I think most people would not appreciate it, both those for and against gun control.

[sarisataka]

26. You would get an effective reaction from the police

as there are several ways this could be considered assault.

In addition the NRA and gun makers would thank you. They would spin it to the gun control side is about to turn violent...

OTH the 1A does give you freedom of speech so the court case would be interesting. Give us a heads up if you plan on doing this.

[hay rick]

29. Street theater.

On first reading, the only problem I have with your idea is I think it would be more effective if it was staged in a public place, like a mall. Problems with using residential streets includes reaching a smaller audience and providing authorities with a ready made excuse to deny a "parade" as disruptive in a residential area. Malls, grocery stores, sporting events, etc. are all places where people want to go in the course of their daily lives and the street theater would have a similar discomfiting effect in those places.

Appreciate your thinking outside the box and putting it out there for discussion. Ignore the predictable zealots and haters. FWIW, my original idea on gun control from a couple months ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022079144

[IdaBriggs]

34. The reason I was avoiding the malls/grocery stores, and going for the HOME NEIGHBORHOODS

was because at the end of the day, the only minds that have to be changed are the Congress Critters.

The rest of the population is pretty clear on what is going on; the Congress Critters seem to think that "gun violence" only happens to "other people" - and I want it to be OBVIOUS that people with "guns" can always be found on their street, too.

And maybe that means they need to do something to fix the problem.

[hay rick]

45. Congress varmints.

I wasn't clear on the fact that your "target audience" was congressmen.

My congressman shows up in our district almost every weekend. He attends one or two events almost every day he is "in town." I saw him a couple of weeks ago when he was the grand marshal of the local St. Patrick's Day parade. He is ok on gun issues, but if he wasn't it would be really easy to show up at public events where he's going to be. He also has 3 local offices in the district which would be fair game.

I think embarrassment in front of constituents is probably more effective than embarrassment in front of like-minded neighbors. These guys aren't living in Levittown. One other practical point: even when these guys are "home" they probably aren't spending a lot of predictable daylight hours at their residence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Open carry, even if fake guns,

Is currently illegal in California. So doing that will give me plenty of arrest tape, with heavily armed swat officers...woohoo!

As to the rest...walking around in circles is much older than the sixties...what is newish is the level of corruption at the top (tea pot dome is the closest analogy in the past) it's so bad that if you are middle class they might pay attention for a second, if you are poor you might as well not exist.

This is one of multiple reasons we need to hold a national strike...now those have not happened since 1952. But we need one, that lasts a week, for those in power to go...maybe we should pay attention to the masses. We need more than just one, to scare the elites into listening to all the people, not the top tier who happen to have money.

[IdaBriggs]

36. I think we have a better chance of finding 50-100 people willing to do

street theater aimed at changing the minds of one Congress Critter at a time than we do at getting a national strike.

But I am a cynical person. Please keep me posted on your efforts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I am cynical as well

I just stated a fact, not that it is going to happen right now.

We are seeing small strikes at the bottom though, so something is jelling...more tan we have seen in decades

[IdaBriggs]

38. Another thought - this would probably not be needed for the California folks.

Aren't they already on board?

I think (as the idea is jelling for me) that it needs to be "targeted" at just the ones who don't have the wisdom to understand how vulnerable we all are....

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. May I introduce you to Daryll Issa and Duncan Hunter

If this ever gets to the House?

[IdaBriggs]

73. Are you just TRYING to depress me?

ARGH. Maybe I should join the "we are all doomed!" brigade!

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Ok, let me try to make you smile

I was covering the Alpine Parade...yup, small town parades are always kitschy and cute.

So who leads the parade? Duncan Hunter and his brigade of volunteers with signs. I aproached with the intent of asking a non compromising question, we are trying to get him to talk to us...so you gotta be non challenging the first time, maybe second. I did not realize just how fast he could run...he literally took off...FAST down hill.

I promise, my question was on how fun was the parade...cross my heart.

This is as nerf ball as I could think. In contrast I have asked hardballs, even got to break national news, from a democrat, who happens to be a first termer. The Dem is not a woozy.

I hope to see him today as well.

[aikoaiko]

41. Good luck with that.

Really. Go try it.

[NCTraveler]

42. This would just entrench the other side even further.

That is the only thing it would do. Well maybe get you on the news where people would laugh at you.

[IdaBriggs]

51. Because they aren't entrenched already?

I really don't care about the general public. I just want to get the point made to the Congress Critters.

[NCTraveler]

54. "I really don't care about the general public."

I don't question that after reading this "idea". What effect would something like this have on congress. Are you hoping it turns into a shoot-out. Is that the "evil" part of your plan. Then I guess it would get their attention.

"Because they aren't entrenched already?"

Congress is entrenched. I was talking about the general public. Many gun owners want stronger regulations. This would entrench some of them even more. But as you said, you "I really don't care about the general public".

Is the emoticon a part of your argument. Maybe it should be directed at your yearning for sending armed zombies into neighborhoods.

[IdaBriggs]

57. Wow. Talk about taking something and going in a different direction with it!

That was pretty impressive!

Let us try this S*L*O*W*L*Y.

1) The general public is already in favor of common sense gun regulation, including but not limited to "background checks."

2) The general public's opinion is not relevant because the Congress Critters make the laws.

3) I want the laws changed. I do not have to worry about "changing the general public's mind" because they already agree with me.

4) I need to convince intransigent Congress Critters to change their minds.

5) I need to convince intransigent Congress Critters that the money they get to avoid this situation is Not Worth It because the issues is about THEM and THEIR SAFETY because GUN VIOLENCE can happen anywhere.

6) Only an idiot would think I wanted a shoot-out; as soon as it was even mentioned as a concern, I promptly addressed it with ideas such as "working with the police" (a common technique to keep protests safe), using "fake" guns (possibly including holding pictures of guns), and signage designed to remind the target audience - the Congress Critter and the people he is surrounded by (family/neighbors) - about the dangers of people with the "real" weapons.

NOTE: Obviously you aren't an idiot who thinks I want a shoot-out, right? "FAKE GUNS" and "SIGNS" usually don't mean "shoot-out at the OK Corral!"

7) The "EVIL" part of the plan is that the protests would be *TARGETED* and designed to "remind" the Congress Critters that Gun Violence Happens Where Guns Are Present; the more people who have guns, the more occasion for gun violence. The point may be too subtle for some, but I am confident people who personally know Gabby Gifford (for example) might "get it" when it is shoved in their faces in their neighborhoods.

[NCTraveler]

62. Sometimes we all have bad ideas.

Its ok. There is nothing wrong with admitting to one. The condescension on the other hand, that speaks to character. Good luck with the armed zombie neighborhood takeover.

[IdaBriggs]

65. We Evil Genius People sometimes get a little condescending.

Especially when dealing with fools who cannot appreciate our brilliance. (insert evil cackle, with "mwha-ha-ha" and hand motions)



I will let you know how it works out (if it happens). At the moment it is a germinating idea.

[Recursion]

44. People who are afraid of people armed in public are already for gun control

That seems to be the main problem.

[librechik]

46. we did that to Cheney and Rummy

no dice. They are impermeable psychopaths.

But I agree with everything you said. I think the guns should be obvious cardboard cutouts. Cops get jumpy about fake guns.

And remember it's the media you are trying to connect with, not the official.

[Jenoch]

47. This is an interesting thread.

"We want to make sure the drug gang doesn't have AK-47s; that crazy Uncle Bob doesn't have a gun to shoot anything that moves when he's drunk; that our sister's crazy ex-boyfriend who used to beat her up can't kill her and her children..."

There are already laws that make ownership of guns by these people against the law.

"100 Rounds in 10 Seconds - You Can't Run Fast Enough"  How often are full-auto guns used in crime? They cost many thousands of dollars each and are difficult to come by. I am not aware they are a problem in crime. 

[IdaBriggs]

48. "There are already laws that make ownership of guns by these people against the law."

Two problems: 1) Not really in some jurisdictions, and 2) no money to pay for enforcement (if I recall correctly from several threads on DU about enforcement problems).

With the "100 Rounds" stuff (can be perfected for the picky), I was thinking of Sandy Hook; I had read that several of the parents were dealing with the reality that some children were able to escape while the perpetrator was re-loading, and that smaller magazines might have saved some of their children.

This is a "rough draft" of the ideas, and would need to be researched/fleshed out correctly, if it were to ever happen.

[Jenoch]

49. It certainly is a 'rough draft'.

I am unaware of jurisdictions where it is legal for drug dealers and the mentally ill to have guns.

The "100 rounds in 10 seconds" describes a full-auto weapon. Protesting against them is hyperbole.

[IdaBriggs]

50. I am aware of three people with "mental issues" who have guns.

Two have CCW. All three take medications, and have been hospitalized for issues at various points in time. Their ownerships are completely valid in Michigan - they are "law abiding folk". With mental issues requiring medication. With CCW permits and guns.

Convicted felons are not *supposed* to own guns, but anyone else living in their home can own guns, and they are *supposed* to keep them safely away from the convicted felons.

A database that would compare the addresses of convicted felons still on parole with registered guns would easily spit out homes where the guns should not be, or where "safety inspections" might benefit humanity -- but we can't even get guns away from people who bluntly aren't supposed to have them based on just the "rejected" applications.

Change the sign to semi-auto. The point is still the same.

[Jenoch]

53. I don't know what 'mental issues' it is that

you mean. I do know that if someone has been hospitalized for mental health problems they are not supposed to own guns.

I the gun laws should be tightened up. I am in favor of universal background checks with strict provisions that it does not become a de facto gun registration database. Even the ACLU is against gun registration. I also think straw purchasers should be more vigorously prosecuted. I believe the problem with many of the gun control laws currently being presented it that they are not about gun control, they are about the appearance of gun control and the appearance of doing something, anything, to prevent violent acts such as what happened in Newtown, Aurora, and the sign company in Minneapolis. (By the way, the shooter in Minneapolis was mentally deranged and should have been committed for treatment. His parents tried to get him to get help.)

[IdaBriggs]

56. All three have been. All three have guns.

All three are on medication. I will not disclose the particulars, but I am aware of their issues, and have discussed it with at least one, who informed me (quote) "that was a long time ago".

ON EDIT: Reality and "should" do not seem to be in agreement with regards to guns in this country.

[CokeMachine]

64. So you believe that once a person has mental issues

he/she will never get it under control enough to participate in normal activities

"at least one, who informed me (quote) "that was a long time ago".

[IdaBriggs]

67. I believe that people who have been hospitalized due to mental issues

who are on medication to control it should not have access to guns without some form of supervision and accountability.

Yes, mental illness has a stigma. This is one of them. It sucks, but once a person has been hospitalized because they were/are a danger to either themselves or other people, and these symptoms can recur if they forget to take/decide not to use medication, shock of ages! I am one of those people who don't want them to have guns.

I believe this is a pretty mainstream point of view.

Guns being normal activities is definitely a fest.

[CokeMachine]

70. So let's get this straight.

You believe that once a person is stigmatized with mental illness, they should always carry that stigma? What if it was for depression when they were young but don't have it anymore. I knew plenty of teenagers that suffered short term depression that are fully functional now. Anyway it's your view not mine so to each their own. Have a great day.

[IdaBriggs]

72. I believe I am pretty clear on my stance.

Check both boxes:

Hospitalized as a danger to themselves and others.

and

On medication to control mental illness.

My opinion = No Guns. Oh, and I think people with alcohol issues shouldn't be allowed to have guns, either.

Have a great day, too.

[CokeMachine]

75. Thank You!!

[Jenoch]

66. If they have been

committed, voluntary or involuntary, for inpatient treatment for mental health issues, then it is against the law for them to possess guns. If they are simply taking medication for depression, then their 2nd Amendment rights remain.

[IdaBriggs]

68. Not according to them.

I *visited* them in the hospitals, and personally called the ambulance about the suicide attempt one of them had made (one of the CCW people). They all three have guns.

I do not believe your opinion is what the law actually says. They are "law abiding" people. They purchased the guns legally.

Reality, meet Gun Opinion.

[Jenoch]

77. Being treated in a hospital

after a suicide attempt will not necessarily make someone lose their legal right to own a gun. They must be committed to a mental health facility or be declared to be incompetent by a court. The suicide attempt might make them ineligible for a CCW, that depends on local laws.

I have been civil here. You are bordering on incivility.

[IdaBriggs]

83. My intent was not to be rude.

The experience leaves a sour taste. All three people have been hospitalized for mental health related issues. What a reasonable person thinks is a common sense law, for reasons unknown, is not. All three are on medication to "help" with their mental illness issues. I love and care about them; there is nothing I can do.

The situation is similar to one a family member is dealing with regarding the driving privileges of an elder member of the family who has dementia and seeing problems; despite physician documentation saying he shouldn't be driving, he was able to get a new/current license.

Sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing.

[Jenoch]

84. If you call the local police department,

you can speak with them about the situation. They work with the DMV in these situations. They will talk to the elderly family member and follow through with the DMV. I have a brother who is a cop and on more than one occasion had to take away an elderly person's driver's license. It is not an easy thing to do, it is even more difficult if a family member tries to take it away. It is taking a lot of independence away. If the elderly person asks why this is happening, the answer is the police observed their driving and became concerned for their safety.

I don't have any answers to help you with the family members who you believe should not own guns. Have they done anything to make you believe they are a danger to themselves or others? if so, you should speak to the county attorney and see if something can be done. Of course, if it gets back to them that you chose to intervene, well, that might be a scene nobody wishes to occur. (Which is still better than the worst case scenario.)

[ileus]

55. Sounds like a good reason to own an AR.

With several extra pmags.

[CokeMachine]

60. Since you are from MI maybe

you could start in Detroit. I saw a story that Detroit contains three of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. Cleanliness starts at home.

[IdaBriggs]

69. Detroit elects Democrats.

This needs to be aimed at the Republicans (who *don't* live in the dangerous neighborhoods, and thus don't care).

We have quite a few in the surrounding areas.

I am thinking.

[CokeMachine]

71. Good luck with your project.

I live in Sonoma Co. in CA so I guess I can pass. Take Care

[nomorenomore08]

74. Scratch the "fake weapons" part - too dangerous, to the protestors - but otherwise not a bad idea.

nt

[Scuba]

85. The naysayers and gun lovers are out in force Ida, but I kinda like your idea.

A little "in your face" might be a good thing.