Gary Johnson on guns

[jimnyc]

Everyone jumped all over Trump for wanting to look into gun control in relation to no fly lists. But silent on Gary Johnson on regulating guns for the mentally ill. I wonder how they find out these folks may have a mental issue? Surprised folks aren't all over this, considering the libertarian support, and conversations in the past about guns and mental illnesses and such. Good for one is not good for the other. :)

[hjmick]

Without due process, I don't believe anyone should be stripped a single constitutional right. I confess to not having looked at Johnson's proposal concerning the mentally ill and gun ownership, but I can't imagine it would involve arbitrary actions without some sort of hearing.



Vote Gary! Put a Johnson in the White House!

[jimnyc]

Without due process, I don't believe anyone should be stripped a single constitutional right. I confess to not having looked at Johnson's proposal concerning the mentally ill and gun ownership, but I can't imagine it would involve arbitrary actions without some sort of hearing.



Vote Gary! Put a Johnson in the White House!

I agree with the due process. I am 100% behind stopping terrorists, even if that brings along the no fly list. My only concern is the due process. So I think it's the list and how they allow folks to get off that needs fixing - NOT the idea of limiting their purchases if the list is valid. Same with Johnson, he would like to limit guns to the mentally ill. And the same as the NRA with the lists - so long as there is due process.

But no offense to you whatsoever, so please don't take it that way - but folks jump on a few about a similar stance with Trump, albeit his concern is the no fly list instead of the mentally ill. And not a peep about Johnson, and his stance has been out there for quite some time.

Btw, the mentally ill list would be MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than a no fly list and terror list combined!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Everyone jumped all over Trump for wanting to look into gun control in relation to no fly lists. But silent on Gary Johnson on regulating guns for the mentally ill. I wonder how they find out these folks may have a mental issue? Surprised folks aren't all over this, considering the libertarian support, and conversations in the past about guns and mental illnesses and such. Good for one is not good for the other. :)

Jim, you are not supposed to notice such things...
Trump bad, trump bad trump bad trump bad trump bad...
And keep repeating over and over and over and over and over, like a religious chant......:rolleyes:

What gets me is when compared to the Hitlery Trump should be golden for anybody on the right side of politics but he is not...

Its a two horse race but some seem to pray for the greater evil to win, I find that odd myself....
Never, never, never aid the greater evil...... Its just that damn simple and crying over spilled milk by breaking the cereal bowl
is illogical and a bit foolhardy IMHO...
ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LAPPING MAD DOGS(DEMS) ARE JUST WAITING TO LAP UP THE MILK.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Jim, you are not supposed to notice such things...
Trump bad, trump bad trump bad trump bad trump bad...
And keep repeating over and over and over and over and over, like a religious chant......:rolleyes:

What gets me is when compared to the Hitlery Trump should be golden for anybody on the right side of politics but he is not...

Its a two horse race but some seem to pray for the greater evil to win, I find that odd myself....
Never, never, never aid the greater evil...... Its just that damn simple and crying over spilled milk by breaking the cereal bowl
is illogical and a bit foolhardy IMHO...
ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LAPPING MAD DOGS(DEMS) ARE JUST WAITING TO LAP UP THE MILK.-Tyr

Hillary wants to destroy the 2nd and get rid of guns, but all that matters is Trump wanting to talk to the NRA about preventing terrorists/no fly list from attaining them. And when they're done jumping on Trump and prevent him from getting into office - those folks still won't get guns, and potentially millions and millions more. :(

[jimnyc]

There's tons out there on Johnson and this subject, but here's a recent one labeling him as a waffler. And as we all know by now, these candidates are not allowed to change their stances!!

-----

Gary Johnson Waffles On 2nd Amendment Rights – Open To Debate On Gun Control

Watch Gary Johnson in a recent interview with Stuart Varney explaining how he is open to a discussion on the appropriate level of gun control. Apparently open to limiting access to the right of self defense of whatever the government deems as mentally ill, the question came in the context of a no-fly, no-buy list. This policy of course would make it possible for government to put American citizens on a list that prevents them from purchasing a firearm with no due process.

Having begged the Libertarian Party delegates to nominate long time gun grabber Bill Weld as his Vice Presidential running mate he is already completely untrustworthy on the issue of 2nd Amendment and self defense rights.

Also notice him making a distinction between himself and libertarians. It’s worth noting because this is not the first time he has made this distinction in an interview.

Varney is clearly throwing him softballs hoping he will just say he defends gun owners. Gary can’t do it, refusing to even admit that libertarian philosophy defends gun rights.

http://www.latlp.com/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-waffles-on-2nd-amendment-rights-open-to-debate-on-gun-control/

[Kathianne]

I agree with the due process. I am 100% behind stopping terrorists, even if that brings along the no fly list. My only concern is the due process. So I think it's the list and how they allow folks to get off that needs fixing - NOT the idea of limiting their purchases if the list is valid. Same with Johnson, he would like to limit guns to the mentally ill. And the same as the NRA with the lists - so long as there is due process.

But no offense to you whatsoever, so please don't take it that way - but folks jump on a few about a similar stance with Trump, albeit his concern is the no fly list instead of the mentally ill. And not a peep about Johnson, and his stance has been out there for quite some time.

Btw, the mentally ill list would be MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than a no fly list and terror list combined!!

No larger, likely smaller, than the list of felons. Then again, felons likely by nature really don't give a fig. My guess with the mentally ill is there would have to be some sort of hearing if Drs. were reporting certain types of mentally ill patients they thought might be dangerous if they had firearms and the patient wanted a permit? In which case due process wouldn't be called into question.

The problem with the 'no fly list' is there not only isn't due process in being added to such lists, there is no way of knowing you are on such a list-until you try to fly. Many folks are likely on it, but don't know it.

Now if you are on it? There's no set way of appealing that-again, 'guilty just because the government has someone that said so, at some time, based on something.'

It's my understanding that people can end up on that list for something like someone reporting outrageous statements on the internet. Obviously if it were a direct threat, one would likely see law enforcement. But someone that just wants to screw with someone or perhaps is concerned, might say 'take a look at the rage and demeanor of this person and this or that site, they say they have guns and know how to use them.'

[jimnyc]

Point I'm making - He's for limiting guns for a section of folks that perhaps may be dangerous to us. Trump was looking into limiting guns for folks on the no fly list. "I" think both are acceptable, if they implement better due process, allowing mistakes and such to be corrected. But, although Johnson's stance has been around for years - only Trump gets bashed.

Fix the list and process perhaps - but what Trump stated is hardly a sin. The problem is THE list perhaps, and lack of due process. But folks set their attention on Trump, not anything to do with the process. And although you disagree, my stance is 100% aligned with the NRA. And so long as Trump tries as well to ensure "due process" along with any implementation to stop those on the no fly list, he too would be 100% in alignment with the NRA.

[Kathianne]

Point I'm making - He's for limiting guns for a section of folks that perhaps may be dangerous to us. Trump was looking into limiting guns for folks on the no fly list. "I" think both are acceptable, if they implement better due process, allowing mistakes and such to be corrected. But, although Johnson's stance has been around for years - only Trump gets bashed.

Fix the list and process perhaps - but what Trump stated is hardly a sin. The problem is THE list perhaps, and lack of due process. But folks set their attention on Trump, not anything to do with the process. And although you disagree, my stance is 100% aligned with the NRA. And so long as Trump tries as well to ensure "due process" along with any implementation to stop those on the no fly list, he too would be 100% in alignment with the NRA.

I just commented on another post why Trump was brought up on thread about 'no fly list.' Can't have 'better due process' when there isn't any. There is no list regarding the mentally ill, though looking at the kid that shot up the school or the one that shot up the CO theater, we probably are in agreement that they shouldn't have guns? How to do that though? Personally without a hearing, no way. Lots of folks are treated for 'mental illnesses' but are not a threat to anyone. Indeed, shooting might be a form of therapy. I really think it would have to involve a person being treated that wanted a gun, the doctor treating, and some sort of legal proceeding. I don't think Johnson is looking for anyone going to a psychiatrist or being treated with meds associated with mentall illness should automatically lose their 2nd amendment rights.

[jimnyc]

I just commented on another post why Trump was brought up on thread about 'no fly list.' Can't have 'better due process' when there isn't any. There is no list regarding the mentally ill, though looking at the kid that shot up the school or the one that shot up the CO theater, we probably are in agreement that they shouldn't have guns? How to do that though? Personally without a hearing, no way. Lots of folks are treated for 'mental illnesses' but are not a threat to anyone. Indeed, shooting might be a form of therapy. I really think it would have to involve a person being treated that wanted a gun, the doctor treating, and some sort of legal proceeding. I don't think Johnson is looking for anyone going to a psychiatrist or being treated with meds associated with mentall illness should automatically lose their 2nd amendment rights.

And why can't a mechanism be implemented to give due process? Sounds like THAT is the problem, and not Trump, or the NRA who thinks the same. It's the mechanism that needs fixing, not Trump for wanting to implement an idea to limit any guns to potential terrorists. Fix the list, give due process.

Limiting "groups" was the issue, and only one person bashed though. ANY of them CAN be successful if implemented properly and mostly assured that only the folks targeted get stopped.

[Kathianne]

And why can't a mechanism be implemented to give due process? Sounds like THAT is the problem, and not Trump, or the NRA who thinks the same. It's the mechanism that needs fixing, not Trump for wanting to implement an idea to limit any guns to potential terrorists. Fix the list, give due process.

Limiting "groups" was the issue, and only one person bashed though. ANY of them CAN be successful if implemented properly and mostly assured that only the folks targeted get stopped.

Actually if there were a list of 'known terrorists' that was actually based upon something, provable in court, I'm all for using that list. Same with 'dangerously mentally ill.' ;) It's not just Trump that was found wrong, take a look at the OP, nothing about Trump.

[gabosaurus]

Forget Gary Johnson. Let's look back on what a great Republican icon thought about the subject.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e1/44/e0/e144e0bb0fa16746d6b90e9664e1cb25.jpg

http://quotespictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/there-is-no-reason-why-on-the-street-today-a-citizen-should-be-carrying-loaded-weapons-ridiculous-way-to-solve-problems-that-have-to-be-solved-among-people-good-will.jpg

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-this-is-a-matter-of-vital-importance-to-the-public-safety-while-we-recognize-that-assault-ronald-reagan-57-76-61.jpg

[Gunny]

Everyone jumped all over Trump for wanting to look into gun control in relation to no fly lists. But silent on Gary Johnson on regulating guns for the mentally ill. I wonder how they find out these folks may have a mental issue? Surprised folks aren't all over this, considering the libertarian support, and conversations in the past about guns and mental illnesses and such. Good for one is not good for the other. :)

I live in NM. This place got lost on Route 66 in the 60s and hasn't come out. I wouldn't vote for anyone from this place for less than $5M, in cash. These people are fruit loops. The ones that call themselves conservative here will tel you so as they wait in line to cash their welfare check. They damned sure don't know how to dress. I mean, when dud striped bell bottoms and beaded vests go out? 1974? Who the Hell wears a vest anyway?

I can't believe this place is next door to Texas. It's like the difference between living on Earth and the Moon. What happens to your brain when you cross the state line?

I wouldn't vote for Johnson if he was running unopposed.

[fj1200]

Everyone jumped all over Trump for wanting to look into gun control in relation to no fly lists. But silent on Gary Johnson on regulating guns for the mentally ill. I wonder how they find out these folks may have a mental issue? Surprised folks aren't all over this, considering the libertarian support, and conversations in the past about guns and mental illnesses and such. Good for one is not good for the other. :)

Where was this?

[jimnyc]

Where was this?

Ignore the subject?

So innocent until proven guilty is no longer a good thing? Pirro and Lynch & Johnson; interesting bedfellows.

[fj1200]

Ignore the subject?

So innocent until proven guilty is no longer a good thing? Pirro and Lynch & Johnson; interesting bedfellows.

I haven't ignored anything. And it seems you've mischaracterized Johnson.


“Gov. Johnson believes Second Amendment rights are too fundamental to be denied without due process, and being put on a list arbitrarily by the government is certainly not due process,” Johnson campaign communications director Joe Hunter told The Daily Caller in a statement Wednesday.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/15/gary-johnson-comes-out-against-no-fly-no-gun-proposal/#ixzz4D5Kjqe8W

[jimnyc]

I haven't ignored anything. And it seems you've mischaracterized Johnson.

Nope. I said he was for regulating guns against the mentally ill. He's all for the government deciding which person it deems unfit to own a gun.


Johnson has stated he is open for debate on the subject of gun control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control) and is open to a discussion on preventing those the government deems mentally ill from possessing weapons.

Listening to him in the debate, I don't hear a whole lot about due process.

[fj1200]

Nope. I said he was for regulating guns against the mentally ill. He's all for the government deciding which person it deems unfit to own a gun.

Listening to him in the debate, I don't hear a whole lot about due process.

You equated him to Pirro and Lynch, he differs. This also appears to differ from your statement:


...
But the 2016 Libertarian race occurred in the shadow of shootings in Newtown, Conn., Charleston, S.C., and other shootings that led to questions about how mentally disturbed people (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/amid-gun-violence-walking-a-fine-line-on-mental-health-reform/452304/) got their hands on powerful weapons. In interviews, Johnson said that, ideally, mentally ill people who intended to cause harm to themselves or others should not obtain guns. And in a Fox Business-hosted debate, Johnson’s rival Austin Petersen suggested he was building a slippery slope by suggesting there was any circumstance where people could be denied Second Amendment Rights.
“I find it difficult to be able to come up with a piece of legislation that would address that,” Johnson admitted of the mental health issue.
...
On May 29, when Johnson and Weld secured their nominations, they had effectively pledged not to deviate from the Libertarian Party’s platform on gun rights. Approved that weekend, it read: “We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.”
...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/12/gary-johnson-orlando-mass-shooting-is-no-reason-to-politicize-or-jump-to-conclusions/

Unless you have a more relevant quote.

I admit I'm not up on all the due process requirements of declaring someone mentally ill.