- Jan 31, 2018
- 25
OP sounds a lot like Hunterjjd......the one that started the thread “we need more gun control”. Awful similar ideas about 2A rights. Just thinking...
I'm just thinking your tin foil hat's on too tight.
OP sounds a lot like Hunterjjd......the one that started the thread “we need more gun control”. Awful similar ideas about 2A rights. Just thinking...
If I was on Bloomberg's payroll, I wouldn't be hanging out on a forum with you losers.
...
As far as the deputies, I'm personally leaning that the Sheriff played a role in that one and not the deputies themselves. Unless I'm got the wrong facts, the were 4 Deputies that didn't go in. That an neighboring PD, enter the school facilities and cleared it. I was told that the sheriff's department prevented the Ambulance Team from responding as well. Then this morning there was a email that told the deputies in short to "don't say anything".
Imagine believing in some mythical figure who created the universe with His command and then had His own son put to death.
Crazy.
https://www.mrc.org/conservatives-fight-back/show/view
Excuse me for being frank, but you can "F" right off with that nonsense!! There are way too many variables at play. First.....Trusting a potentially anti-2A medical "professional" with giving an honest evaluation. Second....who picks up the cost for said evaluation. Third....is there an appeals process available....then we should probably talk about how to address it. You can hate me for saying it, but a lot of us like it when "mental illness" is brought up as a defense against anti-gun attitudes and legislation, but if we keep using it as some weak deflection to avoid talking about the issue, people are eventually gonna cry foul.
I deal with mental illness myself (social anxiety). I also bought 5 guns in the last 2 months a.) because I'm not a danger to myself or anyone else and b.) the 4473 is horribly lax on checking for this variable. That's what I'd like to address.
Determining whether or not someone has been adjudicated mentally defective is not enough. A judge is not a mental health professional. A defense lawyer trying to save a client by pleading insanity is not qualified to make that call. If we're going to keep claiming that the perpetrators of mass shootings are mentally ill, we have to look at the problem logically, and address it practically.
What I propose may already count, to most of you, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Then again, I think destructive device classification and tax stamps on suppressors fit that mold too but they're minor annoyances rather than total authoritarian crack downs.
I propose that mental health screenings be required and attached to 4473's. That means you and I would have to get one (with some kind of lengthy renewal period) and background checks would need to be adjusted to look for them. If none was found, the firearm will just be held by the FFL until you can get one.
Of course, one of the major problems with this is determining what's "too crazy" to own a gun. I'm curious to know what ya'll think of this, because I've proposed it to some anti-gunners and they seem okay with the idea, but then again, they would be. I'm also curious to know if there are any other solutions you may have thought of, or if you think mental health is worth addressing in this context at all.
...
The laws that are written already need to be followed and enforced. Those who don't report mental illness cases to the NICS database should be held accountable just as dealers are held accountable, who knowingly sell to straw purchasers. The laws are already there.....
...
Maryland still refuses to enter mental health information into the NICS database. Other states do also. The existing background check system might work a little better if antis weren't undermining it.
Exactly!!!You mean the same people that are screaming for it? Just like they screamed for DACA relief and when Trump said yes they all screamed “NO”.
All it takes is one neighbor, or co-worker, or relative, or acquaintance. And it may not happen today, or next week, or even next month... but it would always be there, hanging over your head.
Testify against a gun bill in Annapolis? Some Mom Who Can't Get Any Action drops a dime on you.
Maryland still refuses to enter mental health information into the NICS database. Other states do also. The existing background check system might work a little better if antis weren't undermining it.
All it takes is one neighbor, or co-worker, or relative, or acquaintance. And it may not happen today, or next week, or even next month... but it would always be there, hanging over your head.
Testify against a gun bill in Annapolis? Some Mom Who Can't Get Any Action drops a dime on you.
Starting in the 1970s, advocates for closing mental hospitals argued that because of the availability of new psychotropic drugs, people with mental illness could live among the rest of the population in an unrestrained natural setting.
According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal article by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center, titled “Fifty Years of Failing America’s Mentally Ill,” shutting down mental hospitals didn’t turn out the way advocates promised.
Several studies summarized by the Treatment Advocacy Center show that untreated mentally ill are responsible for 10 percent of homicides (and a higher percentage of the mass killings). They are 20 percent of jail and prison inmates and more than 30 percent of the homeless.
True progress/actual measurable results are unwelcome.Has that ever even been "discussed" by the MGA when considering their additional infringements?
Why do they resist?
Because it might actually accomplish something, which is the last thing they want?
I'm just thinking your tin foil hat's on too tight.