Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: The NRA is dead to me.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300

    The NRA is dead to me.

    Who gets to decide what are serious mental problems? The questions seem endless and the abuses will very likely be many.


    http://news.yahoo.com/no-2-senate-re...-politics.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    254

    Push for stricter background checks

    Giffords & Kelly pushing for Gun Control Reform

    Even after being shot in the head, Gabby Giffords & her husband, Mark Kelly, according to the article are 2nd Amendment proponents. They are trying to get stricter background checks passed through to eliminate those with mental health issues for obtaining firearms.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Giffords & Kelly pushing for Gun Control Reform

    Even after being shot in the head, Gabby Giffords & her husband, Mark Kelly, according to the article are 2nd Amendment proponents. They are trying to get stricter background checks passed through to eliminate those with mental health issues for obtaining firearms.
    If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, well ya know how the saying goes.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Griz View Post
    Who gets to decide what are serious mental problems? The questions seem endless and the abuses will very likely be many.


    http://news.yahoo.com/no-2-senate-re...-politics.html
    +1

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    How about an indication of any good this would do. How about some stats on people who passed back ground checks, and committed crimes with the firearm they purchased that would have been stopped by this law?
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

    We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

    We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
    Man made laws with man made enforcement are horrible.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Only the law abiding abide the law.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

    We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
    So have any of these proactive laws brought us safety? Seems we could save billions by making being a criminal illegal, and all crime would stop. Ohhhh wait it is illegal to be criminal, and they still commit crime.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  11. #11
    Regular Member Da Rat Bastid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
    Stop it, you're turning me on. *giggles and blushes*

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

    We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
    I think this is a good point.

    Perhaps you could still bring up the ineffectiveness of the law in some cases as a counterpoint to someone arguing that the benefit (less crime) outweights the cost (less freedom), by showing that the benefit (less crime) is faux.
    Advocate freedom please

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I just think that we could do more to prevent folks with a history of mental illness or violence from obtaining a firearm legally.

  14. #14
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

    We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
    The law never prevents anything. It provides a system for when a person against the interests of another person (or society). I forget the Latin base, but there are laws which are in place for when a person is actually victimized (embezzlement, rape, murder, theft) or gains an unfair advantage (insider trading) vs. laws that exist just because (permit laws, zoning laws. The first group is important because it gives those victims a means to seek redress while giving the accused a means to defend their actions (or not). The later is more about what society wants and the standards it wants to impose on everyone participating in that society.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I just think that we could do more to prevent folks with a history of mental illness or violence from obtaining a firearm legally.
    Depends on who is making the determination and where the bar is set.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I just think that we could do more to prevent folks with a history of mental illness or violence from obtaining a firearm legally.
    Unless you plan on living with them, and watching them 24/7 we/you are not going to prevent a thing. Laws only affect the law abiding, and those capable of understanding the law.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I just think that we could do more to prevent folks with a history of mental illness or violence from obtaining a firearm legally.
    Who decides what a mental illness is?

    Who gets to decide that you have no rights once you've been released from jail/prison?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Who decides what a mental illness is?

    Who gets to decide that you have no rights once you've been released from jail/prison?
    That's exactly it. Psychology is, at best, a pseudo science, with many variables that can't be quantified, except through measuring the "norm" of other people. And that is always changing, too.

    The cures are drugs that may or may not screw up your brain chemistry even further, talking it out of your system with a complete stranger, or surgery for the seriously messed up.

    I enjoyed David Codreas comment. "Since when does throwing a scrap of flesh to a pack of circling jackals encourage them to do anything but close in for more? To expect otherwise is just crazy."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Who decides what is a mental illness is the slippery slope of the psychologization of dissent of which we have inherited a vest literature from the Soviets.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    Everybody's reacting to this as if this imposed some new limitation or newly-expanded definitions of mental illness. According to the article, that's not what Cornyn is proposing: "People who have been legally ruled 'mentally defective' or been committed to mental institutions are already barred from buying firearms. But states are not required to send those records to the FBI-run federal database, leaving it uneven." [emphasis added] It appears to me that Cornyn's bill is simply trying to improve the validity of the existing NICS system, using already-existing criteria, by increasing the amount of data provided to it. No expanded exclusions are being proposed, and no legal recourse is being taken away.

    Real-world example: Seung-hui Cho (the VA Tech shooter) was able to legally purchase his gun because they didn't have the records of his previous commitment in NICS.

    Add to this the fact that gun control proponents don't like the proposed bill, and I'd say this is actually an improvement over the status quo.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    Everybody's reacting to this as if this imposed some new limitation or newly-expanded definitions of mental illness. According to the article, that's not what Cornyn is proposing: "People who have been legally ruled 'mentally defective' or been committed to mental institutions are already barred from buying firearms. But states are not required to send those records to the FBI-run federal database, leaving it uneven." [emphasis added] It appears to me that Cornyn's bill is simply trying to improve the validity of the existing NICS system, using already-existing criteria, by increasing the amount of data provided to it. No expanded exclusions are being proposed, and no legal recourse is being taken away.

    Real-world example: Seung-hui Cho (the VA Tech shooter) was able to legally purchase his gun because they didn't have the records of his previous commitment in NICS.

    Add to this the fact that gun control proponents don't like the proposed bill, and I'd say this is actually an improvement over the status quo.
    Enforcing a law that was already on the books.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Enforcing a law that was already on the books.
    Providing funding for a law that is already on the books... is how I read it.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •