Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    10,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    AN excellent article on the history of this problem to 1984.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/sc...pagewanted=all

    Just not the GOP Tom.
    Might make sense if you'd said "Not JUST the GOP, Tom." It's true, overly optimistic people with humanitarian aims were part of the problem. How could they have not understood that one piece of their proposal ("It will save the taxpayers money.") would be snatched up and made both the sole goal and the means to it?

    Sometimes I think the last major public-health initiative that didn't get hopelessly corrupted and fucked up by politicians was universal smallpox inoculation.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:13 PM
    Posts
    6,276
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gramps View Post
    Your hatred has blinded you.
    Even if the president was McCain or Romney, he'd be the same.

    Not his guy so...

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:39 AM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    3,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by scott View Post
    Perhaps those mental hospitals and treatment centers were full of waste, abuse, and corruption.
    Perhaps, but the Pentagon is full of waste, too, but no one would ever think of eliminating that. It was never about getting good treatment for the mentally ill, it was about cutting taxes to benefit the wealthy, and let the jails handle the crazy people.
    I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:00 PM
    Posts
    8,113
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    Perhaps, but the Pentagon is full of waste, too, but no one would ever think of eliminating that. It was never about getting good treatment for the mentally ill, it was about cutting taxes to benefit the wealthy, and let the jails handle the crazy people.
    There's no talking to someone that won't listen. If you want to compare the relative effectiveness of our military (DoD fraud and waste warts and all) to the horrendous public mental health asylums you are either blinded by bias or very very stupid.

    I don't think you're stupid.
    "What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."

    link

    Time will tell.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:40 PM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    10,742
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    Do explain....
    OK. It's a lie. It's completely fake.

    It's a bullshit stroke-of-the-pen regulation conjured into existence by President Pen-and-Phone that never even went into effect. It does not, in any meaningful way, shape, form, or fashion prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns. All that it does is throw up more roadblocks for people who are completely sane but need some assistance due to circumstances beyond their control. May as well have declared that people in wheelchairs shouldn't have guns because they can't run and shoot at the same time.

    Jayzus, Tom! Even the freaking ACLU signed onto legislation getting rid of this abominable regulation, legislation which was actually crafted in the middle of last year, back when the evil Trump wasn't President and most people were convinced that he never would be.



    But please, go ahead and shout "EEEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLLLLL TRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUMMMMMMMPPPPP!!!!!" at the clouds because he signed legislation that passed both the House and the Senate and was championed by those right-wing kooks at the ACLU.


    Good grief.
    Now more than two weeks, and the Left still remain incapable of saying that Leftist violence is bad.

  6. Thanks Tom Servo thanked for this post
    Likes RobJohnson, scott, Newman liked this post
    Dislikes RobJohnson disliked this post
  7. #26
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:40 PM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    10,742
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    Perhaps, but the Pentagon is full of waste, too, but no one would ever think of eliminating that. It was never about getting good treatment for the mentally ill, it was about cutting taxes to benefit the wealthy, and let the jails handle the crazy people.
    I know for certain that scott and I both, at the very least, have said for many years now that there can be some pretty serious belt-tightening at the Pentagon without any risk to national security.

    And no, it wasn't about cutting taxes for rich people. That bullshit ThinkMoonbat shit won't cut it here in the real world. Sorry. Envy-based politics is not a winner.
    Now more than two weeks, and the Left still remain incapable of saying that Leftist violence is bad.

  8. Likes scott liked this post
  9. #27
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:19 PM
    Posts
    3,814
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    No. I'm not. I'm embarrassing you. You just don't know it. But you can't know it. You guys have lost your intellectual rigor. You were supposed to be the CU elite. Trump has made you insane; just another bunch of homers ignoring reality when required. Pathetic.

    Never mind. Go back to sleep.
    If it's not going to be enforced any better than laws we already have, why bother?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    Do explain, because…



    …I confess, I only read this as it was linked from another story on the Texas shooting. Do tell me how this is not contradictory to the narrative that mental illness is the problem, not guns.

    And keep in mind that I've long argued that mental illness is the reason we have so many mass shootings, but the lack of proper treatment is the singular fault of Republican cost-cutting that has shut down state run mental hospitals and treatment centers.
    That's a truism, and of course the trick is how to monitor mental health issues so as to prevent outbreaks of violence. I think there's a lot we could do, but it's not easy, and our record with slapdash, incompetent enforcement, to put it politely, is not encouraging.

    Most of the left, in my experience, has fiercely opposed efforts in that direction, believing it was just a feint, a distraction for the real and only real effective approach to "gun violence," which is to reduce the number of guns in private hands.

    They insist they don't want to "take away your guns," but in fact they do, of course, because that is the answer to "gun violence."

  10. #28
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:19 PM
    Posts
    3,814
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    If it's not going to be enforced any better than laws we already have, why bother?

    That's a truism, and of course the trick is how to monitor mental health issues so as to prevent outbreaks of violence. I think there's a lot we could do, but it's not easy, and our record with slapdash, incompetent enforcement, to put it politely, is not encouraging.

    Most of the left, in my experience, has fiercely opposed efforts in that direction, believing it was just a feint, a distraction for the real and only real effective approach to "gun violence," which is to reduce the number of guns in private hands.

    They insist they don't want to "take away your guns," but in fact they do, of course, because that is the answer to "gun violence."
    So I applaud this signed editorial (David Scharfenberg) in the Boston Globe, for its candor and logic.

    Hand over your weapons
    In the AFTERMATH of the Texas church shooting last week, Democratic lawmakers did what they always do: They skewered their Republican colleagues for offering only “thoughts and prayers,” and demanded swift action on gun control.

    “The time is now,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, “for Congress to shed its cowardly cover and do something.”

    Trouble is, it’s not clear the “something” Democrats typically demand would make a real dent in the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Congress can ban assault weapons, but they account for just a tiny sliver of the country’s 33,000 annual firearm deaths. And tighter background checks will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.
    Scharfenberg notes Democratic support for the infamous Australian buy-back program, noting what so many accounts do not, that is was mandatory.
    The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?
    He acknowledges that the 2nd Amendment may be an obstacle, and doesn't really resolve that issue:
    THE TROUBLE WITH all of this is that America is not Australia.

    As Howard himself has noted, Australia is a more intensely urban society than the United States, meaning there is a larger natural constituency for gun control Down Under — and a smaller rural opposition.

    The Australian gun lobby, moreover, is not as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association. And the Aussies don’t have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

    While the Second Amendment isn’t absolute — no less than conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that it’s “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”— it would undoubtedly serve as the basis for a robust legal challenge to any involuntary buyback program. And the courts would not be the only site of resistance.

    Gun culture runs especially deep in a country born of violent rebellion. And over the last couple of decades, firearms have become one of the most important fault lines in American culture. It is hard to overstate the devotion — or if you prefer, the fanaticism — of the 3 percent of the population that owns half the guns in circulation.

    Many of those hard-core gun owners see their weapons as a guard against government overreach. And sending government agents to claim them could end very, very badly. An NRA article on the specter of Australian-style confiscation coming to the United States is subtitled “There Will Be Blood.”
    He suggests starting small:
    Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the enterprise. An operation on par with the Australian buyback — claiming one-fifth of American guns — would mean tens of thousands of police officers collecting some 60 million guns. It is, on some level, simply unimaginable.

    But perhaps gun-control advocates can propose something smaller — something more targeted.
    His conclusion is unwavering, though:
    [E]ven if we find a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who have engaged in disturbing or violent behavior — no small task, given all the stories of the troubled shooters who slipped through the cracks — it will only get us so far.

    The United States’ astronomically high rates of firearm violence aren’t rooted in some unique American propensity for derangement and delinquency. Studies show our levels of mental illness and basic criminality are on par with other wealthy countries.

    Other common explanations, like the social fissures created by our racial diversity, have been debunked by researchers, too. The only explanation left — an explanation borne out by a number of careful studies — is the sheer size of the American arsenal. There are 310 million handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in American homes, garages, and waistbands.

    Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.
    At a minimum Scharfenberg has crafted a euphemism for confiscation, prying those guns from warm, living hands—"involuntary buyback program."

  11. #29
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach.
    That's the lazy way of government solving the problem of "deadly weapons on the street".
    “Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”
    - Martin Luther

  12. #30
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:39 AM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    3,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hundreds of thousands of people die every day all over the country due to an assortment of causes. And in every single case except one, we rise up and demand some type of government action to curb those deaths.

    People used to die all the time from foodborne illness, and fake drugs with miracle cure-all claims. Now we have an FDA that regulates those industries, and deaths from foods and drugs are almost unheard of.

    People used to die all the time from car accidents. Now we have speed limits, seat belts, airbags and crumple zones. People still die, but at a fraction of the number they did 50 years ago when you consider how many more cars are on the road.

    People used to die all the time from unsafe drinking water from unsanitary sources. Now we have some of the best water safety standards in the entire free world, and unless you live in Flint, you chances of dying from bad water are negligible even if you have to drill a well.

    In the early days of electricity, people used to routinely die because they accidentally touched the exposed wiring that was just tacked onto the walls of their homes. A short somewhere could not just burn down your house, but a whole row of houses. Today, we have stringent electrical codes; wiring is both insulated and hidden in the walls, and sockets are recessed for safety.

    Millions died from smog and pollution related deaths in the US due to factory, automotive and other forms of air pollution. The Clean Air Act and the EPA mitigated so much of that, that pretty much anyone who grew up in the 50's in an industrialized town would never ever want to go back to that nastiness in a million years.

    People used to die all the time in war, too. But we've replaced guys with guns with drones flown remotely. We've made the conscious decision to replace mass casualty with isolated incidents of death and people seem pretty happy to fight wars this way.

    The point is, every time we as humans are confronted with death, we do something about it and it almost always involves government action. Which, yes, is not often perfect, but it always makes a difference in saving lives.

    But not with guns. Guns are special. Every time a classroom or a work place is shot up, we don't mourn ("thoughts and prayers" my ass) we celebrate. We celebrate that we have the right to murder dozens at once.

    Yeah, we can't stop people from murdering other people, we are dumb animals after all. But after we've repeatedly proven we as a species are incapable of using these weapons responsibly, maybe it's time to reevaluate a) who gets to have them and b) how powerful those weapons need to be for any given occasion.

    For every million people in the US, 42 are murdered each year according to recent statistics. In the UK, that number is 11.6. You can't tell me that guns play no part in our murder rate being over 3x higher than the UK's. Hell, our per capita murder rate is higher than Syria's and they're in the middle of a bloody civil war.

    If you filter it out to just murders by gun, we are the 10th deadliest nation on earth, bested only by war torn, drug infested, unstable hell holes like Honduras, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Fucking Mexico has less gun violence per capita than we do, and they are also a drug infested, corrupt as hell shit hole.
    I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Posting Permissions

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