It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bobby Jindal supports strengthening gun laws, NY Times reports.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
NY Times

"CBS’s "Face the Nation,” Mr. Jindal called for states to adopt laws similar to Louisiana’s that feed information about mental illness into a federal background check system for potential gun buyers. "I think every state should strengthen their laws,” he said. "Every state should make sure this information is being reported in the background system. We need to make sure that background system is working. Absolutely, in this instance, this man never should have been able to buy a gun.”


This is only reporting the information asked about in question 11.f of a 4473 form:

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.) "

On one hand, it is a "call" for stronger gun laws, on the other hand all he really is doing is proposing to pass along mental illness and the mentally incompetents that already fall under the background check (form 4473) to the federal database, so it is not really expanding anything.

One wonders if this will gain or lose him votes.




posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: IanFleming

Seems to be a reasonable statement and I doubt Jindal will be affected much. He never had a chance to begin with.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: IanFleming

Well there goes his job. You don't talk that crap in Louisiana. Its the Sportsman's Paradise. What the hell is he thinking?


edit on 27-7-2015 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Jindal might be on some kind of Federal "Watch" list.

They are always "Watching".




posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IanFleming

Seems to be a reasonable statement and I doubt Jindal will be affected much. He never had a chance to begin with.


Sure, but, since he is governor in the state wherein this latest event happened, he probably did feel he had to say something.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: IanFleming

Well there goes his job. You don't talk that crap in Louisiana. Its the Sportsman's Paradise. What the hell is he thinking?



That was my thought--it seems he may have shot himself in the foot where his constituency is concerned. Those Cajuns don't cotton to such shenanigans.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Jindal might be on some kind of Federal "Watch" list.

They are always "Watching".



We all are.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
A lot of states do not send information about individuals who have been declared mentally defective to the proper database. We're talking about people who have basically been declared insane by a judge due to legal problems. It has nothing to do with visiting a mental health doctor and talking about your problems or getting medication.

The article title is misleading, as usual. Jindal is urging states to do what they're supposed to do anyway... he's not saying that anything should be "strengthened."

The background check performed when a person buys a gun is only effective if there's information to be discovered.
edit on 7/27/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

A lot of states do not send information about individuals who have been declared mentally defective to the proper database. We're talking about people who have basically been declared insane by a judge due to legal problems. It has nothing to do with visiting a mental health doctor and talking about your problems or getting medication.

The article title is misleading, as usual. Jindal is urging states to do what they're supposed to do anyway... he's not saying that anything should be "strengthened."

The background check performed when a person buys a gun is only effective if there's information to be discovered.



I agree with your analysis, which is why I made sure to put the phrase "NY Times Reports" in the thread title. It seems that they tried to make more of his comment than what was there--sewing dissension in the GOP ranks perhaps? I know I would have to carefully consider voting for someone who supported even more gun control.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I probably wouldn't have considered voting for Jindal anyway, but now he is completely off my radar. I don't compromise on gun rights. Maybe he should read the 2nd again '...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.

I don't believe that the rights of my fellow Americans should be limited. I also don't think non-violent felons should be kept from owning guns once they have served their time. If you give governments an inch they will take a mile.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: IanFleming

As long as he doesn't allow the media to stretch that statement into something it isn't, I don't think it'll hurt him. He may well have wished he'd phrased it differently, but he seems to only be stating the obvious, that we should be doing all we can to ensure that the current laws on the books regarding firearms and mental illness are actually enforced.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus



I don't compromise on gun rights. Maybe he should read the 2nd again '...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.

It wouldn't hurt for you to read it again. Here is the whole amendment not just the part you chose to say.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Besides the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have the right to impose gun laws. So states enacting laws to keep guns out of the hands of nutcases doesn't violate the second.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IanFleming

Seems to be a reasonable statement and I doubt Jindal will be affected much. He never had a chance to begin with.


Sure, but, since he is governor in the state wherein this latest event happened, he probably did feel he had to say something.


Of course he had to say something. I don't feel like it will have much of an effect.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
What constitutes mentally ill?

Just a simple diagnosis?
A second opinion?

It will soon get to a point that every American will be deemed mentally unwell by some standard or other and then we will see about "shall not be infringed"...
How many children are now diagnosed as unwell and mentally unstable compared to 10 years ago...

Get em while they're young never seemed so pertinent.

I hate the slippery slope fallacy...
But I also know this is a genuine slippery slope.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Single issue-type of voter, huh?

Anyway, those that take a stance similar to yours are more of a threat to our 2nd amendment right than anyone else.
edit on 27-7-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer


We're talking about people who have basically been declared insane by a judge due to legal problems. It has nothing to do with visiting a mental health doctor and talking about your problems or getting medication.


Surely a judge can't do that without the input of mental health professionals though?

If they can, that's something I would challenge in the SC, personally.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Answer


We're talking about people who have basically been declared insane by a judge due to legal problems. It has nothing to do with visiting a mental health doctor and talking about your problems or getting medication.


Surely a judge can't do that without the input of mental health professionals though?

If they can, that's something I would challenge in the SC, personally.


They depend on evaluations from mental health professionals, of course.

My point was that if a person goes to a shrink to talk about their depression and gets medication, they won't end up on this list. The list is for people who've been committed to a mental institution and/or been declared a danger to themselves or others.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Ok thanks, Answer.

Makes sense.







 
2

log in

join