This "forgoing Due Process" is a Trojan horse for selective confiscation

I've heard of psych exams of people who have been reported for simply being "withdrawn", and not showing as much interaction between some people as they used to. Talk about flimsy reasoning for an evaluation - maybe they had reason to stop talking to that person(s) to which the other party wasn't aware.

As for the psych exam the question "have you had thoughts about hurting someone" or "Have you ever thought about hurting someone". I think there are a great number of people who have been in situations where they have thought about hurting someone, like parents and smart-ass teenagers (and the opposite), or an abusive spouse/significant other/BF/GF, but they are usually fleeting moments of anger not a detailed plan on how to enact violence upon somone. They use extremely broad questions where if you answer NO, they think you are hiding something and they can justify holding you or further action. If you answer yes, then you admit that you may be a danger to someone. Never is the question asked "was the person you thought about hurting someone who was hurting or abusing you?" or "have you recently made any plans on hurting anyone". From what I have heard from people who have gone through this, the above is how they operate but i'd suspect that it differs between jurisdiction.

So if the plan is to take guns away (because they may be a threat to "someone") and then give them their due process what's to stop the person who is actually planning to do harm from accusing someone so that they are then defenseless? There are so many errors in the logic of the president that I don't even know where to begin and it really makes me think about the dementia claim that was going on about a year ago. Actually a lot of what he says makes me think that.

I forget his exact statement when he said that "his opinion was the only one that mattered" or something to that effect, I think that is the same type of thinking we are seeing here. He also seemed like he was very dismissive of any of the republican's concerns or comments..

I also can't stand when he says "no one is a bigger supporter of the NRA than me/I am" or "no one is a bigger guns rights supporter than me", it makes me want to puke. I'd like to know how many times he goes shooting every year, how long he has been an NRA member, how much money he has given to the NRA, you know, the little things that gun people and NRA supporters do.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

As for the psych exam the question "have you had thoughts about hurting someone" or "Have you ever thought about hurting someone"

The test evaluators don't care , they want everyone labeled psychotic, in need of treatment, medication, whatever.

Its the 'blemish' on your record that keeps you from getting a higher wage or promotion.

Ahh, I see in your psych evaluation you want to hurt people before.... tsk, tsk.

"Time to go row with the other slaves." --Jack, from Titanic

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The knee-jerk of the public in response to this recent shooting just goes to show how oblivious and ignorant the masses are. And now Trump has opened up pandora's box with what he is proposing here... I'm appalled at what we are witnessing

As a licensed concealed carrier/NRA member... I see it as it's a good thing to get guns outta the hands of nutcases. Due process or not..

The problem lies in who decides who is mentally unfit and who isn't. It's all about who's running the asylum...in other words.. by what criteria?

It walks a fine line... With ever changing criteria. I'll just add if you can fight and die in the military at 18...I can maybe agree with purchasing rights at that age.

Actually? I don't agree.. So raise military min. age to 21...and neither way gets the issue resolved.

And if we go the route of confiscation.. it doesnt prevent an unstable 12 year old from getting hands on a gun. And the bad guys themselves will always be able to get them...

The whole issue is whacked...

There's got to be some criteria spelled out ahead of time.

Are threats made on social media?
Have threats been expressed to multiple witnesses?
Have plans or lists been made?

In current Florida case - it's a yes for many those items, yet authorities did nothing.

The list I made above constitutes multiple felonies under existing law dealing with conspiracy to commit crimes.

The authorities had what they needed to act.

The climate now is seemingly encouraging mass law enforcement violations of Constitutional rights rather than use of due process.

In Florida case I don't think it would have taken much to get a search warrant BEFORE the crime.

This "forgoing Due Process" is a Trojan horse for selective confiscation

All Gun Control is forgoing Due Process.

Our entire judicial systems says if someone commits a crime take them to a court of law and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

Gun control completely obliterates that concept declaring us all answerable to the crime we've had no part in.

That trampling didn't begin yesterday.

People need to understand that.

It began with FDR's 1934 National Arms Act and has continued to this day.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof...the psych exam the question "have you had thoughts about hurting someone" or "Have you ever thought about hurting someone". ...

the thing that always strikes me as ironic about those exams and questions like that is, a sane person will lie and say no, if someone says yes, they may be normal but their decision to be honest is abnormal.

lieing to portray a better image of yourself then is true is a very sane thing to do.
only a complete psychopath wouldnt lie on a psych exam.

then also, how could we know they didnt lie even if they said yes?

I took my daughter to the doctor, she had a sinus infection, and before they asked anything about how she was feeling or what was wrong, the pediatricians first question was ,"are there any guns in the house?" I was so taken aback I did not even think to ask why this was their primary concern when a sick child comes into the office. It seems this has moved beyond mental health professionals. I still do not understand why they were concerned with that at all.