Does this make me a Liberal?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 



but I don't disagree with instituting background checks for gun purchases

Of course, they are neccasary, which is why we have had them for a long while now.

The question is not about background checks, but exactly how the background checks that go digging into your medical info will work and how strict the guidelines will be for them. What is acceptable and what will get you denied for a purchase?

I think what most people see what might happen in the future is them or someone getting denied for inane things that don't affect your mental condition.




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


It is. That is what I'm getting at. We already have a system in place to deny convicted felons firearms. If a mentally ill person decides to commit a felony then he cannot own a gun; but if he hasn't done anything, it certainly isn't fair to deny him the firearm because he may commit a crime in the future.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Poor logic. Mentally ill people are perfectly capable of following the law. There are many functioning sociopaths and other dangerous mental illness inflicted people functioning just fine in society. It isn't until they circumvent the law that their right to own a gun is taken away. If the mental illness was the cause of them committing the crime then so be it, but at the end of the day they still committed a crime. They've demonstrated that they aren't mentally capable of conquering their illness and refrain from disobeying the rule of law.

This is really the ONLY way that we should go about this, just denying mentally ill people guns is punishing a whole group of people for the sins of a few. Not to mention, who decides which mental illnesses are safe for firearm ownership and which ones aren't?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


if you have to ask....



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
All of this debate does nothing except point out that we have a very limited understanding of "mental health," and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the near future. You can have people take all the MMPIs in the world, but it will only tell you how they're doing at the moment they take the test. They walk outside, and they can go nuts.

Warning signs? There are not enough mental health professionals in the world to spot and predict when somebody might go over the edge. And that still doesn't guarantee they will.

So it also illustrates the difficulty in trying to prevent crime before it happens. As unfortunate as it is, the best way to prosecute crime is to wait until someone actually breaks the law, then you respond. Sure, you do your best to try and stop crazy people from shooting up classrooms, but even taking all the guns and knifes and sharp objects out of everyone's hands in the whole country isn't going to stop them if they're motivated. Timothy McVeigh killed dozens with a few barrels of fertilizer, oil and magnesium.

What a mess.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

phantomjack
Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks

I dont know guys...I am a staunch conservative and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment...but I don't disagree with instituting background checks for gun purchases to prevent the mentally unstable from getting a gun.

The problem I do have is the way the President goes about it. Executive order!




The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.


LINK

So what say you, ATS? Should a process be put in place to ensure that crazies are kept away from guns?

And then, what exactly would be the definition of "Crazy?"

I think THAT is the biggest question -- the definition of mental illness...don't you?

What makes you sure you won't be classified as mentally unstable?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


It's seems to me that Obama's irrational reasoning behind this proposed Leglislation is to give himself and his Administration the POWER Under LAW to Determine who Is , and who is Not Considered to be Mentally Unstable to Posess a Firearm . That kind of Power of Definition would Boarder on Tyranny if you just Think about it .Veterans and your Adverage Sane Licensed Gun Owner more than likely would be his Main Targets here in that regard . Meanwhile , Criminals would get an Exemption from that kind of Law for Obvious reasons......
edit on 3-1-2014 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
According to sources, here' one as such by the MSM: Antidepressant use soars, study says: Is depression overdiagnosed?. How would you define who should be on the no purchase list when there's issues as described? Where does the line for it begin and end?

Who cares if it makes you Liberal for such a concern, it shouldn't be about that. Seems like it would be more restricting of rights than actually doing something to prevent tradgedies. Because the system is already falling apart even more.

Adama Lanza's psychiatrist surrendered license due to misconduct. Colorado Theater Shooter was ignored in his quest for help. It's the ones falling through the cracks, ignored, possibly abused, left to only take medication, that's where there needs to be an overhaul to the whole psychiatric system.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by phantomjack
 


It's seems to me that Obama's irrational reasoning behind this proposed Leglislation is to give himself and his Administration the POWER Under LAW to Determine who Is , and who is Not Considered to be Mentally Unstable to Posess a Firearm . That kind of Power of Definition would Boarder on Tyranny if you just Think about it .Veterans and your Adverage Sane Licensed Gun Owner more than likely would be his Main Targets here in that regard . Meanwhile , Crimals would get an Exemption from that kind of Law for Obvious reasons......


Exactly!! Plus Obama has a track record of abusing government agencies. Remember how he used the IRS to target the Tea party folks. Enough said!



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Its not poor logic, it just doesn't fit yours so it appears that way. I was more just pointing out that the felon method is not "tried and true" there is flaws, there is people who have had their rights to bear arms taken for unjust reasons. Now I'm not saying lets have the guy that commited 3 armed robberies have his own personal arsenal, but the guy that put a 2014 registration sticker on his car that isn't registered for 2014 yet, in CA that is a felony, does not



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Its not poor logic, it just doesn't fit yours so it appears that way. I was more just pointing out that the felon method is not "tried and true" there is flaws, there is people who have had their rights to bear arms taken for unjust reasons. Now I'm not saying lets have the guy that commited 3 armed robberies have his own personal arsenal, but the guy that put a 2014 registration sticker on his car that isn't registered for 2014 yet, in CA that is a felony, does not


If that is a felony in CA, you need to get out of your state. Here in Maryland, it's just a misdemeanor and most cops don't even pull you over for it and if they do give you a work order to get it updated and at the VERY worst a fine. No jail time (which felonies require) or anything on your record, heck you don't even get points on your licence for it. I sure hope you just picked a bad example of a felony, because if not you just gave me one more reason to never go to California.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


I'm not really sure that anyone could be politically defined by this issue alone. It's a lot like the abortion issue, in that both sides of the argument make some very valid points, which makes one realize than quite often there is no "fix-all" answer to the problem.

While I totally agree that we should make every effort to insure that people who are mentally unstable don't have easy access to guns, I too fear that "definition creep," (as some here have called it) could end up allowing the statute to be over-utilized.

On top of that, someone who is mentally stable today, may not be tomorrow. I'm not a psychologist nor have I had any training whatsoever in understanding human behavior but it's my belief that most people who are "mentally unstable," were not born that way. So I have to ask my self, "is this really the answer to our problem?"

As a gun owner, I believe in the right to gun ownership. On the other hand, I believe that "assault weapons" should be highly restricted. The same way that bazookas, land mines and hand grenades are kept out of the public realm, it's just common sense.

I've been hunting for over 45 years and in that time, I have never once needed the ability to fire over 3 rounds without reloading in order to achieve my objective. I have hunted ducks, geese, quail, dove, turkey, pheasant, chuckers, rabbits, deer, elk, hogs and even bear. Never once have I needed anything like a 15 round magazine, much less a weapon that could empty it in just a few seconds.

And I don't buy into the argument that the "people" have the right to these weapons to insure their ability to fight off a tyrannical government. In a true democracy, the power is held within the people's hearts & minds and not in the weapons they possess. Even the citizens of Egypt figured that one out.

After all, that's what is supposed to make us different from the rest of the world, the fact that we resolve our differences in a peaceful, democratic method. There are 300 million of us and it shouldn't takes guns to get our point across, at least not in America.

I know many will say that we no longer have a democracy, but rather a "corporatocracy" where money and corporate mentality rules the day and I would tell them that while I agree with their assessment, these powers can't be defeated with guns.

In order to defeat them, (or remove their influence) you have to "disarm" them. Their weapon is money and the influence it brings in the halls of Congress. So, if you really want your government back, it's going to take the political will to remove the money from politics. Owning more guns won't get that done. On the other hand, repealing the "Citizen's United" SCOTUS decision, outlawing paid lobbyist and instituting a system of public campaign financing just might.

That's my opinion and I am a bona-fide gun owning liberal, progressive, democrat or whatever you want to call me, Just don't call me a republican or a tea-bagger.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


I actually agree that the mentally ill shouldn't have access to firearms, but then I think, who decides who is mentally ill? Also, what mental illnesses would disqualify someone from owning a firearm? Then, if you are diagnosed with a disqualifying mental illness, do you get to go before a board for a hearing to determine if Doctor A was correct in his diagnosis? If so, then who sits on the board? Who would pick up the costs because you'd have to get a lawyer.

Just seems that if the gov't were to do this, then anyone could be diagnosed as "mentally ill" and no one could purchase or own a firearm.

Then you've got other problems. If you require doctors to report mental illnesses to the state/fed so that it can be listed in the background check, then aren't they violating HIPA? Should doctors be held liable if a patient under their care buys a firearm and kills someone? If so, wouldn't doctors diagnose patients with a disorder just in case?

Seems like there are too many ways that a law like this can be abused by those in power.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

phantomjack

So what say you, ATS? Should a process be put in place to ensure that crazies are kept away from guns?

And then, what exactly would be the definition of "Crazy?"

I think THAT is the biggest question -- the definition of mental illness...don't you?


First question...if we had this in place 50 years ago would it have stopped a single mass killing? My guess it it would not have.

As you also ask, what is mental illness? This goes down the direction of thought police type stuff. If you are added to the list does that mean the rest of your life you can not own a gun? If you are depressed, stressed, angry, risk taker etc are you added to the list?

Very scary scenario since everyone can be added to the list in someway...



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

kx12x

The question is not about background checks, but exactly how the background checks that go digging into your medical info will work and how strict the guidelines will be for them. What is acceptable and what will get you denied for a purchase?

I think what most people see what might happen in the future is them or someone getting denied for inane things that don't affect your mental condition.


Lets say I see a shrink...I'm depressed and he has me on Prozac, is my name somehow added to a list that would flag me on a background check? Would we add anyone that seeks mental health or has a prescription dealing with mental health?

Even if we said only people who have shown a history of mental illness with violence would not caught anyone in the past that has done mass killings.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It's not automatically a felony but it can carry that if the cops want to charge you with it. But it's not a "bad" example... There are tons of crimes i'm sure you are not aware can carry felony charges, and if you piss off the cop that arrested you then guess what, he can charge you with a felony. And even if it gets dropped down later, it still shows on your record as a felony arrest. There is holes in the method, it is NOT "tried and true" that was my main point.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


If the idea of keep arms to defend against a tyrant government then why did our founding fathers go to such lengths to make sure we have that right. And isn't there an old saying attached to firearms and condoms? Better to have and not need, then to need and not have? Or how about a foreign enemy? Wouldn't you want to protect you country v a foreign enemy that gov or military hasn't been able to contain yet?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It's not automatically a felony but it can carry that if the cops want to charge you with it. But it's not a "bad" example... There are tons of crimes i'm sure you are not aware can carry felony charges, and if you piss off the cop that arrested you then guess what, he can charge you with a felony. And even if it gets dropped down later, it still shows on your record as a felony arrest. There is holes in the method, it is NOT "tried and true" that was my main point.


Ok, I see what you are getting at. You are correct that there are so many felonies on the books you can get arrested and charged for doing just about anything. But my response would have to be that the system in place is still better than just denying them to someone for being unwell. Now if they make it a felony to be mentally ill, I'd say all bets are off.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
This falls under the continuing trend of the far left to regulate the individual.

They want to take away your rights if they think you drink too much, DUI restrictions continue to search for new ways to strip people of standard liberties. They want to take away your rights as parents, and all kinds of other areas dare you to have a few drinks in public.

Sexual activity is also highly regulated. I think the goal is to make teenage sex illegal, even between teenagers. Get caught taking a leak in a park walking home in the middle of the night, and they want to make you a second class citizen for life. The bar for burden of proof is so low, any accusation and you are pretty much doomed.

School administration have been literally forcing kids on ritalin and other behavior modification drugs.

People in these industries, which is what they really are, government job creators for people with humanities degrees, are more than eager to diagnose people as dysfunctional, in order to get them into the system.

It is all a part of the extreme demand for hyper conformity these days.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

phantomjack
Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks

I dont know guys...I am a staunch conservative and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment...but I don't disagree with instituting background checks for gun purchases to prevent the mentally unstable from getting a gun.

The problem I do have is the way the President goes about it. Executive order!




The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.


LINK

So what say you, ATS? Should a process be put in place to ensure that crazies are kept away from guns?

And then, what exactly would be the definition of "Crazy?"

I think THAT is the biggest question -- the definition of mental illness...don't you?


ya but it's always some false flag or false pretense to institute a new law. It's nothing but total and complete BS.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join