Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

Forgive my honesty, but that is quite an ignorant statement that lacks any wisdom whatsoever. Progressives/liberals are people of all ages, backgrounds and levels of intelligence, just like conservatives.

This statement highlights the reason we cannot have an intelligent discussion over the issues. Instead of bringing ideas to the table that assist in finding a solution, people make uninformed, generalized comments with no factual basis and continue to further divide people along political lines.

Bad form.

a reply to: thishereguy

My apologies for misunderstanding. Could you restate your question?

Still have yet to see a definition for mental illness. Lots of attempted definitions of idiocy.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

Really? Do a Google image search of "Sandy Hook funerals" and tell me if that isn't reality.

who stole his guns from his dead mother.........

So I guess that pretty much nullifies that example.....

none of you have actually addressed who and what the definitions of "mentally ill", and who will be making those assessments....

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

Really? Do a Google image search of "Sandy Hook funerals" and tell me if that isn't reality.

who stole his guns from his dead mother.........

So I guess that pretty much nullifies that example.....

So the dead at SH aren't "reality" then. Logic, applying it makes one look less ignorant.

The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.

That is NOT the function of the DOJ, and never has been.

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.

None of which would have stopped Lanza as he stole the weapons after killing his mother.

And how can anyone forget Gunwalker, and Fast and Furious where the DOJ and BATFE working in collusion armed criminals.

What freaking nonsense.

a reply to: ketsuko

Again I'll say, defining mental illness is not up to me, you or any other poster. Who you should be asking is the people who are making these laws.

I fully agree with you that we need a very clear, finite definition of "mental illness" and "violent history" as far as this law is concerned. That would be up to the lawmakers to discus with doctors and professionals in these given fields, and then let us citizens know what they came up with. THEN we can be outraged or agree or push for a change of those definitions.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Is there a place I can view these proposed regulations? From the article it seems like the regulations are aimed mainly at keeping guns away from the mentally unstable and domestic abusers.

1. And inventing a new "mental instability" is as easy as paying some educated people to give it a name and put it on TV.

And.......

2. Used to be domestic abuse was a clear-cut thing. You didn't have to guess what it meant or wonder if the line was getting fuzzy. Most people would agree that beating your wife/husband/kids is abusive. These days, I'm starting to wonder when they'll start calling it abusive to have a verbal argument with someone. Yeah. It's drifting into that shifty territory where it's completely reasonable to wonder if you could be accused of abusing someone for looking at them the wrong way.

a reply to: thenewguy1987

Since when do politicians care to give a clear and precise definition of anything? Just for that reason alone we should be very wary of any laws or proclamations such as these.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Please read the article. It also states the ATF, at the Admin's direction, is looking to impose laws/rules for specific firearms and dealers.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Do you back a law that requires an ID card to vote?

No, I do not for a variety of reasons, but I already see what you're trying to do. The two, voting and gun ownership, are not even in the same ballpark. A vote cannot directly cause harm or death, nor is voter fraud even statistically significant enough to even consider burdening the system with more requirements. That would be like reinventing the wheel when there is no need to do so.

On the other hand, a gun can, obviously, kill someone in the hands of a person that doesn't need to have one, is mentally ill or has a history of violence.

While I would invite all people, mentally ill and wife-beaters alike, to vote on election day, I do not want mentally ill people or violent people to have firearms.

Then why is there a law preventing felons from voting?

Do you support having people that are not American citizens vote?
Do you support citizens from one district voting in other and multiple districts?

from the article.

“That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” warned Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America.

too many angles to attack this from.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

It really is sooo easy to follow the bouncing ball, and I don't understand why people don't get it.

With the idea that this Admin "respects the 2nd", they know they can't get rid of firearm ownership.

SOoooooooo, it will impose laws/rules on the "mentally ill" and those misdemeanor driven actions to remove 2nd rights.

Then.....they just deem the vast amount of people as mentally ill.

Thanks for pointing the mentally ill statement out.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

They don't need to go house to house.

Just pass laws like this crap, deem large amounts of people as mentally ill and then the mass population won't be able to have firearm legally.

a reply to: butcherguy

Not all felons completely lose their right to vote. Depending on the state in which they committed a crime, many will regain their right to vote once they have served their time or over a certain period.

Again, the two examples are not very comparable. You're continuing to conflate the issue.

a reply to: butcherguy
Then why is there a law preventing felons from voting?

i'll tell you why.

so that after the gov't has successfully branded everyone mentally ill, violent, or a "felon", that they can do as they please (whatever that may be) without anyone being able to stop them.

a reply to: thenewguy1987

And by then, it's too late because they already have the means to disarm people who should not be disarmed. And a bunch of people who are poo-pooing this will be saying "Oops! Our bad."

That's why we need to know now what they intend to define these terms as. It's kind of important.

a reply to: macman

Do you honestly believe that "Teh evil gubments" would deem 99% of the U.S. Population mentally as some flimsy premise to seize their weapons? Look, you served. I know you did. Tell me a few things.

#1: If the government decided to seize the firearms of the U.S. Population, do you think they could even remotely feasibly do via regulation, or do you think they would need to eventually send people OUT to collect "illegal" firearms?

#2: Should the government decide to seize the firearms from the people, and had you been serving at the time, would you have followed that order?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

They don't need to go house to house.

Just pass laws like this crap, deem large amounts of people as mentally ill and then the mass population won't be able to have firearm legally.

This is all part of the plan and anyone with the tinniest shred of common sense can see it......They want to control the health industry and pay of insurance companies and now control them..........I wonder who will determine what mentally ill is and what falls under that blanket.................Hmm I wonder why they have been pushing all these anxiety and ADD drugs..........YA.

dbl