Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They don't. That's the hilarious part. The righteous gun nuts on this forum will swear up and down that they believe it's a mental health issue and slam the government for not dealing with it, but everysingle proposal to deal with it they reject, unanimously.
It's just a talking point for them to distract us from their complete disinterest in the problem. They feel they have to say something so that's what the NRA has picked for them … until push comes to shove, of course.
Has it ever occurred to you that the manner in which you dissmissively refer to people as "righteous gun nuts" not only makes it more difficult to conduct a good conversation, but that it reflects poorly on YOU as well in that you are just as unwilling to engage productively in said conversation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
If a person lies on their application to the gun dealer, they should be fined out the whazoo.
That would require them to be charged in the first place. Only a tiny fraction of people are charged or even asked about anything when the NICS/background check comes back "denied."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sullyguy
You have noted how one does not sell to someone mentally deficient.
You have NOT noted how one determines if someone is mentally deficient.
THAT is the problem.
The problem is that a lot of the proposals have seemed like they want people other than doctors to deem others mentally insufficient to own a firearm. Furthermore, this does not prevent the more cunning mentally deficient people from just LYING.
Everyone has a mental illness these days, especially when things like anger and mild persistent feelings of sadness can be considered "illness" when really they are just normal displays of human emotion.
Do you think that if we had focused on Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had getting mental health treatment they needed, they would have been less likely to harm anyone vs if we had NICS and mental health reporting in place, but still did nothing about getting them treated?
And yet you cons are completely against funding health insurance in any way, shape or form, or in making it more affordable, so that people could afford regular mental health treatment …
And yet you cons are completely against funding health insurance in any way, shape or form, or in making it more affordable, so that people could afford regular mental health treatment …
This is a completely wrong statement.
Obama care is not affordable. There are tons of ways to make health care much more affordable but Obama and his liberal party refuse to adopt any.
Obama care is an overreach of government power and has nothing to do with making health care more affordable.
Obama care is not affordable. There are tons of ways to make health care much more affordable but Obama and his liberal party refuse to adopt any.
Obama care is an overreach of government power and has nothing to do with making health care more affordable.
Did I mention Obamacare?
You're against it for whatever silly reasons you make up, but you're also against everything else. People who can't afford health care are SOL because they're lazy moochers freeloading on society. That's the consensus among cons on this forum, most of whom are also gun nuts.
Just because some shrink reports you being dangerous, it should not deprive you of your right to own a firearm.
Oh okay. I disagree. Currently for someone to be involuntary committed to a mental health facility, they have to show signs of being a danger to themselves or others. They are held "for evaluation only" and a court order must be filed and entered to be held longer than that.
As I already stated, I don't agree with a life time ban for getting mental help and I believe their should be due process that doesn't exclusively include adjudication. I do not know if and do not think that being involuntary committed for evaluation only bans you from owning a firearm or if it's only after a judge has signed an order. Either way, I think that in both cases if a shrink reports someone as being dangerous, that person should have their rights taken away until a court hearing is held to restore them. That is due process. The president isn't tackling any of the details of the current laws. He's only adding outpatients to what is already in place.
The president doesn't have the power to add someone on the list of losing their constitutional rights.
The president has no such authority. It can only be done through the congress.
Okay and that's not really the issue I'm discussing. I'm dissing the idea of the proposal. Whether the president does it through executive order or congress does it, I support the proposal. I'm not arguing on whether the president has that right or not.
Oh okay. I disagree. Currently for someone to be involuntary committed to a mental health facility, they have to show signs of being a danger to themselves or others. They are held "for evaluation only" and a court order must be filed and entered to be held longer than that.
As I already stated, I don't agree with a life time ban for getting mental help and I believe their should be due process that doesn't exclusively include adjudication. I do not know if and do not think that being involuntary committed for evaluation only bans you from owning a firearm or if it's only after a judge has signed an order. Either way, I think that in both cases if a shrink reports someone as being dangerous, that person should have their rights taken away until a court hearing is held to restore them. That is due process. The president isn't tackling any of the details of the current laws. He's only adding outpatients to what is already in place.
Involuntary commitiment has already been on the book as one of the criteria for removing this right.
So the Sandy Hook shooter and the Colorado theater shooter had every right to play with guns. Oh, OK, Sandy Hook shooter was too young. But a lifetime of treatment for mental illness wouldn't disqualify him if he was of age.
I know I'll sleep better tonight now that you've pointed that out to me.
We have regulations that are not being adhered to or followed up or executed by the government agencies.
More regulations won't do any good if they aren't even following the regulations we have.
Oh okay. I disagree. Currently for someone to be involuntary committed to a mental health facility, they have to show signs of being a danger to themselves or others. They are held "for evaluation only" and a court order must be filed and entered to be held longer than that.
As I already stated, I don't agree with a life time ban for getting mental help and I believe their should be due process that doesn't exclusively include adjudication. I do not know if and do not think that being involuntary committed for evaluation only bans you from owning a firearm or if it's only after a judge has signed an order. Either way, I think that in both cases if a shrink reports someone as being dangerous, that person should have their rights taken away until a court hearing is held to restore them. That is due process. The president isn't tackling any of the details of the current laws. He's only adding outpatients to what is already in place.
He can't just "add" that. There's a law process he needs to go through.
And yet you cons are completely against funding health insurance in any way, shape or form, or in making it more affordable, so that people could afford regular mental health treatment …
No they are against how it's being funded. They are not against making healthcare more affordable. You side is against focusing on healthcare for the mentally ill with reference to firearms all together. Lastly, I', not a "con", so as usual, you don't have your facts straight and have no clue about what you're talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
