Thoughts and Prayers

[UndertheHalo]

6 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

There was no point.  I'm not looking for an argument.  Just found the article and thought it was interesting how he passed at least one kind of background check.  

I’m not trying to be combative.  Sorry. 

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

But isn’t ability to qualify for a disability check due to ones illness sufficient as true evidence ? Surely we agree on that point no ?

In a sense, but not all mental illness is the same.  Depression is a hell of a lot different than schizophrenia.  

[Adam]

Too bad background checks don't tell us whether or not a person was told he/she was valued and loved when growing up. '

[UndertheHalo]

6 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

In a sense, but not all mental illness is the same.  Depression is a hell of a lot different than schizophrenia.  

For sure, severe depression is a dangerous and terrible condition, how one deals with it is wholly unpredictable.  If someone is clinically diagnosed as severely depressed I would argue that for that persons own safety as much as the community they probably should not have a fire arm.  Just the same way a person with schizophrenia shouldn’t have a fire arm.

look this boils down to whether one thinks the 2nd amendment should trump the safety of the community.  It’s not considered a violation of the 1st amendment to criminalize screaming fire in a theatre.  Why should stopping mentally unstable people from having a gun violate the 2nd amendment ? 

Edited November 6, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

I think stopping mentally unstable people from having guns is good sense.

I just need a solid definition of that term and some kind process where if one wants to keep that right to own a gun they can go to court or something like it.

[mtangelsfan]

This is my problem with government, especially large government.  Great solutions are almost always subtle.  

Large government cannot be subtle.

[red321]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/07/democrats-to-try-forcing-vote-on-bill-establishing-select-panel-on-gun-violence/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_texas-demsguns-1033am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a0bf2d44b81e

The measure is by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who leads a Democratic working group on gun violence established after the 2012 mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. The bill would establish a 12-member committee divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats to study the causes of mass shootings, ways to revamp the gun background check system, research how mentally ill people obtain firearms and explore ways to keep domestic abusers from buying firearms.

 

 

 

wanna guess if the Republicans will allow this to move forward? 

[Taylor]

8 minutes ago, red321 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/07/democrats-to-try-forcing-vote-on-bill-establishing-select-panel-on-gun-violence/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_texas-demsguns-1033am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a0bf2d44b81e

The measure is by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who leads a Democratic working group on gun violence established after the 2012 mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. The bill would establish a 12-member committee divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats to study the causes of mass shootings, ways to revamp the gun background check system, research how mentally ill people obtain firearms and explore ways to keep domestic abusers from buying firearms.

 

 

 

wanna guess if the Republicans will allow this to move forward? 

Committees are un-American.

[red321]

6 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Committees are un-American.

Unless it’s about Benghazi of course

[UndertheHalo]

18 minutes ago, red321 said:

Unless it’s about Benghazi of course

I mean, how else could we have been sure about whether or not Hillary Clinton murdered Chris Stevens ?

(she did) 

Edited November 7, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

57 minutes ago, red321 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/07/democrats-to-try-forcing-vote-on-bill-establishing-select-panel-on-gun-violence/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_texas-demsguns-1033am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a0bf2d44b81e

The measure is by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who leads a Democratic working group on gun violence established after the 2012 mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. The bill would establish a 12-member committee divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats to study the causes of mass shootings, ways to revamp the gun background check system, research how mentally ill people obtain firearms and explore ways to keep domestic abusers from buying firearms.

 

 

 

wanna guess if the Republicans will allow this to move forward? 

I would be in favor of this bill if it as you state here in its entirety.

[floplag]

On 11/6/2017 at 1:21 PM, mtangelsfan said:

There should be requirements but that law was henky.  Mental health is not a objective subject.  It is a touchy thing to take away the rights of someone, you better have good evidence that it is warranted.

This, so much this.  Insert any object not named Guns into the situation and ask yourself it it makes sense.  We are dealing with a very explicitly granted right literally on par with life liberty etc...  It cannot be taken away without due cause.  
This latest one is a perfect shitstorm... issues with violence and mental stability not reported, checks that failed due to it... all things that people say fall under "sensible" measures and that most would agree to in this case utterly ineffective due to bureaucratic bullshit.  

[Adam]

23 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I would be in favor of this bill if it as you state here in its entirety.

I'd rather actual smart people without an agenda (i.e. not politicians, NRA or anti-NRA folks) do this stuff.

[mtangelsfan]

28 minutes ago, Adam said:

I'd rather actual smart people without an agenda (i.e. not politicians, NRA or anti-NRA folks) do this stuff.

Those people are out making money, they don't have time

[Jason]

On 11/6/2017 at 1:00 PM, UndertheHalo said:

They did “do something” in February they rolled back the Obama era mental health requirements.

Something that didn't include due process. I'm glad they rolled it back

[Jason]

2 hours ago, red321 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/07/democrats-to-try-forcing-vote-on-bill-establishing-select-panel-on-gun-violence/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_texas-demsguns-1033am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a0bf2d44b81e

The measure is by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who leads a Democratic working group on gun violence established after the 2012 mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. The bill would establish a 12-member committee divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats to study the causes of mass shootings, ways to revamp the gun background check system, research how mentally ill people obtain firearms and explore ways to keep domestic abusers from buying firearms.

 

 

 

wanna guess if the Republicans will allow this to move forward? 

This is a good idea. As for mental illness, that situation is much lager than just purchasing a gun. We have a national issue with it.

[UndertheHalo]

20 minutes ago, Jason said:

Something that didn't include due process. I'm glad they rolled it back

What exactly is the due process that you require  ? 

If they’re disabled because of their mental issues and getting a government check to live because of it, how is that not sufficient evidence ? I think you’ve got this all turned around.  The onus should be on the individual to demonstrate fitness to own a gun.  Just the same as it’s drivers responsiblity to demonstrate competence behind the wheel in order to operate a vehicle.  

What you’re basically saying here is that you believe a mentally ill persons right to a gun is more important then the communities safety.  Therefore it’s on the government to prove that someone is too dangerous to have a gun.  This is something that surely you know just makes it so there is no threshold that individuals have to clear to have a gun.  

Edited November 8, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

What exactly is the due process that you require  ? 

If they’re disabled because of their mental issues and getting a government check to live because of it, how is that not sufficient evidence ? I think you’ve got this all turned around.  The onus should be on the individual to demonstrate fitness to own a gun.  Just the same as it’s drivers responsiblity to demonstrate competence behind the wheel in order to operate a vehicle.  

What you’re basically saying here is that you believe a mentally ill persons right to a gun is more important then the communities safety.  Therefore it’s on the government to prove that someone is too dangerous to have a gun.  This is something that surely you know just makes it so there is no threshold that individuals have to clear to have a gun.  

How many rights have we given up to feel safer?

[UndertheHalo]

 

10 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

How many rights have we given up to feel safer?

MT, I think you understand at this point that I don’t agree with the idea that denying mentally ill people a gun is an infringement of rights.

also, why don’t you tell me.  What have you been denied in the name of public safety ?

  Serious question.  I don’t think I can think of any particular thing that I’ve lost over the course of my life.  

Edited November 8, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

What exactly is the due process that you require  ? 

If they’re disabled because of their mental issues and getting a government check to live because of it, how is that not sufficient evidence ? I think you’ve got this all turned around.  The onus should be on the individual to demonstrate fitness to own a gun.  Just the same as it’s drivers responsiblity to demonstrate competence behind the wheel in order to operate a vehicle.  

What you’re basically saying here is that you believe a mentally ill persons right to a gun is more important then the communities safety.  Therefore it’s on the government to prove that someone is too dangerous to have a gun.  This is something that surely you know just makes it so there is no threshold that individuals have to clear to have a gun.  

Are you saying all individuals with a diagnosed mental illness are a danger and threat? It is not OK for any bureaucrat to make an arbitrary decision to remove a right, no matter what it is. There should be a court process that makes these determinations. Just like we do with criminals. 

Just don’t let the Air Force do it  

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

 

MT, I think you understand at this point that I don’t agree with the idea that denying mentally ill people a gun is an infringement of rights.

also, why don’t you tell me.  What have you been denied in the name of public safety ?

  Serious question.  I don’t think I can think of any particular thing that I’ve lost over the course of my life.  

Warrantless searches.  The Patriot Act.  Government spying

[arch stanton]

If you really truly believe that the onus is on the individual then the terrorists have won

GOD BLESS AMERICA?

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

Are you saying all individuals with a diagnosed mental illness are a danger and threat? It is not OK for any bureaucrat to make an arbitrary decision to remove a right, no matter what it is. There should be a court process that makes these determinations. Just like we do with criminals. 

Just don’t let the Air Force do it  

My opinion is that they are not fit to have a gun. And it’s not an arbitrary decision.  A medical professional has declared them disabled.  A social worker has then accepted that determination.  What is the threshold that you need ?  Do you literally need someone telling you about the voices in their head at the gun store to stop them from getting a gun ? Dude, you’re acting like this person is suffering because they can’t have a gun.  It’s just ridiculous imo.  These folks couldn’t open a bank account man.  

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

My opinion is that they are not fit to have a gun. And it’s not an arbitrary decision.  A medical professional has declared them disabled.  A social worker has then accepted that determination.  What is the threshold that you need ?  Do you literally need someone telling you about the voices in their head at the gun store to stop them from getting a gun ? Dude, you’re acting like this person is suffering because they can’t have a gun.  It’s just ridiculous imo.  These folks couldn’t open a bank account man.  

What you described does not include all mental health issues. Not all medical diagnoses are terminal cancer either 

[Jason]

@UndertheHalo I actually appreciate your honesty in admitting you are ok with the 2nd Amendment being repealed. Most ant gun folks i talk to will never admit that. I think I’m probably the most pro 2A guy on angelswin so I feel like us talking about this is like Peter Griffin fighting the giant chicken.