View Full Version : And so it begins: NY Gun Confiscation & 300,000 Americans labelled as Terrorists!
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-confiscation-underway/#ixzz2PyWWRi00
From the article:
"
Elected Officials, the media, various Gun Control Groups and their zealous forced disarmament supporters, even some firearms owners themselves all insisted it was to crazy to even consider.
just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!
It seems those that tried desperately to warn of such an insidious plot had hit the bullseye with their warnings after all. News came from multiple NY State based firearms enthusiast websites late Friday that confiscations of Pistol Owner ID Cards, as well as firearms and accessories has commenced in NY under the provisions of the horribly flawed, draconian and blatantly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act.
Those folks having their weapons and FID cards confiscated have been discovered to have been prescribed multiple different types of psychotropic drugs, such as those for Depression or Anxiety. These are known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) class drugs and have the potential to cause serious and adverse side effects, something I wrote about extensively last week in an article that went viral in days and caused multiple Anti Gun and Progressive News Groups to initiate a concentrated denial of service hacker attack against Ammoland Shooting Sports News (see Daily KOS ” Keeping Track Of The RKBA Crowd” http://tiny.cc/ug67uw), in an effort to keep the information from the public."
Colorado has legislation fourth coming to start a Govt. database of mental health records and use them just as NY has...
How about this one:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/feds-identify-300000-americans-as.html
From the article:
"Do you hate paying taxes? Are you fighting foreclosure? Do you feel like no one should be allowed to commit violence against you and don't always blindly follow the commands of the authorities? Do you film encounters with police or believe gold makes better currency than Federal Reserve Notes? Well you might be part of a domestic terrorism movement and not even know it.
On Friday, the Los Angeles Times posted an article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406,0,3800088.story) attempting to define a domestic terrorist movement consisting of as many as 300,000 Americans. Some are even labeled as non-violent "paper terrorists"."
What in the world is a "non-violent paper terrorist"? Does anyone else here have a sneaking suspicion they might be included in the300,000?
Nothing to see here right? Just move along and don't worry one bit, they would never come for your guns...
So what say you gents? Are things starting to become clearer yet?
This a free country, and they arrest people for public safety. :rolleyes:
Alaskapopo
04-09-13, 17:19
If you need to take meds to not be homicidal then you should not own a gun. However I am not sure what the meds in the listed article.
Pat
If you need to take meds to not be homicidal then you should not own a gun. However I am not sure what the meds in the listed article.
Pat
Those are antidepressants. One does not normally become homicidal from depression; homicidal 'rage'/behavior is related to a different set of psych problems found in the DSM IV/V.
If you need to take meds to not be homicidal then you should not own a gun. However I am not sure what the meds in the listed article.
Pat
There is a BIG difference between people needing meds to stop them from acting out their psychopathic fantasies and killing people (Which is not a significant portion of the population- at all) and people needing meds to deal with depression, anxiety, PTSD, eating dissorders and other forms of anxiety/depression (Which is a large portion of the population- actually).
Of course if you are on meds and have suicidal or murderous tendancies, gun confiscation makes sense.
But just because you are deprressed, have an eating disorder, PTSD, or other such syndromes dealing with anxiety/depression- THAT IS NO REASON TO CONFISCATE YOUR WEAPONS!
Are you really trying to defend the confiscation of guns based on Government violating HIPPA rights and removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who have taken SSRI's?
The idea someone who is on this medication "might" commit some crime so we need to confiscate their guns; is not far off from arresting people for "pre-crime"- are you okay with that notion?
So Pat, what about LEO's & current/former military who have had to take SSRI's due to PTSD, anxiety, depression, or other such syndromes they got from being on the job and seeing/living/delaing with what they do?
Should they be disarmed? Or do you think they should be exempt?
This is beyond a slippery slope, this is the back-door to gun confiscation.
What we have going on in NY and soon other states is disturbing and wrong. It is un American to the core.
If you need to take meds to not be homicidal then you should not own a gun. However I am not sure what the meds in the listed article.
Pat
Two things. First think of suicidal and homicidal ideation as existing along a continuum so to speak with the most extreme forms of behavior existing at both ends of the spectrum. Simply lumping everyone on that continuum into the same category with the same perceived level of dangerousness is stupid, irrational, and beyond asinine.
Second their is this thing called due process which is not being afforded here. They (the government) are taking peoples previously PRIVATE health information and using it to arbitrarily deny or curtail a supposedly free person their ability to exercise their inalienable constitutional rights. All without due process.
You do see the problem here right? The Constitution protects liberty, it does not guarantee safety. Big difference.
For shame Pat. And people actually still think Obamacare with the government not only having their hand in the cookie jar that is healthcare but actually owning the whole jar itself is a good idea...
As for the paper terrorist think I hope they atleast give out T-Shirts :suicide:
Alaskapopo
04-09-13, 20:01
Two things. First think of suicidal and homicidal ideation as existing along a continuum so to speak with the most extreme forms of behavior existing at both ends of the spectrum. Simply lumping everyone on that continuum into the same category with the same perceived level of dangerousness is stupid, irrational, and beyond asinine.
Second their is this thing called due process which is not being afforded here. They (the government) are taking peoples previously PRIVATE health information and using it to arbitrarily deny or curtail a supposedly free person their ability to exercise their inalienable constitutional rights. All without due process.
You do see the problem here right? The Constitution protects liberty, it does not guarantee safety. Big difference.
For shame Pat. And people actually still think Obamacare with the government not only having their hand in the cookie jar that is healthcare but actually owning the whole jar itself is a good idea...
One thing nearly all of the active shooters have in common is mental illness. This is not about guns but about mental health. Some people should not own guns.
Pat
Leonidas24
04-09-13, 20:16
One thing nearly all of the active shooters have in common is mental illness. This is not about guns but about mental health. Some people should not own guns.
Pat
Correct, but the issue stands that due process has not been afforded.
One thing nearly all of the active shooters have in common is mental illness. This is not about guns but about mental health. Some people should not own guns.
Pat
So your content with the state unilaterally determining who is and who is not fit to exercise their 2A rights via a mechanism that is wholly absent due process?
Are you serious?
I mean its one thing to say OK this person has been identified as being at risk for engaging in violent behavior (mind you simply cross-referencing Rx prescriptions and names does not constitute a comprehensive violence risk assessment, and the state violating HIPAA to do it is beyond egregious) and therefore should not own a firearm, that's fine but that person should be afforded due process in accordance with the law before their rights are taken from them. Be it in either a civil or criminal context. At the very least they should be served notice and allowed their case to be adjudicated in court.
Treating everyone as dam criminal by default is the same line of thinking that has gotten all of this feel good gun legislation in the name of public up until this point. You sound like Bloomberg proclaiming the state should infringe on peoples rights when they determine it is necessary.
Doctors across this country hand out anti depressants/anti anxiety pills as if they were Skittles. Granted many really do need medication. But then many of these same people are viewed as being possibly a threat to society and aren't considered safe with firearms. The gov has a lot to play with.
Scary that is.
-Jax
Alaskapopo
04-09-13, 20:26
So your content with the state unilaterally determining who is and who is not fit to exercise their 2A rights via a process wholly absent due process?
Are you serious?
I mean its one thing to say OK this person has been identified as being at risk for engaging in violent behavior (mind you simply cross-referencing Rx prescriptions and names does not constitute a comprehensive violence risk assessment, and the state violating HIPAA to do it is beyond egregious) and therefore should not own a firearm, that's fine but that person should be afforded due process in accordance with the law before their rights are taken from them. Be it in either a civil or criminal context.
Treating everyone as dam criminal by default is the same line of thinking that has gotten all of this feel good gun legislation in the name of public up until this point. You sound like Bloomberg proclaiming the state should infringe on peoples rights when they determine it is necessary.
You're making some wild ass assumptions about my position. The reality is mentally ill people are a problem and we can not stick our head in the sand and ignore it. Something does need to be done some people with certain disorders or taking certain meds are barred from possessing firearms. Under your plan we should give mentally ill people guns as soon as they hit the street after leaving the hospital. If I sound like Bloomberg then you sound like a f@#ing lunatic. Unlike you I have had to work with mentally ill people as part of my job. People who think the CIA is out to get them and they see sandinestas behind every tree in their yard. These people don't have any business with a pair of scissors much less a firearm. Some are so far against government regulation they have gone off the deep end.
Pat
Then state your position clearly and in a cogent matter.
But who's ignoring anything? I'm saying the process any process put in place should be one based on a sound legal framework (which we already have fwiw) not knee jerk feel good bullshit. Yes certain people should not own guns no one is disputing that. I have no problem with the state exercising its police power and curtailing a persons liberty but I don't it violating the accused persons constitutional rights in the process. All I want is if the state feels a person is dangerous I want that person to be adjudicated in court of law with the aid of legal counsel. That's it. If their judged to be a danger take their 2A rights away. I'll also add that I'm in favor of bringing back large mental health facilities to house and treat patients like we use to have. This least restrictive doctrine and community treatment frameworks currently in place are nonsense imo.
You sound like Obama, if only we can save one life then we need to do whatever it takes... please. Like I said in another thread, the Constitution protects individual liberty it does not guarantee safety.
Your making some wild ass assumptions about my position. The reality is mentally ill people are a problem and we can not stick our head in the sand and ignore it. Something does need to be done some people with certain disorders or taking certain meds are barred from possessing firearms. Under your plan we should give mentally ill people guns as soon as they hit the street after leaving the hospital. If I sound like Bloomberg then you sound like a f@#ing lunatic.
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-09-13, 20:54
Then state your position clearly and in a cogent matter.
But who's ignoring anything? I'm saying the process any process put in place should be one based on a sound legal framework (which we already have fwiw) not knee jerk feel good bullshit. Yes certain people should not own guns no one is disputing that. I have no problem with the state exercising its police power and curtailing a persons liberty but I don't it violating the accused persons constitutional rights in the process. All I want is if the state feels a person is dangerous I want that person to be adjudicated in court of law with the aid of legal counsel. That's it. If their judged to be a danger take their 2A rights away.
You sound like Obama, if only we can save one life then we need to do whatever it takes... please. Like I said in another thread, the Constitution protects individual liberty it does not guarantee safety.
Now I sound like Obama? Really? Where did I say anything about taking all guns away if only to save one life. However right now with Hippa you can not put people with a mental illness on a list that disqualifies them from buying weapons. We need that now. It should be just like convicted felons when they call into to check their background. Your right there should be a reasonable frame work set up to determine who is mentally ill enough not to be allowed to own guns. But right now there is next to nothing done about this serious issue. HIPPA is pure stupidity. When I started as a cop they could tell us if someone had TB or other diseases but now because of HIPPA that is off limits information.
Pat
Now I sound like Obama? Really? Where did I say anything about taking all guns away if only to save one life. However right now with Hippa you can not put people with a mental illness on a list that disqualifies them from buying weapons. We need that now. It should be just like convicted felons when they call into to check their background. Your right there should be a reasonable frame work set up to determine who is mentally ill enough not to be allowed to own guns. But right now there is next to nothing done about this serious issue. HIPPA is pure stupidity. When I started as a cop they could tell us if someone had TB or other diseases but now because of HIPPA that is off limits information.
Pat
Except with convicted felons they have already been adjudicated as such, and up until this point the only mentally ill persons that have been put on list are again those that have been adjudicated as such. Yes this leaves open a large group of mentally ill people that have never been adjudicated as such in a court of law which should not own firearms, but what I'm saying is that if a person believed to be mentally ill and perceived to be a danger then they should still be afforded their day in court before a judgment or disposition is imposed against them regardless
Much of HIPAA is stupid I'll agree but it has more to do with determining who should have access to what and why. Your LE example is valid, people who actually need to know should know within reason. But the state violating HIPAA to play Christopher Columbus, arbitrarily designate who is a danger, and use this information to strip them of their rights absent due process is unacceptable.
GeorgiaBoy
04-09-13, 21:07
Now I sound like Obama? Really?
Pat
It's a run of the mill insult around here, Pat.
Being called a "liberal" or being compared to "Obama/Feinstein/Biden" on M4C is like being called a racist or sex offender in real life.
Alaskapopo
04-09-13, 21:10
Except with convicted felons they have already been adjudicated as such, and up until this point the only mentally ill persons that have been put on list are again those that have been adjudicated as such. Yes this leaves open a large group of mentally ill people that have never been adjudicated as such in a court of law which should not own firearms, but what I'm saying is that if a person believed to be mentally ill and perceived to be a danger then they should still be afforded their day in court before a judgment or disposition is imposed against them regardless
Much of HIPAA is stupid I'll agree but it has more to do with determining who should have access to what and why. Your LE example is valid, people who actually need to know should know within reason. But the state violating HIPAA to play Christopher Columbus, arbitrarily designate who is a danger, and use this information to strip them of their rights absent due process is unacceptable.
Frankly I don't care what the process ends up being but we need to have mentally ill individuals in a no gun buy data base.
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-09-13, 21:11
It's a run of the mill insult around here, Pat.
Being called a "liberal" or being compared to "Obama/Feinstein/Biden" on M4C is like being called a racist or sex offender in real life.
People are quick to throw out labels. Its like the red scare when people called people they did not like communists.
Pat
Those are antidepressants. One does not normally become homicidal from depression; homicidal 'rage'/behavior is related to a different set of psych problems found in the DSM IV/V.
I think Pat missed this. The drugs listed are not the sorts that lead to violence and issues these people suffer from are not the sorts of mental illness that leads to violence, if I understand correctly.
Someone, I believe Sensei, posted a few weeks or months ago about the sorts of mental illness that are associated with violence. I believe it is the thread started by Kwelz about suffering from mental illness.
NOT ALL MENTAL ILLNESS IS OR SHOULD BE DISQUALIFYING.
--
It doesn't make a god damn difference if they should own a firearm or not, they have a right to due process as previously said. When proven they are not of sound mind and body to own a firearm then you can take them. Stop with this whole we must do something ****ing god damn media nonsense scare tactic. We all have rights and just because one person or a group of people feel threatened does not give them a right to pick and choose which to abide by for the "greater good". Believing so makes anyone of us just like them.
Yes we need a better way to identify possible violent risks from people with mental health issues but throwing everyone with any kind of condition under the bus is the wrong way to go about it.
This isn't WWII and just throw all the Japanese or anyone who looks Japanese in a camp because they "might" be a "spy" or something of the sort.
Alaskapopo
04-09-13, 22:14
It doesn't make a god damn difference if they should own a firearm or not, they have a right to due process as previously said. When proven they are not of sound mind and body to own a firearm then you can take them. Stop with this whole we must do something ****ing god damn media nonsense scare tactic. We all have rights and just because one person or a group of people feel threatened does not give them a right to pick and choose which to abide by for the "greater good". Believing so makes anyone of us just like them.
Yes we need a better way to identify possible violent risks from people with mental health issues but throwing everyone with any kind of condition under the bus is the wrong way to go about it.
This isn't WWII and just throw all the Japanese or anyone who looks Japanese in a camp because they "might" be a "spy" or something of the sort.
Its not a scare tactic and unless we do make some changes like not allowing mentally ill people to purchase firearms, we will lose our right to keep and bear arms as the general public will not stand for any more shootings no matter how minor they actually are in the total scheme of things.
Pat
I watch two major websites every day from the NYSRPA that report daily on developments regarding the SAFE ACT. I have heard no such reporting.
I am not saying it isn't happening or defending NY state in any way, but I would think that NYSRPA would be all over this shit if it was going on.
Can anyone else from NY chime in?
Its not a scare tactic and unless we do make some changes like not allowing mentally ill people to purchase firearms, we will lose our right to keep and bear arms as the general public will not stand for any more shootings no matter how minor they actually are in the total scheme of things.
Pat
Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't make them violent or incapable of properly handling firearms. Depression is technically a mental illness. Being depressed doesn't automatically make someone violent. Like I said it must be proven that they are incapable of owning firearms. Proven as in their due process. Not some guy down on his luck and gets on an anti-depressant and then gets thrown on some database and next thing you know police are knocking on his door confiscating his weapons. We cannot allow such atrocities to happen. If you think it is right to do so, turn in your badge.
It's a run of the mill insult around here, Pat.
Being called a "liberal" or being compared to "Obama/Feinstein/Biden" on M4C is like being called a racist or sex offender in real life.
But I'm the crazy one for suggesting that the integrity of our collective civil rights and the right to due process should be maintained...
Frankly I don't care what the process ends up being but we need to have mentally ill individuals in a no gun buy data base.
Pat
Which is fine but membership in said database should be contingent on a lawful and constitutionally sound process.
Its not a scare tactic and unless we do make some changes like not allowing mentally ill people to purchase firearms, we will lose our right to keep and bear arms as the general public will not stand for any more shootings no matter how minor they actually are in the total scheme of things.
Pat
What good is maintaining one right however watered down if it means doing so at the expense of others? I'm all for making changes but they need to be properly informed ones, not just for the blind sake haplessly trying to improve the perception of public safety.
Pat, could you do us a huge favor and make a list to show the active shooters with mental illnesses who acquired the weapons used in their shootings legally?
VooDoo6Actual
04-09-13, 23:42
It doesn't make a god damn difference if they should own a firearm or not, they have a right to due process as previously said. When proven they are not of sound mind and body to own a firearm then you can take them. Stop with this whole we must do something ****ing god damn media nonsense scare tactic. We all have rights and just because one person or a group of people feel threatened does not give them a right to pick and choose which to abide by for the "greater good". Believing so makes anyone of us just like them.
Yes we need a better way to identify possible violent risks from people with mental health issues but throwing everyone with any kind of condition under the bus is the wrong way to go about it.
This isn't WWII and just throw all the Japanese or anyone who looks Japanese in a camp because they "might" be a "spy" or something of the sort.
well said.
Mauser KAR98K
04-09-13, 23:46
Yep, this crap is happening. From the Blaze (beats Inforwars).
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/a-form-of-gun-confiscation-has-reportedly-begun-in-new-york-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/
Biden just lied through his ass with mockery. Time we rolled with the idiot's statement with this.
Oh yeah: FBHO.
FWIW: I take serinaprill (spelling) to help me sleep at night and take off some anxieties I have from day to day. I don't take it regularly like I should for blood pressure. From what the article reads and the cases involved, I could have my guns taken away just because I have been prescribed this medicine, and without due process. This IS the end round the gun grabbers have been looking for. In no way is my medicines to keep me from coming unhindged. It is there to keep my blood pressure low and to help me sleep at night as my mind likes to run, run, and run with, well, life and all the comes with it.
Alaskapopo
04-10-13, 00:12
Pat, could you do us a huge favor and make a list to show the active shooters with mental illnesses who acquired the weapons used in their shootings legally?
The one who shot Gabby Gifford was right at the top of the list. Also if you live with someone who is mentally ill you should have to store your firearms securely that would have helped with the Sandy Hook shooter.
Pat
GeorgiaBoy
04-10-13, 00:12
Pat, could you do us a huge favor and make a list to show the active shooters with mental illnesses who acquired the weapons used in their shootings legally?
1. James Holmes (Colorado Theater)
2. Michael Page (Sihk Temple)
3. Larry Ashbrook (Wedgewood Baptist church)
4. Jared Loughner (Tuscon AZ)
5. Jeongg Soo Paek (Atlanta Sauna Shooting)
6. Douglas Williams (Lockheed Martin shooting)
7. Joseph Wesbecker (Standard Gravure shooting)
8. Jiverly Wong (Binghamton Shooting)
9. Michael McDermott (Wakefield massacre)
10. James Huberty (San Yisirdo McDonalds massacre)
polymorpheous
04-10-13, 00:25
Threads like these give me a good idea of which member belong on my ignore list.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you people understand?
We have a RIGHT to due process. It is NOT a privilege.
What is really scary is, some members here who swore an OATH to protect the constitution, don't get it.
Being on an anti-depressant makes one a danger to society!?
Then why the **** are the so widely prescribed?!
This is pure bullshit, and if anyone thinks that it is reasonable, well then, they can no be helped.
Thanks Georgia. Not a bad list. Is there a readily available one of those who acquired their weapons illegally? We really ought to compare and see whether immediate availability (meaning, legally acquiring) is the actual critical element to these shootings occurring, or if they occur with statistically-similar frequency independent of the immediate availability of firearms (suggesting other means of acquiring them illegally).
On that note, I'm pretty sure the Columbine shooters got theirs illegally...
The Columbine shooters got their weapons through straw purchases.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
GeorgiaBoy
04-10-13, 01:14
The Columbine shooters got their weapons through straw purchases.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Caught that.. corrected.
One thing that should be pointed out is that regarding mental illness violence risk assessment is not an exact science far from it. I mean its non a 2+2 = oh jeez this guys gonna snap and kill people proposition, it doesn't work like that. And statistically speaking people with qualifying mental illnesses are not any more dangerousness than non mentally ill persons.
So, the argument is that statistically people on SSRI's are more likely to commit a violent crime with a legally-purchased firearm than the same gun owner who hasn't been prescribed the drug? Are other forms of statistically relevant data ALSO being considered? Like a person's race? Is that next?
Frankly I don't care what the process ends up being but we need to have mentally ill individuals in a no gun buy data base.
Pat
As someone who swore an oath, you are MANDATED to care about the process when operating in an official capacity. In particular, Due Process as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
This is where you always get yourself into trouble in these threads. You post crazy shit that flies in the face of the Constitution, then claim that because some crybabies in the media and the populace demand it, it must be done. Bullshit. In every single thread on the subject, you post crap that essentially says "I don't care about the Constitution so much as doing something to stop bad/defective people and appease the left." Then you get all huffy because people assume you don't value your oath and you swear that you do.
THEN STOP POSTING THINGS THAT IMPLY OTHERWISE!
It's entirely your fault that people infer this trait in you. Either own it or change how you express yourself, because your manufactured drama is tedious. :(
The one who shot Gabby Gifford was right at the top of the list. Also if you live with someone who is mentally ill you should have to store your firearms securely that would have helped with the Sandy Hook shooter.
Pat
And he was a full on failure of local law enforcement to do their jobs. He was well known to the sheriff's office, but his mother is a county employee and he was apparently kept out of the system as much as possible in part because of this. Having a list does no good when enablers in a co-dependent relationship refuse to allow treatment and if necessary, involuntary commitment or incarceration.
polymorpheous
04-10-13, 03:05
:thank_you2:
As someone who swore an oath, you are MANDATED to care about the process when operating in an official capacity. In particular, Due Process as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
This is where you always get yourself into trouble in these threads. You post crazy shit that flies in the face of the Constitution, then claim that because some crybabies in the media and the populace demand it, it must be done. Bullshit. In every single thread on the subject, you post crap that essentially says "I don't care about the Constitution so much as doing something to stop bad/defective people and appease the left." Then you get all huffy because people assume you don't value your oath and you swear that you do.
THEN STOP POSTING THINGS THAT IMPLY OTHERWISE!
It's entirely your fault that people infer this trait in you. Either own it or change how you express yourself, because your manufactured drama is tedious. :(
Nightvisionary
04-10-13, 04:51
Those are antidepressants. One does not normally become homicidal from depression; homicidal 'rage'/behavior is related to a different set of psych problems found in the DSM IV/V.
That is a good point however it brings up another question. Currently a person may not enlist in the U.S. military if they are taking any medications for depression or anxiety. Shouldn't police officers be held to a similar standard?
During my time with a LE agency I knew of several officers taking meds for depression. Recently a local off duty police officer was arrested after engaging in a fire fight with officers from several agencies including his own. During the ensuing search it was reported that several prescription anti-depressent medications were found with the officers name on them.
As someone who swore an oath, you are MANDATED to care about the process when operating in an official capacity. In particular, Due Process as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
This is where you always get yourself into trouble in these threads. You post crazy shit that flies in the face of the Constitution, then claim that because some crybabies in the media and the populace demand it, it must be done. Bullshit. In every single thread on the subject, you post crap that essentially says "I don't care about the Constitution so much as doing something to stop bad/defective people and appease the left." Then you get all huffy because people assume you don't value your oath and you swear that you do.
THEN STOP POSTING THINGS THAT IMPLY OTHERWISE!
It's entirely your fault that people infer this trait in you. Either own it or change how you express yourself, because your manufactured drama is tedious. :(
Thank you so very very much. I couldn't stomach his drivel anymore. I had to block him.
ICANHITHIMMAN
04-10-13, 06:40
There is a BIG difference between people needing meds to stop them from acting out their psychopathic fantasies and killing people (Which is not a significant portion of the population- at all) and people needing meds to deal with depression, anxiety, PTSD, eating dissorders and other forms of anxiety/depression (Which is a large portion of the population- actually).
Of course if you are on meds and have suicidal or murderous tendancies, gun confiscation makes sense.
But just because you are deprressed, have an eating disorder, PTSD, or other such syndromes dealing with anxiety/depression- THAT IS NO REASON TO CONFISCATE YOUR WEAPONS!
Are you really trying to defend the confiscation of guns based on Government violating HIPPA rights and removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who have taken SSRI's?
The idea someone who is on this medication "might" commit some crime so we need to confiscate their guns; is not far off from arresting people for "pre-crime"- are you okay with that notion?
So Pat, what about LEO's & current/former military who have had to take SSRI's due to PTSD, anxiety, depression, or other such syndromes they got from being on the job and seeing/living/delaing with what they do?
Should they be disarmed? Or do you think they should be exempt?
This is beyond a slippery slope, this is the back-door to gun confiscation.
What we have going on in NY and soon other states is disturbing and wrong. It is un American to the core.
I agree with everything you said, that's why I want to ask your opinion. If cops get PTSD on the job and still function every day in that capacity, why wont departments hire guys with PTSD they developed in combat?
Littlelebowski
04-10-13, 07:05
As someone who swore an oath, you are MANDATED to care about the process when operating in an official capacity. In particular, Due Process as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
This is where you always get yourself into trouble in these threads. You post crazy shit that flies in the face of the Constitution, then claim that because some crybabies in the media and the populace demand it, it must be done. Bullshit. In every single thread on the subject, you post crap that essentially says "I don't care about the Constitution so much as doing something to stop bad/defective people and appease the left." Then you get all huffy because people assume you don't value your oath and you swear that you do.
THEN STOP POSTING THINGS THAT IMPLY OTHERWISE!
It's entirely your fault that people infer this trait in you. Either own it or change how you express yourself, because your manufactured drama is tedious. :(
And he was a full on failure of local law enforcement to do their jobs. He was well known to the sheriff's office, but his mother is a county employee and he was apparently kept out of the system as much as possible in part because of this. Having a list does no good when enablers in a co-dependent relationship refuse to allow treatment and if necessary, involuntary commitment or incarceration.
We need to hang out.
I agree with everything you said, that's why I want to ask your opinion. If cops get PTSD on the job and still function every day in that capacity, why wont departments hire guys with PTSD they developed in combat?
Not THC but other than percieved liability I've got nada. So long as they can still mee department standards and pass a FFDE they should be gtg. But honestly I'm not aware of any departments who would their officers who are receiving mental health treatment as a positive thing tho.
Submariner
04-10-13, 08:08
Correct, but the issue stands that due process has not been afforded.
"Out here, due process is a bullet." John Wayne
The idea someone who is on this medication "might" commit some crime so we need to confiscate their guns; is not far off from arresting people for "pre-crime"- are you okay with that notion?
Minority Report
VooDoo6Actual
04-10-13, 08:46
"Out here, due process is a bullet." John Wayne
Classic, Green Berets 1967'
Pat,
Do you believe LE should be exempt from such laws/confiscation?
Do you understand that this will cause MUCH more harm than good?
People will stop seeking medical help for fear of losing their rights.
Do you really think this is the solution to our mental health problem- scaring the mentally ill into not seeking help for fear they will lose their 2nd, 4th and 5th A rights?
This type of "solution" doesnothing to solve the problem- quite frankly has the propensity to make it MUCH WORSE, and strips away inalienable rights.
What is happening is disturbing. How you (Especially being an LEO) can be on board and justify these actions is scary.
How can you be okay with breaking your oath for a false sense of safety?
I agree with everything you said, that's why I want to ask your opinion. If cops get PTSD on the job and still function every day in that capacity, why wont departments hire guys with PTSD they developed in combat?
I think it is crap really. I have no clue why they won't hire them other than some BS liability they perceive.
How many returning vets with PTSD have snapped? Is it really as big of a concern as everyone makes it out to be? Or just the typical mechanism of fear causing an over reaction?
I have a buddy (Old time British SAS) with SEVERE PTSD that I go shooting with- not once have I felt any fear of him snapping and going on a rampage.
I do not believe it should be an issue unless the individual in question gives a reason to be an issue.
Magic_Salad0892
04-10-13, 09:10
I have a buddy (Old time British SAS) with SEVERE PTSD.
I always feel sad about those in special operations type jobs with severe PTSD. I hope your friend is handling it well.
Thank you so very very much. I couldn't stomach his drivel anymore. I had to block him.
That rather is the problem with him, it isn't simply that he's wrong, it's that he's absurd.
montanadave
04-10-13, 09:28
The simple fact is not even highly trained mental health professionals with intimate knowledge of a specific patient's case history can accurately predict if and when that person might committ an act of violence. It's a crap shoot though obviously some folks are higher risk than others.
Why do you think all these interviews with neighbors and co-workers after a tragedy almost always sound the same? "He seemed like such a nice guy. Kind of kept to himself. Etc., etc., etc."
Denying a large segment of the population their constitutional rights because they've sought treatment for illness is criminal. And expecting a bureaucracy to have the manpower, resources, and capabilities to accurately screen folks is ridiculous. Frankly, you'd save more lives by simply revoking the driving privileges of every person ever charged with a DUI.
We need to keep guns out of the hands of severely disturbed individuals who have displayed a propensity for violence. But accomplishing that goal is immensely complicated and nothing I trust to politicians pandering for votes.
Alaskapopo is the kind of cop that we're always talking about. The kind that does not give a crap about citizens, our constitutional rights, or anything else aside from his job and "position of authority". I would hate to get pulled over by this guy because he'd probably rip me out of the car then search it without probable cause all in the name of finding a joint or dimesack of marijuana. It's useless to argue with this guy. He is a perfect, shining example of what's wrong with today's law enforcement also known as the SS "papers please" squad.
VooDoo6Actual
04-10-13, 10:07
There's a few more here as well that conveniently forgot their Constitutional oath's.
You can't cherry pick the BOR so, we're gonna play the depends what your definition of is, is semantics game instead of having a Constitutional Convention.....
As someone who swore an oath, you are MANDATED to care about the process when operating in an official capacity. In particular, Due Process as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
This is where you always get yourself into trouble in these threads. You post crazy shit that flies in the face of the Constitution, then claim that because some crybabies in the media and the populace demand it, it must be done. Bullshit. In every single thread on the subject, you post crap that essentially says "I don't care about the Constitution so much as doing something to stop bad/defective people and appease the left." Then you get all huffy because people assume you don't value your oath and you swear that you do.
THEN STOP POSTING THINGS THAT IMPLY OTHERWISE!
It's entirely your fault that people infer this trait in you. Either own it or change how you express yourself, because your manufactured drama is tedious. :(
And he was a full on failure of local law enforcement to do their jobs. He was well known to the sheriff's office, but his mother is a county employee and he was apparently kept out of the system as much as possible in part because of this. Having a list does no good when enablers in a co-dependent relationship refuse to allow treatment and if necessary, involuntary commitment or incarceration.
I'd like to buy this man a beer someday.
davidjinks
04-10-13, 10:48
Why keep feeding people like Pat and his ilk? There are quite a few people here who have the same beliefs as him. He's the same way on just about every other gun board there is on the net. Same shit, same spew, same attitude. Why he's still a member on any PRO ANYTHING board is beyond me. "I fully support your rights for XYZ, BUT...only if it doesn't conflict with my beliefs of what I think you should actually be like."
Bottom line is, whether you have taken an oath or not; as an American citizen of this great country, you should flat out ****ing know the difference between legal/illegal, right/wrong, constitutional/unconstitutional! You should also know that as an American you have a duty to protect those rights from all enemies and oppressors! They are yours/mine/everyone's rights. Those who place themselves above any other person in this country is a pathetic sham. Those who claim their rights are more important than anyone else's rights are a sham. Those who willingly and dutifully usurp our constitutional rights are not true Americans, are not true patriots and are in fact our enemy.
People like that are what has ruined this once great republic. It's a sickness that is killing all of us. People like that are what has ruined every civilized nation throughout history.
In the end, it won't matter for shit if you've got a uniform on, a badge, a ****ing ninja mask...you are no better than me, him, them...
The simple fact is not even highly trained mental health professionals with intimate knowledge of a specific patient's case history can accurately predict if and when that person might committ an act of violence. It's a crap shoot though obviously some folks are higher risk than others.
Why do you think all these interviews with neighbors and co-workers after a tragedy almost always sound the same? "He seemed like such a nice guy. Kind of kept to himself. Etc., etc., etc."
Denying a large segment of the population their constitutional rights because they've sought treatment for illness is criminal. And expecting a bureaucracy to have the manpower, resources, and capabilities to accurately screen folks is ridiculous. Frankly, you'd save more lives by simply revoking the driving privileges of every person ever charged with a DUI.
We need to keep guns out of the hands of severely disturbed individuals who have displayed a propensity for violence. But accomplishing that goal is immensely complicated and nothing I trust to politicians pandering for votes.
Very well said.
Pat states (paraphrasing) "people with mental illness need to be denied access to guns" and wonders why people light his ass up. Then usually claims he's misunderstood or some other BS excuse. :rolleyes:
FWIW, I think now that some lawmakers have pushed to keep more people with severe mental illness from obtaining guns, this may be a push-back and overreaction from gun grabbers to attempt to show that the policies either identify too many people as possible threats or the wrong people. Then after court challenges they hope the laws will get struck down. JMO.
How many non-psychotropic drugs on the market list suicide as a potential side effect? How many people take psychotropic drugs and never commit crimes nor think about crimes or suicide according to studies?
GA Boys list includes many people that were homicidal and had stopped taking their meds. Lougher wasn't currently taking psychotropics and was abusing the same painkillers Heath Ledger did IIRC. Many of those would've been stopped if we had laws in place to identify people with severe mental defects and homicidal ideations.
ICANHITHIMMAN
04-10-13, 14:46
Threads like these give me a good idea of which member belong on my ignore list.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you people understand?
We have a RIGHT to due process. It is NOT a privilege.
What is really scary is, some members here who swore an OATH to protect the constitution, don't get it.
Being on an anti-depressant makes one a danger to society!?
Then why the **** are the so widely prescribed?!
This is pure bullshit, and if anyone thinks that it is reasonable, well then, they can no be helped.
WOW I love this
It seems to me to just be the latest form of discrimination. A new and "politically acceptable" way of using people's ignorance to create a false sense of resolution to a political problem. Race, gender, nationality, and religious affiliation are now all off-limits for the politicians to use as a scapegoat. So now they have their new group to blame. Sad....
I'll say this, those of us who have a position of authority must keep in the forefront of thought that when a person appears to be incapable of protecting their own rights, we have to duty to ensure their rights are protected. We're supposed to fight for those that can't fight for themselves after all.
This has zero to do with allowing a mentally incompetent/dangerous person access to weapons. It has to do with ensuring their safety and the safety of others, through Due Process.
To everyone who said "due process for removing guns from mentally ill" in this thread: I would be interested to know what that due process might be and what powers and authorities will be administering it?
As it stands, homicidal ideation is a reportable behavior already. How many out of recent mentally ill shooters admitted to homicidal ideas? To my knowledge, only Aurora killer, and he was allegedly reported. Suppose under new process he would've been also reported to NCIS and ultimately stopped. What about others, which seem to be a majority? As an extreme example, Newtown killer had a freaking historical mass murder spreadsheet and nobody knew.
Many already mentioned that many mental illnesses are a spectrum of abnormalities. It is worth mentioning that most patient fluctuate along the spectrum in their course.
So how exactly are you all foreseeing an efficient and constitutionally compatible due process here?
To everyone who said "due process for removing guns from mentally ill" in this thread: I would be interested to know what that due process might be and what powers and authorities will be administering it?
As it stands, homicidal ideation is a reportable behavior already. How many out of recent mentally ill shooters admitted to homicidal ideas? To my knowledge, only Aurora killer, and he was allegedly reported. Suppose under new process he would've been also reported to NCIS and ultimately stopped. What about others, which seem to be a majority? As an extreme example, Newtown killer had a freaking historical mass murder spreadsheet and nobody knew.
Many already mentioned that many mental illnesses are a spectrum of abnormalities. It is worth mentioning that most patient fluctuate along the spectrum in their course.
So how exactly are you all foreseeing an efficient and constitutionally compatible due process here?
It's actually quite simple. Not all efficient methods are constitutionally compatible. When efficiency and constitutionality are at odds, hands down, constitutionality wins. Better to let a thousand mentally incompetent persons roam free than infringe on one competent person's rights. I'm paraphrasing of course, but it's a fully valid concept.
Constitutionality requires both rights and responsibilities. The history of governments is to "relieve" their citizens of their responsibilities and only then do they erode their rights. For example, every man and woman in America is responsible for the safety and well being of themselves and their dependents. This is not law, it's nature. Yet if you ask many Americans, it's the responsibility of the government to keep them safe. If they feel unsafe, instead of taking it upon themselves to strengthen their safety posture, they piss and moan at the government to enact "common sense" restrictions upon others. That is unnatural. It's a super easy cop-out, but unnatural nonetheless.
Sadly, government thrives on this. Repeat customers bellying up to the bar for round after round of personal irresponsibility is great for business! To those of us who labor under the burden of personal responsibility, the yoke of "common sense" restrictions placed upon us to make those who can't be bothered to fend for themselves is a death by slow strangulation. We express our resentment, which is seen by the irresponsible as an indictment of their very existence. They retaliate by categorizing us as undesirable and before you know it, we're in a death spiral of hatred and conflict.
I honestly don't know what the answer is, but compromise and capitulation, isn't it. :(
Alaskapopo
04-10-13, 23:43
It's actually quite simple. Not all efficient methods are constitutionally compatible. When efficiency and constitutionality are at odds, hands down, constitutionality wins. Better to let a thousand mentally incompetent persons roam free than infringe on one competent person's rights. I'm paraphrasing of course, but it's a fully valid concept.
:(
Not when those let go are shooting up rooms full of school children. We need a system not nearly as slanted as the criminal justice system is to letting the guilty go free.
Pat
Not when those let go are shooting up rooms full of school children. We need a system not nearly as slanted as the criminal justice system is to letting the guilty go free.
Pat
Freedom isn't free.
Sometimes the guilty walk. It's a lot better than the innocent getting caught in a tighter net.
GeorgiaBoy
04-10-13, 23:53
The whole "I don't really care how many people die as long as I don't have a single amount of 'infringement' on my rights" thing is far from the best argument the pro-gun side can offer.
The whole "I don't really care how many people die as long as I don't have a single amount of 'infringement' on my rights" thing is far from the best argument the pro-gun side can offer.
A better way of putting it: "I acknowledge the inherent danger in liberty, but it's far better to live as free as I can while facing that danger than to forfeit some liberty for the misguided purpose of mitigating some danger."
Jefferson said: "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous seas of liberty."
No wise decisions have EVER been born out of fear. We need to stop being pussies.
Not when those let go are shooting up rooms full of school children. We need a system not nearly as slanted as the criminal justice system is to letting the guilty go free.
Pat
So we should be focusing on fixing the ****ing system where it is broken, not vilifying innocent persons for the unlawful actions of others. But when you make irrational statements like that you only reinforce my previous assertions. Look, I'm not a fan of certain aspects of the system anymore than you are but put you need to realize that your coming across as though your personal/professional biases have jaded your perception(s) and objectivity on matters. Some self-reflection may be in order.
Fact of the matter is this. If you were to represent the entire population of the United States as 100 people standing in the room and 99 people were in total agreement that a specific right they all share should be rendered null and void for what ever reason it can not be so because the constitution protects individual liberty and individual freedoms. The rights of that 1 remaining person, the individual, trumps the desire of the majority which is intent on the stripping them of their right, period. That's the framework this country was founded on, that's how the system is suppose to work. Any procedural changes to how the system operates or how public policy is integrated needs to created and implemented in such a manner that takes these considerations into account. There can be no compromise on this, they are absolute.
A better way of putting it: "I acknowledge the inherent danger in liberty, but it's far better to live as free as I can while facing that danger than to forfeit some liberty for the misguided purpose of mitigating some danger."
Jefferson said: "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous seas of liberty."
No wise decisions have EVER been born out of fear. We need to stop being pussies.
Amen. Fear even if it is not manifested in an overt manner is the crux of what is going on here. People have become weak...
I honestly don't know what the answer is, but compromise and capitulation, isn't it. :(
Herein lies the truth, in absence of compromise there is no answer. I am not advocating compromise, I am simply stating the fact. The principal issue at hand is that the Constitution is by itself uncompromising - "shall not be infringed" - yet here we are discussing how to find an acceptable compromise and do infringe on rights of group of people.
Efficient way here that every mental patient with homicidal ideation, or history of violent behavior, or illnesses that encompass paranoia, psychosis, hallucinations, or drug addiction associated with violence (that includes alcohol), maybe something else I am forgetting, gets flagged and gets denied. He/she can appeal, and there is a strict and short time frame for a decision on appeal. Mind you, it won't catch everyone dangerous still, but it will catch many. This approach, however, will likely fail the "thousand incompetent-one competent"principle, even if temporarily.
Alternative is only to flag the first group - explicitly homicidal ones. As I said, it is already a law, but it is not reported to NCIS. Doing this will most definitely not capture most of mental dangerous types, as exemplified in my previous post. It will pass the constitutionality test however. The downside here is only one: next time mental case shoots up classroom, we will say "it is not a gun issue, it is mental health issue", everyone will ask what was done about mentally related crime prevention, everyone will say "well, nothing really" and there will be more erosion of Constitution a'la Cuomo, Malloy and Hickenlooper.
To everyone who said "due process for removing guns from mentally ill" in this thread: I would be interested to know what that due process might be and what powers and authorities will be administering it?
As it stands, homicidal ideation is a reportable behavior already. How many out of recent mentally ill shooters admitted to homicidal ideas? To my knowledge, only Aurora killer, and he was allegedly reported. Suppose under new process he would've been also reported to NCIS and ultimately stopped. What about others, which seem to be a majority? As an extreme example, Newtown killer had a freaking historical mass murder spreadsheet and nobody knew.
Many already mentioned that many mental illnesses are a spectrum of abnormalities. It is worth mentioning that most patient fluctuate along the spectrum in their course.
So how exactly are you all foreseeing an efficient and constitutionally compatible due process here?
In the current system in most states a person who is believed to be a a danger to themselves or others due to mental illness can be involuntary committed in a psychiatric facility for a period of time. Usually 72 hours in most cases. After that they can converted to voluntary status, released, or if the treating physician feels it is necessary to continue their commitment their stay can be extended again up to a certain number of days. The patient has the right to refuse treatment which requires the facility to take the patient to court and argue for a treatment over objection ruling be made. The patient has the right to counsel during all stages of the legal process. If judge grants the treatment over objection request the patient can be forcibly restrained if necessary and medicated.
It should not be any different when attempting to strip someone of their 2A rights. If a person is believed to be a danger to themselves or others thus qualifying for emergency commitment an injunction should be put in place against them and their case should be adjudicated in court but they should have assistance from legal counsel. If the judge makes a informed ruling against them then adding their name to a list of prohibited persons would be acceptable.
Alternative is only to flag the first group - explicitly homicidal ones. As I said, it is already a law, but it is not reported to NCIS. Doing this will most definitely not capture most of mental dangerous types, as exemplified in my previous post. It will pass the constitutionality test however. The downside here is only one: next time mental case shoots up classroom, we will say "it is not a gun issue, it is mental health issue", everyone will ask what was done about mentally related crime prevention, everyone will say "well, nothing really" and there will be more erosion of Constitution a'la Cuomo, Malloy and Hickenlooper.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/10/it-not-knives-it-not-guns-it-mental-illness-that-kills/
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 00:53
Freedom isn't free.
Sometimes the guilty walk. It's a lot better than the innocent getting caught in a tighter net.
With criminals I can agree they are more preditable. With the mentally ill the danger is higher as they can be unstable and unpredicatable. We are not talking about taking about locking them up rather limiting their access to buying things like guns.
Pat
We are not talking about taking about locking them up rather limiting their access to buying things like guns.
Pat
No one is disagreeing with this. All myself and others are saying is that a person, any person, believed to be suffering from mental illness should be granted due process have their case adjudicated in a court of law where they are judged to be danger before their fundamental right to buy and own a firearm is taken from them.
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 01:32
No one is disagreeing with this. All myself and others are saying is that a person, any person, believed to be suffering from mental illness should be granted due process have their case adjudicated in a court of law where they are judged to be danger before their fundamental right to buy and own a firearm is taken from them.
I am not against Due process but we need to get something in place and soon. Right now there is no database of mentally ill people forbidded from buying firearms.
Pat
Locking them up is a denial of their inherent right to locomotion.
Seizing their weapons is a denial of their inherent right to keep and bear arms.
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 01:49
Locking them up is a denial of their inherent right to locomotion.
Seizing their weapons is a denial of their inherent right to keep and bear arms.
And their shooting kids is denying the basic right to life.
Pat
And their shooting kids is denying the basic right to life.
Pat
The government is not shooting kids. At least not yet.
--
Herein lies the truth, in absence of compromise there is no answer. I am not advocating compromise, I am simply stating the fact. The principal issue at hand is that the Constitution is by itself uncompromising - "shall not be infringed" - yet here we are discussing how to find an acceptable compromise and do infringe on rights of group of people.
Efficient way here that every mental patient with homicidal ideation, or history of violent behavior, or illnesses that encompass paranoia, psychosis, hallucinations, or drug addiction associated with violence (that includes alcohol), maybe something else I am forgetting, gets flagged and gets denied. He/she can appeal, and there is a strict and short time frame for a decision on appeal. Mind you, it won't catch everyone dangerous still, but it will catch many. This approach, however, will likely fail the "thousand incompetent-one competent"principle, even if temporarily.
Alternative is only to flag the first group - explicitly homicidal ones. As I said, it is already a law, but it is not reported to NCIS. Doing this will most definitely not capture most of mental dangerous types, as exemplified in my previous post. It will pass the constitutionality test however. The downside here is only one: next time mental case shoots up classroom, we will say "it is not a gun issue, it is mental health issue", everyone will ask what was done about mentally related crime prevention, everyone will say "well, nothing really" and there will be more erosion of Constitution a'la Cuomo, Malloy and Hickenlooper.
It isn't a mental health issue and nothing is being done because Cuomo, Hickenlooper, etc. ONLY want gun/people control. Actually doing something about the problem doesn't further their agenda, so it is willfully ignored. What can you possibly do to work with such disingenuous politicians?
Not when those let go are shooting up rooms full of school children. We need a system not nearly as slanted as the criminal justice system is to letting the guilty go free.
Pat
Sorry John Anderton, Precrimes doesn't exist...yet. :(
With criminals I can agree they are more preditable. With the mentally ill the danger is higher as they can be unstable and unpredicatable. We are not talking about taking about locking them up rather denying them their constitutional rights
Pat
There is already a perfectly good system in place, that isn't being used. Why? Because as I stated above, it doesn't further their biased agenda. I'm all for having every state report those (and ONLY those) persons adjudicated mentally incompetent in a court of law to NICS. It must also be paid for by the feds, with federal tax dollars. Any other stipulations will not pass muster in those states that value the Constitution. Doing what the leftist progressives pushing for gun control demand is not a viable solution. It merely showcases their unwillingness to compromise.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-13, 02:24
The government is not shooting kids. At least not yet.
Tell that to Samuel Weaver.
BTT, all I hear from the usual suspects is they are willing to give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety.
If it were up to me, the 'usual suspects' would be barred from any and all positions of governmental authority. Up to and including dog catcher.
Right now there is no database of mentally ill people forbidded from buying firearms.
Pat
I am a fan of the slippery slope argument. Who goes into the database? How can you decide who, with mental illness, is too"sick" to to own a gun?
The problem with homicidal rage/behavior is that it most often is not symptomatic until it happens.
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 04:46
Nevermind
Specific questions regarding such a database:
• What are the criteria for being put in the database?
• Who decides the criteria?
• Who makes the decisions? A panel? One man? A Jury?
• How can a citizen defend his name or appeal that decision?
• How do we eliminate abuse of such a system? (i.e. we wake up one morning to discover that some socialists have been adding the entire tea party chapter in their AO to the database)
Until there are rock-solid lawful, reasonable and responsible answers to those questions, I'll never support the creation of such a database.
No doubt its complex. But sadly our elected officials would rather spend their time writing a 1000plus page immigration bill than address mental health. Personally I think the process should be similar to what we already have in place with respect to the psycholegal clinical assessment of dangerousness and the judge having the final determination.
Specific questions regarding such a database:
• What are the criteria for being put in the database?
• Who decides the criteria?
• Who makes the decisions? A panel? One man? A Jury?
• How can a citizen defend his name or appeal that decision?
• How do we eliminate abuse of such a system? (i.e. we wake up one morning to discover that some socialists have been adding the entire tea party chapter in their AO to the database)
Until there are rock-solid lawful, reasonable and responsible answers to those questions, I'll never support the creation of such a database.
Then state your position clearly and in a cogent matter.
I thought he was clear. my understanding of what he said was that some people dont need to own firearms. pretty simple and concise statement. I dont recall him stating that gun rights needed to be taken away without due process or even intimating that.
Gun rights activists are some sensitive mother****ers I'll tell you what. sit and whine about the smallest little thing from a brother, but wont actually get off their fat ass to go and DO a godam thing to actually make a difference. I'll tell you what... when you mother****ers are ready to go DO something other than make phone calls and write letters to fascists and communists you give me a call.
Geebus... we cant even get a group of coloradoans to show up at the capital carrying guns for a pro gun rally, why the **** do you think we are in such deep shit now? WHY praytell, should I give a crap about your messed up state when it's own citizens wont even stand up for themsleves? When you are ready to break some unconstitutional laws and let go of your "law abiding citizen" title, you'll be ready to be a free man again.
the frickin second amendment isnt even about guns anyway. It's all about presenting a tangible and credible threat to those who would take from you. that is something gunowners do not do right now and seriously lack understanding of it's import.
Not when those let go are shooting up rooms full of school children. We need a system not nearly as slanted as the criminal justice system is to letting the guilty go free.
Pat
You are aware that this trend is actually decreasing right? I was pleasantly surprised when this topic came up in my sociology class (Henslin, Essentials of Sociology - 9th ed. page 355). Basically laying to rest the myth of school shootings increasing in frequency.
When topics like this come up in class I have a field day educating my fellow classmates. The look of shock and awe on their faces is priceless.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-13, 15:43
Gun rights activists are some sensitive mother****ers I'll tell you what.
Correction, we are some hyper vigilant mother****ers . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/democide1_zps89c77f37.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/democide1_zps89c77f37.jpg.html)
gunrunner505
04-11-13, 15:55
Correction, we are some hyper vigilant mother****ers . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/democide1_zps89c77f37.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/democide1_zps89c77f37.jpg.html)
There are those who say this sort of thing would never happen in this country.
I present to you Mr. Obama and the liberal left as exhibit A and call bullshit.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
There are those who say this sort of thing would never happen in this country.
I present to you Mr. Obama and the liberal left as exhibit A and call bullshit.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
And there are those who are too stupid to describe. I think there is a correlation between our two sample sets.
I am not against Due process but we need to get something in place and soon. Right now there is no database of mentally ill people forbidded from buying firearms.
Pat
Actually, healthcare professionals are required by law to report to LEO if they honestly believe a patient is considering harming others or themselves.
In the case of the Aurora, Co theater shooter, his therapist notified the police the month before the shooting. .....
I wonder where the failure was.....
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 17:29
Actually, healthcare professionals are required by law to report to LEO if they honestly believe a patient is considering harming others or themselves.
In the case of the Aurora, Co theater shooter, his therapist notified the police the month before the shooting. .....
I wonder where the failure was.....
There is no database for the mentally ill. Also nice try trying to twist this into a anti leo thread. Typical BS.:rolleyes:
Pat
gunrunner505
04-11-13, 17:30
And there are those who are too stupid to describe. I think there is a correlation between our two sample sets.
And between the 2 samples, the condition white blissfully ignorant and the genuine dumbass, I fear we're outnumbered.....
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
There is no database for the mentally ill. Also nice try trying to twist this into a anti leo thread. Typical BS.:rolleyes:
Pat
Stating that the police dropped the ball doesn't equate to an "anti-LEO" thread in any sense of the word. However, thinking the police are above reproach correlates to a mental illness commonly referred to as narcissistic personality disorder.
ETA - From the Mayo Clinic.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 17:45
Stating that the police dropped the ball doesn't equate to an "anti-LEO" thread in any sense of the word. However, thinking the police are above reproach correlates to a mental illness commonly referred to as narcissistic personality disorder.
Thinking the police and the government are out to get them is a paranoid mental disorder. I don't think we are beyond reproach but you seem to think we can do no good.
Pat
Thinking the police and the government are out to get them is a paranoid mental disorder.
Pat
Nobody even mentioned police or .Gov coming to get anyone. He simply stated that the police were given the information from dude's psych and they didn't do shit with the information. Simple, they screwed up, dropped the ball, and no one is held accountable like every other time somebody screws up in government.
ETA - Since you added this.
I don't think we are beyond reproach but you seem to think we can do no good.
Pat
Absolutely not true in any form or fashion. I try to look at things from a neutral stance. Your view is very skewed, I understand that, but I'm not going to knuckle under just because you don't agree with me and you have a badge. I'm not anti-LE in any sense of the word, I am pro-Constitution in every sense.
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 17:54
Nobody even mentioned police or .Gov coming to get anyone. He simply stated that the police were given the information from dude's psych and they didn't do shit with the information. Simple, they screwed up, dropped the ball, and no one is held accountable like every other time somebody screws up in government.
Its just the usual suspects dropping little childish attacks whenever they can. The police had nothing to do with this thread and the usual suspects brought it in. We have no idea who dropped the ball or if it was dropped at all. That is the reality but some here chose to always bash cops whenever possible. Frankly its tiring. I should start selling tin foil I could make a killing here.
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-11-13, 17:56
Nobody even mentioned police or .Gov coming to get anyone. He simply stated that the police were given the information from dude's psych and they didn't do shit with the information. Simple, they screwed up, dropped the ball, and no one is held accountable like every other time somebody screws up in government.
ETA - Since you added this.
Absolutely not true in any form or fashion. I try to look at things from a neutral stance. Your view is very skewed, I understand that, but I'm not going to knuckle under just because you don't agree with me and you have a badge. I'm not anti-LE in any sense of the word, I am pro-Constitution in every sense.
Your posts in the past demonstrate the opposite. I on the other hand will call a spade a spade and I have in the past when LEO's have stepped over the line and taken a lot of flack for it from my peers too.
Pat
The campus police revoked his student ID: LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858#.UWdIBVcYkni)
We just can't win.....We have a series of laws that have created a system in which Psychologists and Psychiatrists are required to report to law enforcement people that state they intend to do harm and law enforcement is supposed to investigate and take action to protect the community and the individual.
But for at least a few of the recent shootings, that process has been broken. If this process can't be managed correctly, how the **** can any new system work without violating the rights of the vast majority of people?
platoonDaddy
04-11-13, 18:57
New York resident has gun license wrongly revoked, concerns raised about law
Buffalo-area resident David Lewis has since gotten his license reinstated in what was apparently a case of mistaken identity under the state's new SAFE Act. The case drew outrage on gun-rights blogs warning that the state was exploiting the law to seize weapons.
Lewis' lawyer, indicating this may be an indication of a broader issue, also claims to be representing a second client in a similar circumstance.
Lewis initially received a notice on April 1 from the Erie County clerk saying that his license was being immediately suspended. He was ordered to surrender it along with his seven registered handguns.
violating his rights by using a loophole under HIPAA laws.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/flaws-revealed-in-ny-safe-act-after-state-resident-has-gun-license-wrongly/
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-13, 19:11
The campus police revoked his student ID: LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858#.UWdIBVcYkni)
We just can't win.....We have a series of laws that have created a system in which Psychologists and Psychiatrists are required to report to law enforcement people that state they intend to do harm and law enforcement is supposed to investigate and take action to protect the community and the individual.
But for at least a few of the recent shootings, that process has been broken. If this process can't be managed correctly, how the **** can any new system work without violating the rights of the vast majority of people?
One cannot legislate "safety". Those people in CO died because they were at the wrong place (GUN FREE ZONE) at the wrong time (when a madman acted out his fantasies). No mental health database or limited capacity magazine would have changed this fact.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-13, 19:13
New York resident has gun license wrongly revoked, concerns raised about law
Buffalo-area resident David Lewis has since gotten his license reinstated in what was apparently a case of mistaken identity under the state's new SAFE Act. The case drew outrage on gun-rights blogs warning that the state was exploiting the law to seize weapons.
Lewis' lawyer, indicating this may be an indication of a broader issue, also claims to be representing a second client in a similar circumstance.
Lewis initially received a notice on April 1 from the Erie County clerk saying that his license was being immediately suspended. He was ordered to surrender it along with his seven registered handguns.
violating his rights by using a loophole under HIPAA laws.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/flaws-revealed-in-ny-safe-act-after-state-resident-has-gun-license-wrongly/
This happened last month.
Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/
There is no database for the mentally ill. Also nice try trying to twist this into a anti leo thread. Typical BS.:rolleyes:
Pat
And why should their be a database for only the mentally ill? Were talking about individuals who should be disbarred from purchasing or owning a firearm and we already have the NICS system. Also you have an uncanny ability to twist the context of other peoples words and statements. Have you considered a career in politics? No-one is trying to make this and anti-LE thread.
Its just the usual suspects dropping little childish attacks whenever they can. The police had nothing to do with this thread and the usual suspects brought it in. We have no idea who dropped the ball or if it was dropped at all. That is the reality but some here chose to always bash cops whenever possible. Frankly its tiring. I should start selling tin foil I could make a killing here.
Pat
You seem to think that people who take issue with LEOs with oversized egos and inflated badges is somehow a wholly negative deconstructive thing, that's ridiculous.
Fact of the matter is regarding Holmes somewhere along the line the system failed and failed hard. Per CO state law
For inpatient or outpatient commitment: If a person detained for seventy two hours ... or a respondent under court order
for evaluation ... has received an evaluation, he or she may be certified for not more than three months of short term
treatment. ... The notice of certification must be signed by
a professional person on the staff of the evaluation facility who
participated in the evaluation and shall state facts sufficient to establish reasonable grounds to believe that the person has a
mental illness and, as a result of the mental illness, is a d
anger to others or to himself or herself or is gravely disabled.
If the professional person in charge of the evaluation and treatment believes that a period longer than three months is
necessary for treatment of the respondent, he or she shall file with t
he court an extended certification.
Whenever a respondent has received short term treatment for five consecutive months ..., the professional person in charge
of the evaluation and treatment may file a petition with the court for long term care and treatment of the respondent[.]
For emergency evaluation (“72 - hour hold”):
The following persons [“intervening professionals,” see above] may effect a seventy - two - hour hold:
(A) A certified peace officer;
(B) A professional person;
(C) A registered professional
nurse ... who by reason of postgraduate education and additional nursing preparation
has gained knowledge, judgment, and skill in psychiatric or mental health nursing;
(D) A licensed marriage and family therapist or licensed professional counselor ... or an addiction counselor ... who
by reason of postgraduate education and additional preparation has gained knowledge, judgment, and skill in
psychiatric or clinical mental health therapy, forensic psychotherapy, or the evaluation of mental disorders; or
(E) A licensed clinical social worker[.]
Any individual may petition the court in the county in which the respondent resides or is physically present alleging that there
is a person who appears to have a mental illness and, as a result of the mental illness, appears to be a danger to others or
to himself or herself or appears to be gravely disabled and requesting that an evaluation of the person's condition be made.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/Initiating_Court-Ordered_Treatment.pdf
Holmes' psychiatrist went to the police and notified them that he was in fact a danger to himself or others and as a result he should have been detained and taken to the closest emergency facility for a crisis evaluation. From which a determination of involuntary admission would have been made by the evaluating physician. This did not happen. See below
What did police at the University of Colorado know about the homicidal intent of James Holmes, the Aurora, Colo., theater shooter? When did they know it? Did they share this information with police outside the university? If not, why not?
These are some of the questions provoked by court documents unsealed yesterday, a week after similar documents were released in the Tucson and Sandy Hook massacres. The Colorado records, related to early information and warrants, include some eyebrow-raising details. Images on Holmes’ phone show how carefully he scouted the theater weeks in advance, taking pictures of the door jamb. In addition to the propane tanks and other explosive items in his apartment, investigators found 50 containers of an unspecified liquid. Denver news station CALL7 notes that testimony at a January hearing “revealed many of the canisters contained layered combinations of improvised napalm, thermite and/or black powder.” But the number of containers, previously unreported, suggests he may have purchased ingredients in quantities that should have triggered alarms.
Advertisement
The clearest warning, however, came from Dr. Lynne Fenton, a psychiatrist at the university. At a hearing last August, Fenton confirmed that she had met with Holmes before the shooting. She testified that on June 11, a month before the tragedy, she contacted a university police officer, Lynn Whitten, about a patient. Fenton, asserting confidentiality, didn’t name the patient in court. She testified that "I communicated with Officer Whitten to gather more information about this case and to communicate my concerns." According to a Denver Post account of the hearing, when Fenton “was asked in court whether she had ever contacted authorities for reasons required by the state law that mandates psychiatrists report specific threats of violence made by their patients, Fenton said she had not.”
The Post also reports that officials at the university “have denied that Holmes was banned from campus for making threats, saying instead that his key card was deactivated as part of a normal process when a student withdraws from school.”
But the newly released documents tell a different story. A July 23 police affidavit says that shortly after the shooting, Whitten told an Aurora police officer that Fenton had been much more explicit in their June conversations. According to the affidavit,
"Dr. Fenton advised that through her contact with James Holmes she was reporting, per her requirement, his danger to the public due to homicidal statements he had made. Additionally, Dr. Fenton was advising that she had been treating Holmes, and that Holmes had stopped seeing her and had begun threatening her via text messages."
A July 24 affidavit says that on July 21, Whitten told investigators
“that Lynne Fenton had contacted Officer Whitten [regarding] James E. Holmes on June 12, 2012. Lynne Fenton described James E. Holmes as having Homicidal thoughts and also stated that James E. Holmes had threatened and harassed her via e-mail/text messages. Officer Whitten Advised Sergeant Wesner that she had deactivated James E. Holmes’ I.D. on June 12, 2012 due to that complaint.”
Threats. Harassment. Homicidal statements. Danger to the public. These were explicit warnings, conveyed to a police officer. Based on these warnings, the university police cut off Holmes’ access to campus facilities.
What did the university do to protect the broader public? We don’t know. The Post reports that “the documents don't reveal what—if anything—campus authorities did to investigate Holmes” after barring him from their own facilities. CALL7 stands by its report that “neither Fenton nor the CU threat assessment team took action because Holmes had made it known he was going to leave the university.” CALL7 has also reported that according to its sources, university officials “never contacted Aurora police with Fenton’s concerns.”
As further evidence is unsealed in this case, we may learn more about what Fenton knew and disclosed. CALL7 says that according to testimony at the August hearing, “She wrote a four-page summary of her meeting with Holmes on June 11, but left blank a section designated for the treatment plan.” The search warrant records also show that at Holmes’ apartment, police found clonazepam, a psychiatric drug, as well as sedatives and sertraline (generic Zoloft).
What we know so far is that the public statements attributed to Fenton and university officials don’t match what’s in the police affidavits. And if the affidavits are correct, information about Holmes’ homicidal statements and danger to the public were deemed sufficient to trigger a warning to the university police, but not to the police who protect the rest of us. Why not?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2013/04/aurora_theater_shooting_documents_james_holmes_psychiatrist_warned_university.html
Two things: First his psychiatrist should have probably also contacted Aurora PD but I'm guessing she figured that contacting the Campus PD was sufficient to get the ball rolling. Second, someone in the Campus LE made the determination to not investigate further and bring him in on a pick up order for crisis evaluation. Either incompetence ruled the day or someone made a judgement call not to pursue it. The system failed and people died as a result.
This happened last month.
Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/
?? your referencing a entirely different incident.
There is no database for the mentally ill. Also nice try trying to twist this into a anti leo thread. Typical BS.:rolleyes:
Pat
Really!? Are you actually suggesting that had there been a database for the head shrinker to enter data into the cops could have done something about that effing idiot??
In the specific case of the Aurora deuchebag, no amount of databases would have kept him from killing those people. Even full scale registration and other forms of privacy violations would not have stopped him. He apparently built a number of bombs out of components available to him without raising any alarms.
The concept that a government entity can protect non government individuals if utter bull shit. The only way the government can actually protect individuals is by mere happenstance. Be lucky enough to have a cop near by when you end up in trouble and the government has protected you. Law enforcement is not and can never be a protective service. It is a deterrent by fact that they will investigate and catch people who have committed a crime. That is the only purpose it can serve efficiently. The quicker people wrap their tiny minds around that fact the better off we will be as a society. No amount of databases or civil rights violations will EVER change that. I grew up behind the Iron Curtain while Communism was alive and well. We had the same crime there as here. People got robbed, beaten, stabbed, raped and killed just like they get victimized here. The total lack of civil rights didnt eliminate the nut jobs who wanted to create mayhem. The only thing that dissuaded the fence sitters was knowing that if and when they were caught their ass would be in a world of hurt. Those truly of a warped mind did what they did even under the oppressive oversight of big brother (many times at the behest of big brother).
Background checks, NICS, mental health records, registrations, bans.... are totally useless pieces of shit mean to fool people into thinking the government they are wasting huge amounts of cash on is giving them a return on that investment. The reality is that they do absolutely nothing to curb crime as evidenced by the status of shitholes like Chicago, NYC, DC... They do however allow for more money to be sucked out of our wallets to build bigger beaurocracies that can further invade our lives and thin out our freedoms. All for a fake sense of security.
Really!? Are you actually suggesting that had there been a database for the head shrinker to enter data into the cops could have done something about that effing idiot??
In the specific case of the Aurora deuchebag, no amount of databases would have kept him from killing those people. Even full scale registration and other forms of privacy violations would not have stopped him. He apparently built a number of bombs out of components available to him without raising any alarms.
The concept that a government entity can protect non government individuals if utter bull shit. The only way the government can actually protect individuals is by mere happenstance. Be lucky enough to have a cop near by when you end up in trouble and the government has protected you. Law enforcement is not and can never be a protective service. It is a deterrent by fact that they will investigate and catch people who have committed a crime. That is the only purpose it can serve efficiently. The quicker people wrap their tiny minds around that fact the better off we will be as a society. No amount of databases or civil rights violations will EVER change that. I grew up behind the Iron Curtain while Communism was alive and well. We had the same crime there as here. People got robbed, beaten, stabbed, raped and killed just like they get victimized here. The total lack of civil rights didnt eliminate the nut jobs who wanted to create mayhem. The only thing that dissuaded the fence sitters was knowing that if and when they were caught their ass would be in a world of hurt. Those truly of a warped mind did what they did even under the oppressive oversight of big brother (many times at the behest of big brother).
Background checks, NICS, mental health records, registrations, bans.... are totally useless pieces of shit mean to fool people into thinking the government they are wasting huge amounts of cash on is giving them a return on that investment. The reality is that they do absolutely nothing to curb crime as evidenced by the status of shitholes like Chicago, NYC, DC... They do however allow for more money to be sucked out of our wallets to build bigger beaurocracies that can further invade our lives and thin out our freedoms. All for a fake sense of security.
Incredibly well stated.
I would like to buy you a glass of Whiskey Sir!
http://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/registration-questionnaire
Alaskapopo
04-12-13, 13:33
Really!? Are you actually suggesting that had there been a database for the head shrinker to enter data into the cops could have done something about that effing idiot??
In the specific case of the Aurora deuchebag, no amount of databases would have kept him from killing those people. Even full scale registration and other forms of privacy violations would not have stopped him. He apparently built a number of bombs out of components available to him without raising any alarms.
The concept that a government entity can protect non government individuals if utter bull shit. The only way the government can actually protect individuals is by mere happenstance. Be lucky enough to have a cop near by when you end up in trouble and the government has protected you. Law enforcement is not and can never be a protective service. It is a deterrent by fact that they will investigate and catch people who have committed a crime. That is the only purpose it can serve efficiently. The quicker people wrap their tiny minds around that fact the better off we will be as a society. No amount of databases or civil rights violations will EVER change that. I grew up behind the Iron Curtain while Communism was alive and well. We had the same crime there as here. People got robbed, beaten, stabbed, raped and killed just like they get victimized here. The total lack of civil rights didnt eliminate the nut jobs who wanted to create mayhem. The only thing that dissuaded the fence sitters was knowing that if and when they were caught their ass would be in a world of hurt. Those truly of a warped mind did what they did even under the oppressive oversight of big brother (many times at the behest of big brother).
Background checks, NICS, mental health records, registrations, bans.... are totally useless pieces of shit mean to fool people into thinking the government they are wasting huge amounts of cash on is giving them a return on that investment. The reality is that they do absolutely nothing to curb crime as evidenced by the status of shitholes like Chicago, NYC, DC... They do however allow for more money to be sucked out of our wallets to build bigger beaurocracies that can further invade our lives and thin out our freedoms. All for a fake sense of security.
Utter BS. While there is no cure all background checks, that check data bases of criminals and the mentally ill can do a lot to curb guns getting into the wrong hands. That and vicious prosecution of those caught straw buying for these individuals through undercover stings. Much like the vet who was caught trying to sell a gun to an undercover agent claiming to be a convicted felon. You seems to think that we should hand guns out to criminals and the mentally ill.
Pat
I grew up behind the Iron Curtain while Communism was alive and well. We had the same crime there as here.
Let's get factual here. We are not talking about any crime, we're talking about mental illness related mass murders. I grew up behind the Curtain too. In almost half-century I've lived, I am not aware of a case of a mentally ill person laying waste to a movie theater or a classroom in firearm-restrictive states. Nor there has been a Dunblane or Port Arthur #2.
Note I am not advocating to restrict a freedom of all in order to curb a specific and very small segment of crime. However, accessibility of firearm to mentally ill people is a very important factor. The argument that they would've found a way to kill people anyway is very speculative at best. Direct and personal "power" over human life and being actively engaged in a process of killing is considered to be psychologically important to these people, which is in part an explanation why mass shootings are relatively common while mass bombings (by mentally ill) are practically unheard of.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-13, 15:24
?? your referencing a entirely different incident.
Correct, I re-posted that in this thread due to the mental health angle on firearm confiscation.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-13, 15:31
In almost half-century I've lived, I am not aware of a case of a mentally ill person laying waste to a movie theater or a classroom in firearm-restrictive states. Nor there has been a Dunblane or Port Arthur #2.
I'm not up on all the mass murders from the last half century and the respective states they occurred in but I do know the single greatest school massacre to date was carried out by a disgruntled school board member and some dynamite in Bath, Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster).
Not to mention other school attacks like the student with a compound bow in Wyoming last year and the student this week who went on an attack with an Exacto knife at a campus here in TX.
I'm not up on all the mass murders from the last half century and the respective states they occurred in but I do know the single greatest school massacre to date was carried out by a disgruntled school board member and some dynamite in Bath, Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster).
Not to mention other school attacks like the student with a compound bow in Wyoming last year and the student this week who went on an attack with an Exacto knife at a campus here in TX.
I am aware of the Bath bombing, the Wyoming case, stabbing at the Lone Star and in China recently.
How does that change anything at all in regards to the above discussion? Are you suggesting that, since alternative means of killing people will always exist, we shouldn't concern ourselves with trying to remove guns from mentally unstable people? I am just trying to understand what you tried to convey by your post.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-13, 16:30
I am aware of the Bath bombing, the Wyoming case, stabbing at the Lone Star and in China recently.
How does that change anything at all in regards to the above discussion? Are you suggesting that, since alternative means of killing people will always exist, we shouldn't concern ourselves with trying to remove guns from mentally unstable people? I am just trying to understand what you tried to convey by your post.
Permit me to answer your question with a question, if firearms are out and right banned or even more restricted than they are currently do you think that the mentally ill, criminals, and evil people in general would somehow not be able to obtain said banned firearms? That’s not to mention other inanimate objects they could employ to kill and maim.
All this mental health restriction stuff accomplishes is 1.) keeping gun owners from seeking ANY mental health services and 2.) further restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.
Correct, I re-posted that in this thread due to the mental health angle on firearm confiscation.
No i got ya, I read it as if you were trying to extend the conversation but posted the wrong link. My bad.
in the grand sceme of things i bet more mass shooters, stabbers and killers dont do it because of a mental instability.
they do it because their either fed up with someone or something or are at the "end of their rope" so to speak and have no one to talk to or proper ways to vent their frustrations.
Permit me to answer your question with a question, if firearms are out and right banned or even more restricted than they are currently do you think that the mentally ill, criminals, and evil people in general would somehow not be able to obtain said banned firearms? That’s not to mention other inanimate objects they could employ to kill and maim.
All this mental health restriction stuff accomplishes is 1.) keeping gun owners from seeking ANY mental health services and 2.) further restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.
You're lumping criminals and mental together. Criminals, nothing will matter. Mental patients often lack will power to persevere and get deterred and frustrated by even minor obstacles, which in part why they can't function in society. Their action are often opportunistic. Firearms gray markets exist, and even flourish, now in all restrictive states, those who always been restrictive (former Soviet Union) and those who became restrictive after mass murders. Outside of US, I am yet to become aware of a report of a mentally ill person obtaining a gun on grey market and committing mass murder. For many of them, it is too taxing mentally. In our own country, I believe only Columbine shooters got their guns on grey market. There is no doubt in my mind that leaving grey market as their only option will be a tall enough hurdle that many of them will be unable to jump. Some of them, of course, will be undeterred.
The concern of fear to access mental health services is a real one, and will largely depend on specifics of a due process that we're discussing here.
I could understand having their doctor sign a form of some sort saying they are okay to own a firearm, similar to getting a CCW permit...but not this.
And why should their be a database for only the mentally ill? Were talking about individuals who should be disbarred from purchasing or owning a firearm and we already have the NICS system. Also you have an uncanny ability to twist the context of other peoples words and statements. Have you considered a career in politics? No-one is trying to make this and anti-LE thread.
You seem to think that people who take issue with LEOs with oversized egos and inflated badges is somehow a wholly negative deconstructive thing, that's ridiculous.
...
keep in mind, while you're huddled up behind cover PISSING yourself, Pat there is running into gunfire saving the world single handedly. You dont have to believe me, he said so himself.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-13, 20:23
You're lumping criminals and mental together. Criminals, nothing will matter. Mental patients often lack will power to persevere and get deterred and frustrated by even minor obstacles, which in part why they can't function in society. Their action are often opportunistic.
I don’t make excuses, a murderer is a murderer whether or not they are deemed “mentally ill” by our benevolent society or they’re just evil incarnate. All of these "mentally ill" mass shooters planned their attacks out, that makes it premeditated murder. If one is "mentally ill" and does not possess the mental faculties of being cognitive of reason then why would they concern themselves with wearing body armor?
Firearms gray markets exist, and even flourish, now in all restrictive states, those who always been restrictive (former Soviet Union) and those who became restrictive after mass murders.
And the black market exists all over the planet.
Outside of US, I am yet to become aware of a report of a mentally ill person obtaining a gun on grey market and committing mass murder.
How about Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people outside Oslo, Norway?
For many of them, it is too taxing mentally. In our own country, I believe only Columbine shooters got their guns on grey market. There is no doubt in my mind that leaving grey market as their only option will be a tall enough hurdle that many of them will be unable to jump. Some of them, of course, will be undeterred.
If someone wants to go on a killing spree, no matter their weapon of choice there is not much that will stop them short of killing them.
The concern of fear to access mental health services is a real one, and will largely depend on specifics of a due process that we're discussing here.
And as we go forward with a "mental health" database in the name of public safety I see the potential for abuse of such a system.
It's a run of the mill insult around here, Pat.
Being called a "liberal" or being compared to "Obama/Feinstein/Biden" on M4C is like being called a racist or sex offender in real life.
What do you do in real life that has people going around calling you a racist or sex offender? :eek: :confused:
I don’t make excuses, a murderer is a murderer whether or not they are deemed “mentally ill” by our benevolent society or they’re just evil incarnate. All of these "mentally ill" mass shooters planned their attacks out, that makes it premeditated murder. If one is "mentally ill" and does not possess the mental faculties of being cognitive of reason then why would they concern themselves with wearing bodyarmor
How about Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people outside Oslo, Norway?
If someone wants to go on a killing spree, no matter their weapon of choice there is not much that will stop them short of killing them.
And as we go forward with a "mental health" database in the name of public safety I see the potential for abuse of such a system.
1. Your deviating from the essence of a matter. The question isn't how you think of them or whether they have enough cognitive function to put armor (BTW, who wore armor?), but whether a paranoid or homicidal nutcase rejected by this "mental database" will have enough wits and perseverance to buy a gun on a black market.
2. I believe Breivik had all his guns purchased legally, so I am not sure what you're trying to say.
3. That is absolutely incorrect. There is a long distance between pre-contemplation to contemplation to carrying out an act, with multiple external factors playing a role. Ease of carrying out a plan has been shown to be a big factor in mental patients.
4. Any system can be abused. Is it enough reason to not even try?
4. Any system can be abused. Is it enough reason to not even try?
We should start by trying to fix the current dam system first. Not making it more convoluted and even more ripe with abuse. To do otherwise is asinine.
Also more on David Lewis in Amherst:
An Amherst man had to turn in his guns under the SAFE Act, only to learn State Police made a mistake. David Lewis spoke out for the first time Friday, telling YNN's Katie Cummings how the ordeal has left a lasting impression.
BUFFALO, N.Y. — David Lewis is a recreational shooter, but says he was just dumbfounded when he received a letter last week from the county clerk.
It notified Lewis, 35, that his pistol license was suspended and that he had to turn in seven of his firearms to Amherst police.
"I was extremely shocked and saddened and immediately just felt embarrassed knowing that someone had thought negatively of me and wrongly. I had absolutely no idea how this could have happened," said Lewis, an Amherst resident.
Lewis says State Police learned he was once prescribed anti-anxiety medication, which would have been a violation of the mental health provision in the SAFE Act. State Police notified the clerk's office Wednesday that a mistake was made.
His attorney, Jim Tresmond, says it wasn’t fair to judge Lewis for his one-time use of the medication.
Lewis said he hoped his health record would be confidential.
"It's not right. i always thought people could expect more privacy than that," said Lewis.
According to Tresmond, State Police have set up a unit to review HIPPA files to look for people with specific medications and treatment to pull their license. A State Police spokesperson, however, said, "The accusations are flat wrong."
Meanwhile, Lewis says he hopes some good can come of all of this.
"Maybe because of this, this doesn’t happen to someone else and people understand what this can do to a person and their reputation," Lewis said.
Tresmond says they plan to seek damages against the state.
"They took his property without compensation, without probable cause, there was no due process. They violated every federal law that you could possibly imagine," said Tresmond.
Lewis had his guns returned to him Thursday.
Tresmond says they will file a claim in federal court next week.
http://buffalo.ynn.com/content/top_stories/655877/amherst-man-at-center-of-safe-act-controversy-speaks-out/
Ouroborous
04-12-13, 23:11
Are you really trying to defend the confiscation of guns based on Government violating HIPPA rights and removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who have taken SSRI's?
The idea someone who is on this medication "might" commit some crime so we need to confiscate their guns; is not far off from arresting people for "pre-crime"- are you okay with that notion?
This. Especially Violating HIPPA.
I just spent the day in a class on Community Evacuation. One of the points the Emergency Manager touched on was how difficult it was for him to assemble a list of all the disabled people in the city in order to accommodate special needs during an evacuation.
He was essentially stopped from doing this because of HIPPA restrictions--understandably so.
However, if he couldn't violate HIPPA for a good cause then how the hell is it ok for anyone to violate it for a sinister one?
WTF is going on with this country?
So I wonder what's going to happen one day when the popo's come knocking, demand that the homeowner turn his guns over, and the homeowner says NO F'ing WAY?
Or, in true TX fashion...."Come and Take It!"...?
This. Especially Violating HIPPA.
I just spent the day in a class on Community Evacuation. One of the points the Emergency Manager touched on was how difficult it was for him to assemble a list of all the disabled people in the city in order to accommodate special needs during an evacuation.
He was essentially stopped for doing so because of HIPPA restrictions--understandably so.
However, if the he couldn't violate HIPPA for a good cause then how the hell is it ok for anyone to violate it for a sinister one?
WTF is going on with this country?
It has become ruled by despots and tyrants maybe?
"True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. The cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within"
~ Saul Alinksy
We should start by trying to fix the current dam system first. Not making it more convoluted and even more ripe with abuse. To do otherwise is asinine.
In a context of a discussed question, i.e. reducing chances of firearms-related violence committed by mentally ill, unstable and deviant people, what constructive suggestions do you have to fix the current system? What is the current system?
Moose-Knuckle
04-13-13, 03:18
1. Your deviating from the essence of a matter. The question isn't how you think of them or whether they have enough cognitive function to put armor (BTW, who wore armor?), but whether a paranoid or homicidal nutcase rejected by this "mental database" will have enough wits and perseverance to buy a gun on a black market.
James Holmes was reported to have donned body armor.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1
Holmes is suspected of shooting 70 people in a sold-out movie theater. Police say he decked himself out in full-body armor for the attack and dyed his hair red.
2. I believe Breivik had all his guns purchased legally, so I am not sure what you're trying to say.
I'll be honest, I'm not up on Norways firearm laws and don't care to take the time to read them at the moment. IIRC, media stated (take that for what its worth) he had illegal magazines (high capacity) that he bought off the internet.
3. That is absolutely incorrect. There is a long distance between pre-contemplation to contemplation to carrying out an act, with multiple external factors playing a role. Ease of carrying out a plan has been shown to be a big factor in mental patients.
So let's say we have database with all the names of people who are mentally ill. What about those who are not on said database and just snap and go off the deep end on a random killing spree? The database would not serve to protect against all those cases and the random acts of violence.
4. Any system can be abused. Is it enough reason to not even try?
Yes. If its not going to work then why restrict Constitutional rights? And I really don't want the likes of Holder's DOJ making the call on who is mentally ill or not as it won't fair well for those who oppose him or his boss.
Moose-Knuckle
04-13-13, 03:27
So I wonder what's going to happen one day when the popo's come knocking, demand that the homeowner turn his guns over, and the homeowner says NO F'ing WAY?
Or, in true TX fashion...."Come and Take It!"...?
Ruby Ridge and Waco serve as examples. The public will side with the state as the MSM will turn up the spin on the "crazy" gun owner. The day is fast approaching in this country where a person who owns a firearm for self-defense will be construed as insane.
In a context of a discussed question, i.e. reducing chances of firearms-related violence committed by mentally ill, unstable and deviant people, what constructive suggestions do you have to fix the current system? What is the current system?
We already have a system in place that is suppose to catch kids coming up through school who may suffer from some sort of developmental disorder or psychopathology, but it is deficient in doing so for a number of reasons. Likewise we have systems and mechanisms in place designed to identify people who may or may not be a danger to themselves or others thus allowing the appropriate interventions to be made, but again this part of the system is deficient and there is no law against being crazy per se. There are risks to living in a free and open society and these risks are something people choose to not willingly accept or flat out ignore. I'm content with the NICS system as is for the most part but the only mentally ill people who should be added to it are those adjudicated mentally ill in a court of law following due process (including formal psyche assessment). If a person winds up involuntarily committed or is thought to be a danger they should still be allowed their day in court before their 2A rights are stripped from them.
As for constructive suggestions personally with respect to mental illness I would like to see us harken back to the time where large state central faculties were the norm and demands for mental health screening, interventions, and treatment were not shouldered by local communities as much of it is now. This least restrictive community based treatment doctrine is crap IMO.
Their should be greater emphasis on proliferating knowledge and education regarding mental health. That and their should be greater emphasis on actually treating mental illness not simply managing it like the focus is now. The mental health system in most states is overburdened, understaffed, etc. In fact with so many patients being on medicaid/medicare their is no incentive to provide quality treatment because the govt just cuts them a blank check for services rendered over and over again. Treatment is not a priority.
The system in place can be effective, more efficient, etc but it needs to get squared away first before it is erroneously expanded. Problem is like everything else to many special interests have their hand in the cookie jar be they nurses, social workers, pharmaceutical et al.
So in interim and until the aforementioned deficiencies are rectified I want gun proliferation, I want firearms in the hands of any and every law abiding citizen who is willing to take on the the responsibility germane to the possession and carrying of a firearm.
Will any system be perfect? Again living in a free and open society the answer is no. Their is nothing one can do to stop the guy who gets hopped up on bath salts and goes on a shooting rampage, short of limiting the damage and trauma caused but again that goes back to my responsibility statement and ensuring an armed populace.
platoonDaddy
04-13-13, 05:33
Megyn Kelly great interview with the county clerk (who gave a VERY strong opinion of the Safe Act) and David Lewis's lawyer.
There is a slight delay, but a don't miss interview!
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/america-live/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2296884231001/state-police-confiscate-wrong-mans-guns-blame-county-clerk/?playlist_id=87651
gunrunner505
04-13-13, 07:56
Hope Mr. Lewis sues NY for a shit ton of cash. This law is poorly written, poorly enforced and just plain bad. All these assurances about how it will have no impact on the good guys and what happens? First rattle out of the box they get it wrong and now you have political finger pointing. Sweet moves.
Megyn Kelly. Need I say more.....
As goes the 2nd, so do all the others....
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/outrageous-gadsden-flag-removed-by-new-york-town-for-being-an-offensive-tea-party-symbol/
James Holmes was reported to have donned body armor.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1
I'll be honest, I'm not up on Norways firearm laws and don't care to take the time to read them at the moment. IIRC, media stated (take that for what its worth) he had illegal magazines (high capacity) that he bought off the internet.
So let's say we have database with all the names of people who are mentally ill. What about those who are not on said database and just snap and go off the deep end on a random killing spree? The database would not serve to protect against all those cases and the random acts of violence.
Yes. If its not going to work then why restrict Constitutional rights? And I really don't want the likes of Holder's DOJ making the call on who is mentally ill or not as it won't fair well for those who oppose him or his boss.
1. I believe that was disproved and he only wore load bearing west.
2. Had he, or any other psycho, been denied an access to bullet launcher, who cares what bullet holders he got?
3. Very few, if any, actually snap. They seem that way because nobody was paying attention to them beforehand.
4. This is to me a paralysis by analysis. No system will ever be perfect, but who said it is not going to work, and it will impinge on rights inappropriately? With rights come responsibilities. For example, somebody, mentally ill or not, credibly threatens to kill another person - he just forfeited a number of his rights and a burden of restoring his rights is on him, not anybody else.
We already have a system in place that is suppose to catch kids coming up through school who may suffer from some sort of developmental disorder or psychopathology, but it is deficient in doing so for a number of reasons. Likewise we have systems and mechanisms in place designed to identify people who may or may not be a danger to themselves or others thus allowing the appropriate interventions to be made, but again this part of the system is deficient and there is no law against being crazy per se. There are risks to living in a free and open society and these risks are something people choose to not willingly accept or flat out ignore. I'm content with the NICS system as is for the most part but the only mentally ill people who should be added to it are those adjudicated mentally ill in a court of law following due process (including formal psyche assessment). If a person winds up involuntarily committed or is thought to be a danger they should still be allowed their day in court before their 2A rights are stripped from them.
As for constructive suggestions personally with respect to mental illness I would like to see us harken back to the time where large state central faculties were the norm and demands for mental health screening, interventions, and treatment were not shouldered by local communities as much of it is now. This least restrictive community based treatment doctrine is crap IMO.
Their should be greater emphasis on proliferating knowledge and education regarding mental health. That and their should be greater emphasis on actually treating mental illness not simply managing it like the focus is now. The mental health system in most states is overburdened, understaffed, etc. In fact with so many patients being on medicaid/medicare their is no incentive to provide quality treatment because the govt just cuts them a blank check for services rendered over and over again. Treatment is not a priority.
The system in place can be effective, more efficient, etc but it needs to get squared away first before it is erroneously expanded. Problem is like everything else to many special interests have their hand in the cookie jar be they nurses, social workers, pharmaceutical et al.
So in interim and until the aforementioned deficiencies are rectified I want gun proliferation, I want firearms in the hands of any and every law abiding citizen who is willing to take on the the responsibility germane to the possession and carrying of a firearm.
Will any system be perfect? Again living in a free and open society the answer is no. Their is nothing one can do to stop the guy who gets hopped up on bath salts and goes on a shooting rampage, short of limiting the damage and trauma caused but again that goes back to my responsibility statement and ensuring an armed populace.
Thanks for taking the time to type. I disagree on some, neutral on others, and agree with several points you made.
I don't think we have any credible system to identify and catch mental patients early, short of them engaging in criminal behavior. My kid relatively recently finished high school. From elementary to high, I've not missed a single parent teacher meeting or conference. I am a physician so I am quite interested in physical and mental health of my kid and his peers. He attended a big public school and small private school. Neither of places I knew who was a person responsible for this, let alone somebody who actually cared about this.
My son is now at a college that's usually ranked #1 in country, and their mental health services are overwhelmed. Not a year goes without some poor kid suiciding. So, I'd argue that there is no system in place. "System" means something works systematically. If it fails systematically, it can't be called a system.
Institutionalization, management, Medicare, Medicaid issues: without commenting of merits of all of the above, I'd like to point out to one practical aspect: money. Just about everyone on this board wants to cut down governmental spending and governmental involvement in health and mental care delivery. Many mentally sick people, and definitely all seriously mentally ill -the types that might require institutionalization - don't work, have no money or insurance. All qualitative and quantitative changes will come from taxpayers. You know what's the story with country's budget is. Are you ready to pony up a bit more of your hard earned money in form if psych care tax to reopen those state facilities?
Court's adjudication: I've gone through exactly two cases of competency decisions by courts, and the time it took to file a case, get hearing set, and get a ruling would be sufficient to plan and execute a small scale coupe d'etat, let alone clear NICS, buy AR and go out on town - especially being forewarned that your competency is being decided on. In that sense, I agree with Moose-Knuckle: if we're putting in a process that's doomed to fail, then why bother...
Agree on the part of more arms to more law abiding citizens.
My son is now at a college that's usually ranked #1 in country, and their mental health services are overwhelmed. Not a year goes without some poor kid suiciding. So, I'd argue that there is no system in place. "System" means something works systematically. If it fails systematically, it can't be called a system.
I have worked in the ED at a medical center affiliated with a top-tier private university (arguably the #1 university, but certainly top 10 :)), and I imagine you can imagine the number of college kids we get for SI or for their first psychotic break. The screenings are little more than a joke (because the MH NPs and MDs are otherwise overwhelmed), the next-step resources near non-existent, and the 'system' is indeed non-existent at worst, fractured at best. If the sons and daughters of the rich and famous have this issue, you know Mr. Blue Collar Joe Blow is gonna have issues accessing care.
Sorry if this was mentioned, but could this not backfire??
I suspect many folks who are getting help from these certain meds may just stop taking them for fear of losing freedoms or getting labled. Just thinking that maybe civis, le, vets, or anyone who really benefits from them could have a snap reaction by suddenly getting off the very meds that are helping without consulting with their doc first?? We have all heard and read the story..."they were off their meds."
Others make a good point about getting a mis-label. I know from Dr friends that anti anxiety meds are commonly given to folks for regular procedures like vasectomy / pulling wisdom teeth and all kinds of outpatient services. You telling me this is not a perfect way to get a ping??
Will not argue you don't want the locos passing a 4473, but it's way to spooky for me to grasp who these decision makers are for this complex mental health issue & also the right to privacy.
You can just smell this blend of obamacare, mental health and gun control getting stronger & not sure how it can monitor accuratly without tossing freedoms & liberty to the side.
creepy chit!!
I have worked in the ED at a medical center affiliated with a top-tier private university (arguably the #1 university, but certainly top 10 :)), and I imagine you can imagine the number of college kids we get for SI or for their first psychotic break. The screenings are little more than a joke (because the MH NPs and MDs are otherwise overwhelmed), the next-step resources near non-existent, and the 'system' is indeed non-existent at worst, fractured at best. If the sons and daughters of the rich and famous have this issue, you know Mr. Blue Collar Joe Blow is gonna have issues accessing care.
Whoa brother, let's not get carried away here.....Dook is not #1. And as for the ER and hospital, there is a world class facility complete with a Peds hospital just down the road. :)
Just pulling your chain in good fun.
Moose-Knuckle
04-13-13, 16:47
As goes the 2nd, so do all the others....
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/outrageous-gadsden-flag-removed-by-new-york-town-for-being-an-offensive-tea-party-symbol/
By their logic when can I expect them to remove all the Mexican flags down here as they are an offensive sign of the Reconquista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico))?
Ruby Ridge and Waco serve as examples. The public will side with the state as the MSM will turn up the spin on the "crazy" gun owner. The day is fast approaching in this country where a person who owns a firearm for self-defense will be construed as insane.
Very good examples of what happens when you cross your benevolent government lackeys.
Moose-Knuckle
04-13-13, 16:55
I'll just reply to the following:
2. Had he, or any other psycho, been denied an access to bullet launcher, who cares what bullet holders he got?
It matters because there is a push for new bans on standard capacity magazines in this country. Individual states such as NY and CO have already experienced this from the media sensationalism of Sandy Hook.
The_War_Wagon
04-13-13, 18:03
Paper (hat) terrorist...
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/69500/Napoleon-with-a-Paper-Hat---69538.jpg
http://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/registration-questionnaire
Would someone not in NY please fill this survey out and enter in all the features on a standard AR Carbine legal in a non ban state?
I am just curious what it will say, and I am not willing to log my IP address on the website for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.
I did enter in my pre-January 14th NY legal gun and it said I have to register it blah blah blah. But I want to know what it says if you enter in a carbine that was illegal in this state prior to January 14th.
Used my 6920 as basis. Said was an assault weapon and had until April 15, 2014 to register or render banned features inoperable.
Would someone not in NY please fill this survey out and enter in all the features on a standard AR Carbine legal in a non ban state?
I am just curious what it will say, and I am not willing to log my IP address on the website for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.
I did enter in my pre-January 14th NY legal gun and it said I have to register it blah blah blah. But I want to know what it says if you enter in a carbine that was illegal in this state prior to January 14th.
Here's what it says:
Your gun is considered an assault weapon.
You have until April 15, 2014 to register your weapon, or render the banned features (click here to view Rifle features PDF) permanently inoperable.
Here's what it says:
HA!!!!! No ****ing shit!?!?!?!?
So I have a thread in the Mid Atlantic Regional asking if the SAFE ACT nullified the clauses in the pre 1/14/13 AWB making any and all "assault weapons" the same (meaning we can alter our post ban guns to have more features as long as we register them).
It seems like according to their own website the answer to that question is yes!
How ironic is it that the NY SAFE ACT gives me the ability to make my AR15 "less safe and more evil" then it was before January 14th?
This ****ing law is so ****ing asinine and illogical it blows my mind more and more as every day passes.
I find it mind bobbling that there are people here who think it a good idea to enact easily abusable laws that violate all sorts of civil liberties over statistically insignificant events. Even if you managed to properly implement, control and update a database of this sorts, your impact on the safety of Americans would be zero. Not only could these apparent nut jobs who supposedly have no ability to follow through with planning and overcome adversary (never mind that there were a couple who had managed to do just that ... You know build bombs, defeat security systems...) simply bypass the system by buying a gun on the corner of ganagbanger-ville, but they could simply use alternate tools for the job.
IMO those of you here who would trade any of your freedoms for pretend safety and easily abusable laws that will be turned against the people deserve exactly what you get.
http://www.facebook.com/Tom.Bauerle/posts/598736370139002
HA!!!!! No ****ing shit!?!?!?!?
So I have a thread in the Mid Atlantic Regional asking if the SAFE ACT nullified the clauses in the pre 1/14/13 AWB making any and all "assault weapons" the same (meaning we can alter our post ban guns to have more features as long as we register them).
It seems like according to their own website the answer to that question is yes!
How ironic is it that the NY SAFE ACT gives me the ability to make my AR15 "less safe and more evil" then it was before January 14th?
This ****ing law is so ****ing asinine and illogical it blows my mind more and more as every day passes.
Holy ******* ****. They're so unbelievably stupid. I can't believe it.
Hey look per Cum-o we're all extreme fringe conservatives don't ya know
Gov. Andrew Cuomo calls those and other provisions in the state's new gun law common sense while dismissing criticisms he says come from "extreme fringe conservatives" who claim the government has no right to regulate guns.
"Yes, they are against it, but they are the extremists and the extremists shouldn't win, especially on this issue when it is so important to the majority," Cuomo said in a radio interview Wednesday. "In politics, we have to be willing to take on the extremists, otherwise you will see paralysis
http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&external=2084691.proteus.fma
ICANHITHIMMAN
04-15-13, 07:14
Hey look per Cum-o we're all extreme fringe conservatives don't ya know
http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&external=2084691.proteus.fma
What concerns me is no one outside NY knows who he is.
platoonDaddy
04-15-13, 07:35
Hey look per Cum-o we're all extreme fringe conservatives don't ya know
dang, I am honored!
What concerns me is no one outside NY knows who he is.
Well if the moron trys to run for potus they'll be in for a shock.
dang, I am honored!
We should make M4C t shirts
Mauser KAR98K
04-15-13, 09:26
SCOTUS just declined to take the NY gun case.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-15-10-19-55
VooDoo6Actual
04-15-13, 11:58
dang, I am honored!
Spit some of my coffee up on that one "T".
platoonDaddy
04-15-13, 12:18
High court declines to hear challenge to NY gun law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/15/high-court-rejects-challenge-to-ny-gun-law/
The SCOTUS not taking he case may not be a bad thing. Didn't a local judge already rule it to retarded??
ICANHITHIMMAN
04-15-13, 19:48
SO WTF
Most of the safe act violates Heller and McDonald, so I don't see why SCOTUS should have to repeat itself. A lower court can reemphasize the law.
I believe that the NY case that SCOTUS declined to hear was a different one, not relating to the new SAFE law but older NY State Laws that made granting a carry permit at the discretion of the judge or issuing power:
"The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public."
You can still get a permit to own a handgun, keep it loaded in your home, and take it shooting.
I would think that the NY State SAFE act is indeed a violation of Heller, since Heller protects firearms in common use as well as their use for home defense.
ICANHITHIMMAN
04-15-13, 20:38
So where does that leave us
The_War_Wagon
04-15-13, 21:39
Used my 6920 as basis. Said was an assault weapon and had until April 15, 2014 to register or render banned features inoperable.
Sayonora, shoulder-thing-that-goes-up! :rolleyes:
The permit restrictions are more or less dependent on the issuing county. The redder political counties typically grant unrestricted ccw permits whereas others only permit ownership.
I believe that the NY case that SCOTUS declined to hear was a different one, not relating to the new SAFE law but older NY State Laws that made granting a carry permit at the discretion of the judge or issuing power:
"The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public."
You can still get a permit to own a handgun, keep it loaded in your home, and take it shooting.
I would think that the NY State SAFE act is indeed a violation of Heller, since Heller protects firearms in common use as well as their use for home defense.
brickboy240
04-16-13, 11:41
Seriously....you people need to move....while you still can.
-brickboy240
As an FYI
http://www.waynecountyscope.org/news/ny-state-police-guide-to-enforcing-cuomos-law
The pdf file contained within the link is worth a look.
[QUOTE=Alaskapopo;1606312]If you need to take meds to not be homicidal then you should not own a gun. However I am not sure what the meds in the listed article.
Pat
Just because you are placed on an antidepressant or even a drug for ADD (which is basically a meth substance) I do not see the rationale to take your guns. The only way to take an amendment right or any right is through the courts with an ability to appeal. That's also a damn amendment right.
I'm done being reasonabled to death with these gun laws and people like you Pat (officer do-gooder, "concerned citizen", or whatever) are the problem. And you don't see it so why I even bother pointing it out is a moot point really.
I am not surprised...
Its a very sad state of affairs. I feel for my friends in NY.
Its sad when NJ looks good to them.
We already have this crap in CA. It's called APPS. There are videos on the NRA site about it.
The VA has been doing this for years under the 2008 veteran disarmament act. Soldiers coming home get letters from the ATF and then the VA calls and has a counselor goes to their home with an officer and advises them and their family to surrendor their firearms and are told if they have so much as a bullet they will be facing up to 10 years federal time. And in many cases the Soldier has done nothing to break the law but through this act they have no ability to a trial or to take this false adjudication before a real judge.
And we allow this to happen because people like Alaskapopo allow it. It is sick and this is how the government will ensure no one will oppose it as everyone is scared of their government and scared they will be taken in or have their rights taken away.
And we allow this to happen because people like Alaskapopo allow it. It is sick and this is how the government will ensure no one will oppose it as everyone is scared of their government and scared they will be taken in or have their rights taken away.
But if it saves just one life
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
When you look at the trajectory we are heading objectively how does this not eventually, some day, wind up like 1930's Germany. It's funny how supposedly intelligent people are willing to let history repeat itself.
Also as a side note my brother just put in for his pistol permit in December 2012 just before things got crazy. They just this last week started his background check however the local PDs are now doing door to door reference checks in addition to those submitted within the formal application process. Basically it appears to be nothing but a cover my ass maneuver, but still all it will take is now some aggravated neighbor to completely derail ones application irrespective of a clean criminal history et al. At least within his home county.
And of course LE continues to maintain their privileged status.
Oh, and good luck with this one too
If a person becomes ineligible to hold a pistol permit, the Safe Act requires the person to surrender all firearms to police, including all rifles and shotguns for which no license or registration is required.
What in the world is a "non-violent paper terrorist"? Does anyone else here have a sneaking suspicion they might be included in the300,000?
The answer to that question is in the very LA Times article that you linked to. There is a difference between a person who hates paying taxes, and a Sovereign Citizen, who will, without preclusion, murder Law Enforcement Officers simply because they don't "recognize" their authority. The fact that a person could even begin to attempt to portray Sovereign Citizens as victims, and just some harmless people who like gold and hate taxes appalls me.
They have been making sneaky little changes to this thing since the beginning. It used to say semi-auto capable of accepting detachable magazines of over five rounds. Now any BOSS equipped BAR is an assault weapon. ANYONE who plays along needs their rifle taken from them.
Assault weapon:18284 After listening to the pod cast It's clear that any and all semi-auto rifles and shotguns that accept a detachable magazine are in fact "assault weapons" in NY. The forend stock would have to be considered "A Second Handgrip or Protruding Grip that can be held by non-shooting hand".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.