MA House Bill H 3569 - Firearm background check bill

[Cardinal Ximinez]

This isn't anything against Jim, Jon or the Staff. I hold them in the highest regard.

Who should be held accountable then if not the staff running daily operations?

This bill is quite a nifty trap. The soundbite---keeping guns out of mentally ill people's hands--will be an easy sell to the sheeple. It would take real balls for GOAL to oppose it and go on an education offensive to explain why. It's a rare organization that thinks strategically and is willing to take a temporary hit for long-term benefit.

 

[TomH]

Yay, incremental rights loss supported by fudds!

 

[TomH]

GOAL is derailed and needs to get back on track before it becomes a train wreck.



This isn't anything against Jim, Jon or the Staff. I hold them in the highest regard.

It goes at the people who are actually responsible for this mess.

If you make public statements for an organization supporting unconstitutional bills, you ARE one of those responsible.

 

[center442]

How many people did the Soviets have imprisoned/disappeared/silenced by having state psychiatrists declare them to be insane?

We do have a few islands right off the coast of MA. The state could just take them by eminent domain and create their own little Gulag Archipelago. I'd probably wind up there. The fact that I'm still hoping this craphole of a state can be salvaged is pretty good evidence that I'm insane.

 

[Wa Sai]

Hmm, well a very interesting thread.
I know I have been up close and personal with a few friends, who I would really have not wanted to have access to a gun, for their own safety before even mentioning others' safety. Ideology about what IS mental illness or who gets to decide what it is notwithstanding, I find it interesting that anyone would think this particularly is a simple issue with an obvious answer.
There are plenty of people I would not want to have access to a car, an acetylene tank, or even a fork if I was anywhere nearby. Although the constitution's framers did guarantee this right for the 'people', in their time it seems they also had some idea what constituted 'people' and that was not necessarily all humans without exception was it? I wonder what they did with their people 'not of sane mind'. I know there were some sane people probably not allowed to have them either back then. That does not make it right, but gives some food for thought.
Well interesting issue for sure.

 

[firestorm]

Except how many people do you think get railroaded through the system for BS reasons, or because the on call doctor for DMH didn't feel like sitting around observing the person in the ER at 2 am for the required time so they just have them committed, or someone simply lied to the cops/rescue about the person and they are then taken in, evaluated and sent off to a mental hospital based on third party BS? the system is not objective, and therefore not fair at any level.

 

[Wa Sai]

Except how many people do you think get railroaded through the system for BS reasons, or because the on call doctor for DMH didn't feel like sitting around observing the person in the ER at 2 am for the required time so they just have them committed, or someone simply lied to the cops/rescue about the person and they are then taken in, evaluated and sent off to a mental hospital based on third party BS? the system is not objective, and therefore not fair at any level.

You have good points there. I am sure there are many cases of a failed system, however that being true also does not make it a great idea to have those who really ARE mentally ill provided access to firearms does it? So, this bill or particular mental health systems or diagnosticians mail be less than what we hope, but I think there is still this real issue that needs addressing, for truly sick individuals who definitely pose a danger to themselves and others with any type of lethal weapon.

 

[EC1]

You have good points there. I am sure there are many cases of a failed system, however that being true also does not make it a great idea to have those who really ARE mentally ill provided access to firearms does it? So, this bill or particular mental health systems or diagnosticians mail be less than what we hope, but I think there is still this real issue that needs addressing, for truly sick individuals who definitely pose a danger to themselves and others with any type of lethal weapon.

.

 

[In God We Trust]

Who should be held accountable then if not the staff running daily operations?

This bill is quite a nifty trap. The soundbite---keeping guns out of mentally ill people's hands--will be an easy sell to the sheeple. It would take real balls for GOAL to oppose it and go on an education offensive to explain why. It's a rare organization that thinks strategically and is willing to take a temporary hit for long-term benefit.

I do not support anymore gun restrictions period. BUT, opposing this would play badly for GOAL. Think of the headlines:

FAKE HEADLINE

"A MA gun rights organization has come out today in public opposition of a bill that would keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill and potentially dangerous people. This bill if passed would prevent people like Jared Laughner (who shot AZ rep Giffords) from being able to legally buy dangerous assault weapons"

It looks like a shit sandwich either way.

 

[exo]

You have good points there. I am sure there are many cases of a failed system, however that being true also does not make it a great idea to have those who really ARE mentally ill provided access to firearms does it? So, this bill or particular mental health systems or diagnosticians mail be less than what we hope, but I think there is still this real issue that needs addressing, for truly sick individuals who definitely pose a danger to themselves and others with any type of lethal weapon.

There's something fundamental to this discussion that you need to understand: Anybody who wants a gun badly enough will figure out how to get one, regardless of what the law says.

So keep your rights-destroying laws off of me.

 

[kevin9]

Not sure about this bill, schizophrenics with guns is not a great party tho..

Part of me wants to agree with you, and part of me doesn't.

There's something fundamental to this discussion that you need to understand: Anybody who wants a gun badly enough will figure out how to get one, regardless of what the law says.

So keep your rights-destroying laws off of me.

Well said. In the long run, and usually in the short run too, nanny-statism does not work regardless of the purity of motives.

 

[glide]

You have good points there. I am sure there are many cases of a failed system, however that being true also does not make it a great idea to have those who really ARE mentally ill provided access to firearms does it? So, this bill or particular mental health systems or diagnosticians mail be less than what we hope, but I think there is still this real issue that needs addressing, for truly sick individuals who definitely pose a danger to themselves and others with any type of lethal weapon.

Please define.

And 'you know, CRAZY people', doesn't count.

 

[bolt]

+1

+

 

[MichaelJR]

F***ing fudds.

 

[Wa Sai]

.

Sorry you think I am troll, I am not. I just try to use my head. Not being able to imagine that there are more than one viewpoint within the populace that supports gun rights does not strengthen this movement.

 

[drgrant]

You have good points there. I am sure there are many cases of a failed system, however that being true also does not make it a great idea to have those who really ARE mentally ill provided access to firearms does it? So, this bill or particular mental health systems or diagnosticians mail be less than what we hope, but I think there is still this real issue that needs addressing, for truly sick individuals who definitely pose a danger to themselves and others with any type of lethal weapon.

The problem with this approach is the same meatheads who ban "mentally ill"l people from owning guns will often let them own cars and plenty of other things they can kill people with.

If the person is that dangerous they need to be incarcerated or separated from society, or they have to be considered a "ward" (or basically a child) of someone else who is a responsible person. All by due process of law of course, not
just the stroke of one pen.

If you can't justify doing at least one of these things to the person, then you have to question how "dangerous" they really are.

The flaws in mental health prohibitions WRT firearms are mostly the same level of dumbness seen with regards to prohibited persons.

-Mike

 

[davemata]

Sorry you think I am troll, I am not. I just try to use my head. Not being able to imagine that there are more than one viewpoint within the populace that supports gun rights does not strengthen this movement.

Riddle me this, how does anything like this prevent someone who is a wackadoo from going to a local highschool and buying a handgun for $50 to do something naughty with?

 

[Wa Sai]

I do understand that, however, gun control advocates would respond with "that is why we take steps to make sure mentally ill people do not have access, such as permits required and laws about proper securing of arms." In that view, if gun owners and dealers were obeying laws, mentally ill (however we define that) would only be able to get access by illegal means, so at least SOME of the likelihood of them having access would be addressed. That is likely the reponse.

Now, it is not my "rights destroying law" but hypothetically, if you were not mentally ill, how would this law affect you? Unless you really think the men in black are going to swoop in and throw you in the looney bin all in an effort to revoke your firearm rights. Looney bins don't have that much space and if the govt wanted to disappear you I think there are cheaper more efficient ways.

 

[Wa Sai]

Riddle me this, how does anything like this prevent someone who is a wackadoo from going to a local highschool and buying a handgun for $50 to do something naughty with?

I don't know that it does prevent them from doing that, but it closes other avenues they might take to get a gun no? In the case that they did get a gun at the local highschool, that's why we have you right- armed and ready to remove said wackadoo from the roster of breathing humans... if you show up on time.

Seriously though, that's also a fine point, but closing one avenue for true loons to get a firearm, logically speaking, is not negated by one avenue still being open. It is similar to saying, 'we cannot have our complete 2nd amendment rights, RIGHT NOW, so there is no point in trying have any of them.

Again, I am not sure about this particular bill, but on this issue, for me it is kind of similar to why I wish certain demented, incontinent, halfway blind people were not allowed to drive. Past a certain age I mean they are just a danger to everyone.

 

[firestorm]

Now, it is not my "rights destroying law" but hypothetically, if you were not mentally ill, how would this law affect you? Unless you really think the men in black are going to swoop in and throw you in the looney bin all in an effort to revoke your firearm rights. Looney bins don't have that much space and if the govt wanted to disappear you I think there are cheaper more efficient ways.

Except that was my WHOLE point. They can and do, on a regular basis, commit people to mental hospitals for flimsy, false reasons or outright lies that the victim has virtually no chance of talking their way out of. Someones parent says "While we were having an argument she said she would kill herself" Now that person sits in a hospital, someone from DMH comes over, talks to the parent, talks to the cops/rescue (Who have only gotten the story from the parent) and discounts whatever the kid says. Bam, enjoy your 3 day stay at whatever place has a bed.

 

[pdm]

Nerfing the world doesn't work.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I don't know that it does prevent them from doing that, but it closes other avenues they might take to get a gun no? In the case that they did get a gun at the local highschool, that's why we have you right- armed and ready to remove said wackadoo from the roster of breathing humans... if you show up on time.

Seriously though, that's also a fine point, but closing one avenue for true loons to get a firearm, logically speaking, is not negated by one avenue still being open. It is similar to saying, 'we cannot have our complete 2nd amendment rights, RIGHT NOW, so there is no point in trying have any of them.

Again, I am not sure about this particular bill, but on this issue, for me it is kind of similar to why I wish certain demented, incontinent, halfway blind people were not allowed to drive. Past a certain age I mean they are just a danger to everyone.

Wow. You keep digging that hole, huh? Who are we to try and control someone by any means?

 

[Wa Sai]

Except that was my WHOLE point. They can and do, on a regular basis, commit people to mental hospitals for flimsy, false reasons or outright lies that the victim has virtually no chance of talking their way out of. Someones parent says "While we were having an argument she said she would kill herself" Now that person sits in a hospital, someone from DMH comes over, talks to the parent, talks to the cops/rescue (Who have only gotten the story from the parent) and discounts whatever the kid says. Bam, enjoy your 3 day stay at whatever place has a bed.

Well, there are a lot of flaws in the system. But I am not convinced that those flaws logically make it a great idea for every person on US soil, no matter what their history or situation should have access. Call me whatever title necessary, but I am just not convinced.

 

[Wa Sai]

Wow. You keep digging that hole, huh? Who are we to try and control someone by any means?

I am not digging a hole, because I am not trying to get out of anything. I do not apologize for my views. Every issue has more than one side.

 

[MassMark]

I am not digging a hole, because I am not trying to get out of anything. I do not apologize for my views. Every issue has more than one side.

How many sides do you see here?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

 

[center442]

I came across this item and immediately thought about this thread. The article lists 6 ways to identify a sociopath. I can apply the first 5 to our President.

I think he should be committed for observation. As soon as he proves he doesn't have any mental health issues we can release him and he can go back to shredding what's left of our Constitution.

My rights are already infringed upon enough by the government in my state. The last thing I want to do is give them more ways to further infringe. We already have serious issues with CLO's having arbitrary discretion over who gets an LTC. I don't want to be in a position of having to prove that I'm mentally capable of exercising my rights. How the hell do you actually prove something like that?

Let the state prove, in a court of law, that someone has acted in such a way that they are a danger to society before we abrogate their rights. It should never be the other way around.

 

[Dench]

**** GOAL.

 

[Roy Rogers]

A fundamental problem with this bill is that it would be enacted and imposed upon us by a state government apparatus occupied by persons of demonstrated mental unsuitability--state senators and reps, governor, agency employees. While some might pass muster, far too many do not. Consider the state legislature. It is populated, with few exceptions, by people who are living a lie. They purport to be engaged in "public service," but they know this is not the case. They have evaded useful jobs and careers in which they could contribute products and services to others, and instead have chosen an existence filled with false respectability (calling each other, "Senator So-and-So," "Representative," "The Honorable"), in which they have no true responsibilities while coveting the power and trappings of office, and feathering their nests and those of cronies, sycophants, coat-holders and favored voting interests. Their tawdry lives depend upon a triumph of image over reality. The same holds true of the state's constitutional officers, and many others in state functions. Is there any sense in which people who display these symptoms and who choose lives of such dishonesty--with others and with themselves--could be considered free of serious mental illness? Is there any degree to which they could be certified as suitable in a psychiatric sense to consider and act upon the proffered legislation? As noted, there are exceptions to the rule. But we must take stock, in the cold, hard, light of day, of the true characteristics of the occupiers of the state apparatus. In the case of the legislation in question, is there one among us who would leave its consideration, let alone enforcement, in the hands of those so clearly divorced from reality and mental health?

 

[dixidawg]

Isn't mental health a LOT like suitability?

Who gets to decide what is "mentally healthy", and exactly HOW healthy a person is?

Or is it arbitrarily defined by "experts" in the same way your suitability is defined?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

So does this mean we can't call each other retards anymore?