Guy is obviously a FUDD trying to present an 'unbiased' view of both sides. Fail - no mercy in the comments section.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Obama to Announce New Executive Action concerning guns:
- Thread starter edseas2
- Start date
Guy is obviously a FUDD trying to present an 'unbiased' view of both sides. Fail - no mercy in the comments section.
Horrible
NES Member
The only thing that they will say is "enough" is full bans and full confiscation.
Easy way to deflect their BS claim of "common sense gun regulations" is to get them to admit that this is the goal.
Ahhhhh. This makes things a lot clearer. So they are just going for better enforcement of the, "involuntarily committed" provision.
People found not guilty by reason of insanity or who are unable to stand trial is a relatively reasonable restriction, I think, though it should take into account the nature of the charge. Involuntarily committed is sketchier - I don't necessarily agree that everyone who has ever been involuntarily committed is enough of a danger to society that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun (ever). Curtailing someone's rights who has not been convicted of a crime isn't constitutional or fair. That said, at least this isn't really a substantive change in the rules - its a provision to better enforce a rule that's already on the books.
xtry51
NES Member
I don't think the bolded part is reasonable at all. There are plenty of cases I can think off off hand where people use a temporary insanity defense legitimately.
If you're found not guilty of a crime, no punishment is warranted period.
Is there a thread or a website that provides a concise explanation of what additional restrictions this executive order imposes? I would like to transfer a shotgun to my dad. Do I now have to go through an FFL?
Thanks
Thanks
Last edited:
True, though I think there is a legitimate case to be made that in some instances a person found not guilty on those grounds would legitimately represent a danger to other people's life/liberty/property. Then again, in those cases they might be involuntarily committed as well.
This is ugly, tricky ground to tread upon. Mental health is hard to quantify in a way where there would be definite thresholds for denial/approval.
I would like to read a copy of the executive action. I though a link was posted in this thread earlier. I do not see it on the White House web site. If anyone has the link could they please post it. Thanks.
knoxy
NES Member
good point
AHM
NES Member
Omnibus reaction
Is the association incorporated?
Get the bylaws from the Secretary of State.
Have all of Jack's tenants join the association.
Vote Ted out of office, 8:1 ratio.
Entryism: it's a thing.
Obviously, someone who buys one of these:
Kelly Bundy, is that you?
And when you add in all the doctors that amputate limbs for the sweet, sweet insurance payoff, it's really horrific.
Is the association incorporated?
Get the bylaws from the Secretary of State.
Have all of Jack's tenants join the association.
Vote Ted out of office, 8:1 ratio.
Entryism: it's a thing.
Obviously, someone who buys one of these:
Obama aide (the hot one in green that you're probably already looking at) holds back laughter during the king's speech.
[]
Kelly Bundy, is that you?
And when you add in all the doctors that amputate limbs for the sweet, sweet insurance payoff, it's really horrific.
Last edited:
I draw the line at this... can society justify locking the person up in a funny farm or not? If the answer is no then they shouldn't have their rights taken away. If joe coocoo clock is allowed to roam freely, whats to stop him from harming people? If someone is that dangerous than blocking lawful access to firearms is not any kind of a realistic safeguard. I find it hilarious that there are likely people rolling around, legally driving automobiles, for example, that were probably "involuntarily committed to a mental health facility" at some point during their life. It's OK for us to let them drive something they could mow down 10 people with, but we're gonna shit our pants if he gets his hands on a GUN!!!
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I agree its definitely tricky ground, though. You crank up the sensitivity on MH as being a disqualifier and then nobody wants to get help. Not so much an issue with the clueless general public but there are craploads of vets around with PTSD that are already scared of the prospect of losing their guns if the state "finds out too much" about their condition.
-Mike
I draw the line at this... can society justify locking the person up in a funny farm or not? If the answer is no then they shouldn't have their rights taken away. If joe coocoo clock is allowed to roam freely, whats to stop him from harming people? If someone is that dangerous than blocking lawful access to firearms is not any kind of a realistic safeguard. I find it hilarious that there are likely people rolling around, legally driving automobiles, for example, that were probably "involuntarily committed to a mental health facility" at some point during their life. It's OK for us to let them drive something they could mow down 10 people with, but we're gonna shit our pants if he gets his hands on a GUN!!!
I agree its definitely tricky ground, though. You crank up the sensitivity on MH as being a disqualifier and then nobody wants to get help. Not so much an issue with the clueless general public but there are craploads of vets around with PTSD that are already scared of the prospect of losing their guns if the state "finds out too much" about their condition.
-Mike
On top of this, we have been told for many years now that mental health issues should not be stigmatized, and that those who need mental health treatment are no different than those with physical health problems. Yet now those who seek care for mental issues risk being put on "the list". At the same time, those with significant physical problems that could effect safe gun handling (e.g., Parkinson's disease, as a completely random example) are not an issue. I don't think anyone should be denied rights unless they are convicted and in prison. How anyone can make sense of this otherwise is a mystery to me. What I know for sure is that this stigmatization of mental health issues will undermine treatment.
I draw the line at this... can society justify locking the person up in a funny farm or not? If the answer is no then they shouldn't have their rights taken away. If joe coocoo clock is allowed to roam freely, whats to stop him from harming people? If someone is that dangerous than blocking lawful access to firearms is not any kind of a realistic safeguard. I find it hilarious that there are likely people rolling around, legally driving automobiles, for example, that were probably "involuntarily committed to a mental health facility" at some point during their life. It's OK for us to let them drive something they could mow down 10 people with, but we're gonna shit our pants if he gets his hands on a GUN!!!
I agree its definitely tricky ground, though. You crank up the sensitivity on MH as being a disqualifier and then nobody wants to get help. Not so much an issue with the clueless general public but there are craploads of vets around with PTSD that are already scared of the prospect of losing their guns if the state "finds out too much" about their condition.
-Mike
+1. The libs ultimate end game of banning firearms ownership to those diagnosed with a mental illness will have the opposite effect, people will be afraid to seek treatment and it will further stigmatize mental illness.
He won't stump for any Democrat that doesn't support his gun laws. Pick a side.
http://www.oann.com/obama-says-wont-campaign-for-any-democrat-who-doesnt-back-gun-reforms/
Will be an interesting election year. He probably does more harm than good anyway.
GM-GUY
NES Member
What irks me is that 0bama lied on national tv - and no one called him on it.
"No one wants to take away your guns" - there is an HR in congress right now that would do just that. There are multiple state and local ordinances that are being considered to do just that.
Never mind the internet gun buying story.
"No one wants to take away your guns" - there is an HR in congress right now that would do just that. There are multiple state and local ordinances that are being considered to do just that.
Never mind the internet gun buying story.
Kicker96FS
NES Member
"And if you like your Dr., you can keep your doctor."
I was going to post basically this same exact thing. Either they are in jail, or "cuckoo house", or they are free men. THIS makes the whole "gun laws" side of it REAL EASY. If they are "out", they are GTG. If they are dangerous, they are "in". Changing the "in" and "out" status is independent of firearms.
This will tell you all you need to know:
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
Heck, look at Lexington, MA, and also the MA AWB, plus the AG regs stopping MA shipments of just about anything (which isn't discussed on here).
I draw the line at this... can society justify locking the person up in a funny farm or not? If the answer is no then they shouldn't have their rights taken away. If joe coocoo clock is allowed to roam freely, whats to stop him from harming people? If someone is that dangerous than blocking lawful access to firearms is not any kind of a realistic safeguard. I find it hilarious that there are likely people rolling around, legally driving automobiles, for example, that were probably "involuntarily committed to a mental health facility" at some point during their life. It's OK for us to let them drive something they could mow down 10 people with, but we're gonna shit our pants if he gets his hands on a GUN!!!
I agree its definitely tricky ground, though. You crank up the sensitivity on MH as being a disqualifier and then nobody wants to get help. Not so much an issue with the clueless general public but there are craploads of vets around with PTSD that are already scared of the prospect of losing their guns if the state "finds out too much" about their condition.
-Mike
For sure I agree that anyone who voluntarily seeks help should not have their rights infringed upon. The way we treat vets is ****ing unconscionable. It doesn't seem like the current system or these EOs change that, but we should emphasize and promote that fact to encourage people to get treatment.
I guess I agree that involuntary committal should be the threshold, it's just important that people get committed for appropriate offenses. We're looking at this question from a gun rights perspective, which is understandable, but we also need to look at it from a personal responsibility perspective. Insanity can't be a get out of jail free card. If someone goes off their meds and commits a few minor crimes I have no problem with that. If someone goes out and commits violent acts against people they are free to use the insanity defense, but that defense should come with a price.
We talk about stigmatizing mental health issues, and I am ****ing 100% on board with not doing that and not infringing on people's rights because of those issues. However, when those mental health issues start to seriously impact other people's rights the issue still shouldn't be stigmatized, but society does have a legitimate role in taking action to protect other citizens. I've said it in discussions about asylums/deinstitutionalization before - if someone gets murdered, it doesn't really make that big a difference to the person who was killed whether they were mentally ill or not.
When someone's rights are violated, society has a legitimate case for curtailing the person who committed the crime's rights proportionally based on the seriousness of the crime. The same thing goes for mental health. Should it be treated differently than criminal violations? Of course it should, absolutely, but there is still some degree of responsibility the person bears for their actions that cannot be taken away. It absolutely needs to be proportional to the violation they committed, and those thresholds should be defined as clearly as possible under the circumstances.
Why is "involuntary committal" even on the table in a free society? I can't see locking someone up who has not committed a crime against life or property, and only then after due process, the presumption of innocence, and conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
