Other Resources The Political Joe » 'The' Gun Thread Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 48
 
 
2013-03-08 3:49 PM
in reply to: #4652512

User image

Pro
4313
20002000100100100
McKinney, TX
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-03-08 3:28 PM




The state of Maryland has been closed down completely due to the fact that, if rotated to the right, it resembles a gun.



2013-03-08 4:16 PM
in reply to: #4652542

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 4:46 PM

Brock Samson - 2013-03-08 2:28 PM

The other problem with "universal background checks" is that as proposed they are not universal. Because of privacy rights, and HIPA restrictions, and legislation in the individual states, mental health treatment records may not be subject to being included in the "universal" background checks. Those that are involuntarily civilly committed due to mental illness would be captured, but individuals that voluntarily seek mental health treatment and may be diagnosed with severe mental illness will not be caught in the reporting requirements of the "universal" background checks.

Thus, even if the proposed "universal background" checks as currently proposed were passed without alteration, it probably would never have caught the Newtown shooter. His mental health issues simply would not be the subject of current reporting requirements.

That's one of the objections to the "universal background" checks system. It sounds great, and pro-gun control people argue "how can you be against it?" but the fact is that it isn't as advertised, it won't do what it is claimed it will do, as such it is yet another impediment to lawful gun owners.



Makes sense.

But, hypotheticaly, if it were possible to remove those restrictions-- let's say that laws were passed that would give those authorized to conduct background checks access to all of a person's mental health records-- would you be in favor of them (background checks)? Or are you fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of background checks as a prerequisite for gun ownership? Clearly there are many who are.


You wouldn't have an issue with gun owners, it would never get that far. You also wouldn't pass such a law, the mental health Drs would eat it for lunch.

Might want to look up HIPAA
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/

2013-03-08 4:26 PM
in reply to: #4652512

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

DanielG - 2013-03-08 2:28 PM

Lol durn kids!!!

2013-03-08 4:46 PM
in reply to: #4652576

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-03-08 4:16 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 4:46 PM

Brock Samson - 2013-03-08 2:28 PM

The other problem with "universal background checks" is that as proposed they are not universal. Because of privacy rights, and HIPA restrictions, and legislation in the individual states, mental health treatment records may not be subject to being included in the "universal" background checks. Those that are involuntarily civilly committed due to mental illness would be captured, but individuals that voluntarily seek mental health treatment and may be diagnosed with severe mental illness will not be caught in the reporting requirements of the "universal" background checks.

Thus, even if the proposed "universal background" checks as currently proposed were passed without alteration, it probably would never have caught the Newtown shooter. His mental health issues simply would not be the subject of current reporting requirements.

That's one of the objections to the "universal background" checks system. It sounds great, and pro-gun control people argue "how can you be against it?" but the fact is that it isn't as advertised, it won't do what it is claimed it will do, as such it is yet another impediment to lawful gun owners.



Makes sense.

But, hypotheticaly, if it were possible to remove those restrictions-- let's say that laws were passed that would give those authorized to conduct background checks access to all of a person's mental health records-- would you be in favor of them (background checks)? Or are you fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of background checks as a prerequisite for gun ownership? Clearly there are many who are.


You wouldn't have an issue with gun owners, it would never get that far. You also wouldn't pass such a law, the mental health Drs would eat it for lunch.

Might want to look up HIPAA
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/



No need. I'm in HR, so I can quote you HIPAA chapter and verse. As I said, I'm asking a hypothetical question (see above where it says, "hypothetically"?) because I'm curious how many people are opposed to background checks in principle.

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-03-08 4:46 PM
2013-03-08 4:53 PM
in reply to: #4652604

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 3:46 PM
DanielG - 2013-03-08 4:16 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 4:46 PM
Brock Samson - 2013-03-08 2:28 PM

The other problem with "universal background checks" is that as proposed they are not universal. Because of privacy rights, and HIPA restrictions, and legislation in the individual states, mental health treatment records may not be subject to being included in the "universal" background checks. Those that are involuntarily civilly committed due to mental illness would be captured, but individuals that voluntarily seek mental health treatment and may be diagnosed with severe mental illness will not be caught in the reporting requirements of the "universal" background checks.

Thus, even if the proposed "universal background" checks as currently proposed were passed without alteration, it probably would never have caught the Newtown shooter. His mental health issues simply would not be the subject of current reporting requirements.

 

That's one of the objections to the "universal background" checks system. It sounds great, and pro-gun control people argue "how can you be against it?" but the fact is that it isn't as advertised, it won't do what it is claimed it will do, as such it is yet another impediment to lawful gun owners.

Makes sense. But, hypotheticaly, if it were possible to remove those restrictions-- let's say that laws were passed that would give those authorized to conduct background checks access to all of a person's mental health records-- would you be in favor of them (background checks)? Or are you fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of background checks as a prerequisite for gun ownership? Clearly there are many who are.
You wouldn't have an issue with gun owners, it would never get that far. You also wouldn't pass such a law, the mental health Drs would eat it for lunch. Might want to look up HIPAA http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/
No need. I'm in HR, so I can quote you HIPAA chapter and verse. As I said, I'm asking a hypothetical question (see above where it says, "hypothetically"?) because I'm curious how many people are opposed to background checks in principle.

Most of the opposition to background checks comes from those trying to impose them desiring to keep the information. The 4 senators that were working on this split over this issue Coburn won't allow the record to be kept by the feds so now it is stalled. 

If the information is kept, they are one step closer to having a national registration. Registration then leads to confiscation when some president down the line declares martial law or some new weapons ban comes along.

Right now even with a record of a background check one can easily say they sold all their guns at a gun show a month before when someone comes to confiscate them. But with universal checks they can no longer say this without having a record of the sale and the authorities knowing where that gun went. So either you are lying and hiding your guns or you are getting arrested for selling guns without a check. The whole point of the universal background check is so they can track every firearm in the country so that when they decide the time has come they know where to go to scoop them all up. 

Yes we may never see confiscation in our life time but it is possible and that is why a lot of people desire not to start down the hill. Look at Katrina, the cops went door to door confiscating guns. Imagine if they had a list of people that owned them and what they owned. The courts later smacked them down for it, but it didn't do those people any good, many of them still don't have their guns back.

2013-03-08 4:56 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

South Dakota Governor Signs Gun Control Legislation.



2013-03-08 5:10 PM
in reply to: #4652604

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 5:46 PM


No need. I'm in HR, so I can quote you HIPAA chapter and verse. As I said, I'm asking a hypothetical question (see above where it says, "hypothetically"?) because I'm curious how many people are opposed to background checks in principle.


I couldn't care less about background checks and they might not be a bad thing. Several things that are complete and utter show stoppers for me:

1) Sooner or later someone will want to keep records and end up with a default gun registration scheme. Full stop. No.

2) If the people are able to use the background check, it will be abused.

3) If some president or congress critter decided to end gun sales, they would no longer have a big hassle to do it, they could take a lesson from Chicago and just shut down the NICS. Poof, no legal gun sales.

Chicago, in the '70s, said "Oh, we're not denying you your right to own a firearm, you just have to register it." Later they "ran out of registration applications" and never bothered to print any more.

Fool me once...
2013-03-08 5:46 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Hypothetically if you could capture all those people I would not have a problem with back ground checks.

Of course one of the loudest voices in opposition to the notion of "universal background checks" is the AMA and mental health professionals. So the road block to truly "universal" back ground checks may be mental health advocates.
2013-03-08 7:00 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1948304.html
Hearings set on driver's licenses and concealed carry permits

They understand it. If you do not allow the process to start, it cannot be abused.

2013-03-11 2:59 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread




(small gun v.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
small gun v.jpg (26KB - 5 downloads)
2013-03-11 3:18 PM
in reply to: #4655462

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

Left Brain - 2013-03-11 2:59 PM

lol, problem solved



2013-03-11 6:08 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Veteran's Administration says it won't follow New York gun law
http://www.koaa.com/news/va-says-it-won-t-follow-new-york-gun-law/#...

GOOD! "likely to harm themselves or others" Excuse me? No due process, no involuntary commitment, just someone's say-so that they are likely to harm themselves.



2013-03-11 6:08 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

No to hijack but when we only have one thread... well it's gonna happen...

The DHS has ordered 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo.  That's enough to fight 24 years worth of war at levels equal to the height of Iraq war.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

WTF does DHS need that much ammo for?  Other than to make it harder for civilians to buy it.

Aren't we on a sequester? Do you need 24 years worth of bullets when you are laying off teachers? (Almost said that with a straight face...)

PS: Oh and they are buying tanks for domestic use too.  Do you really need to wonder why we want to protects our 2A rights?



Edited by TriRSquared 2013-03-11 6:09 PM
2013-03-11 8:15 PM
in reply to: #4655743

User image

Expert
1002
1000
Wind Lake WI
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

Loaded 200 .223 tonight. Not quite 1.6 billion, but it's a good start. At this pace I'll hit 1.6 billion in 22 thousand years.

2013-03-11 8:39 PM
in reply to: #4655889

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
firstnet911 - 2013-03-11 9:15 PM

Loaded 200 .223 tonight. Not quite 1.6 billion, but it's a good start. At this pace I'll hit 1.6 billion in 22 thousand years.




I just got all the parts for .223 for my Dillon. I may have to get into three gun competition now

2013-03-11 9:22 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Pro
3883
20001000500100100100252525
Woodstock,GA
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

If you don't follow or "like" Mike Huckabee on Facebook then I strongly suggest that you do so. He had a guest blogger the other day that had the best post on the gun issue I have ever read. Basically his point (which is the same point I have been making for years) is that: "Criminals don't obtain guns legally in the first place, any gun control measures put into place only serves to inhibit law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms as they are Constitutionally guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment."

 



2013-03-12 10:46 AM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

 

DHS needs rounds for target practice, duh! Geez get with the program.

Oh and those "tanks" are left over Afghanistan tanks so really they are recycling tanks not buying new ones. Just don't ask me why some ridiculous made up department that we did fine without for 200 years now needs tanks. 

2013-03-12 10:49 AM
in reply to: #4656604

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Aarondb4 - 2013-03-12 10:46 AM

 

DHS needs rounds for target practice, duh! Geez get with the program.

Oh and those "tanks" are left over Afghanistan tanks so really they are recycling tanks not buying new ones. Just don't ask me why some ridiculous made up department that we did fine without for 200 years now needs tanks. 

Uh.........you should see the amount of time DHS is spending on drug investigations.  I'm not sure exactly what is going on, or who is behind it, but DHS has some VERY long reaching tentacles these days.

2013-03-12 11:29 AM
in reply to: #4656609

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Left Brain - 2013-03-12 10:49 AM
Aarondb4 - 2013-03-12 10:46 AM

 

DHS needs rounds for target practice, duh! Geez get with the program.

Oh and those "tanks" are left over Afghanistan tanks so really they are recycling tanks not buying new ones. Just don't ask me why some ridiculous made up department that we did fine without for 200 years now needs tanks. 

Uh.........you should see the amount of time DHS is spending on drug investigations.  I'm not sure exactly what is going on, or who is behind it, but DHS has some VERY long reaching tentacles these days.

I just hope they don't all start wearing brown shirts...  <Kidding kidding>

2013-03-12 11:32 AM
in reply to: #4655968

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Rocket Man - 2013-03-11 9:22 PM

If you don't follow or "like" Mike Huckabee on Facebook then I strongly suggest that you do so. He had a guest blogger the other day that had the best post on the gun issue I have ever read. Basically his point (which is the same point I have been making for years) is that: "Criminals don't obtain guns legally in the first place, any gun control measures put into place only serves to inhibit law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms as they are Constitutionally guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment."

 

A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

2013-03-12 11:49 AM
in reply to: #4656673

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-03-12 12:32 PM

Rocket Man - 2013-03-11 9:22 PM

If you don't follow or "like" Mike Huckabee on Facebook then I strongly suggest that you do so. He had a guest blogger the other day that had the best post on the gun issue I have ever read. Basically his point (which is the same point I have been making for years) is that: "Criminals don't obtain guns legally in the first place, any gun control measures put into place only serves to inhibit law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms as they are Constitutionally guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment."

 

A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).



Just a point of notice. Suicide isn't illegal anywhere in the US. I'm with ya on the rest of it.




2013-03-12 12:00 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

 

Suicide is illegal in Idaho. Doesn't get charged a lot, but it is on the books and I saw it charged once when I worked at the court house. 

2013-03-12 12:07 PM
in reply to: #4656703

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-03-12 11:49 AM
tuwood - 2013-03-12 12:32 PM
Rocket Man - 2013-03-11 9:22 PM

If you don't follow or "like" Mike Huckabee on Facebook then I strongly suggest that you do so. He had a guest blogger the other day that had the best post on the gun issue I have ever read. Basically his point (which is the same point I have been making for years) is that: "Criminals don't obtain guns legally in the first place, any gun control measures put into place only serves to inhibit law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms as they are Constitutionally guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment."

 

A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

Just a point of notice. Suicide isn't illegal anywhere in the US. I'm with ya on the rest of it.

I wondered that too.  Obviously I just copied and pasted the rest.  I think I've seen it a half a dozen times or so on facebook and other places. 

2013-03-12 1:32 PM
in reply to: #4656720

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Aarondb4 - 2013-03-12 1:00 PM

 

Suicide is illegal in Idaho. Doesn't get charged a lot, but it is on the books and I saw it charged once when I worked at the court house. 



Assisting a suicide and providing the means to suicide are illegal. Committing it is not. I think the last state took attempting and committing suicide as crimes off the books in the mid '90s



2013-03-12 1:33 PM
in reply to: #4656731

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-03-12 1:07 PM

I think I've seen it a half a dozen times or so on facebook and other places. 



Used to be attempting suicide was illegal most everywhere.

Hell, I remember a case where they actually convicted a corpse of committing it. Was in one of my classes at some point.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » 'The' Gun Thread Rss Feed  
 
 
of 48