You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Here he goes.....
- Thread starter In The Ten Ring
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Threatening deadly harm while not engaged in legitimate defense of self or others is a crime. It is not a departure from due process for the police to take control of a defendant's property involved in a crime subsequent to arrest.
Fully agreed
Someone would have to be nuts to see a psychologist.
I think that gets off track, a great many people who are as sane as people can be with stuff that has tweaked them go to counseling.
The pilot of flew an Airbus A320 into the mountains in (Spain or France) was under some kind of care.
That points to the danger: if you ask someone in government for a reason to violate rights one's rights, he is likely to offer one.
There is always a danger. One recourse is to ensure its done right. Another is not to have a right wing bent and demonizing of an issue (guns or drugs) that then in turn winds up being allowed by the courts.
Frankly that is what Fascist regimes specialized in. That's why I detest the loose talk from Trump, it gets into those areas.
I want well thought out and considered actions, not knee jerk. Those actions should have started a long time ago in my opinion.
Yes the NCIS should be fixed and should actually constitute a record search. I should be able to find out of someone has been adjudicated with mental concerns that prevent him or her from owning a firearm - please note though this is sharing of the legal process not the medical one. There is a major difference between the legal process and actual mental healthcare.
Psychologists and other healthcare providers are going to be slow to diagnose certain conditions if it results in a loss of rights for their patients. Perhaps some are going to be too quick because they don't believe that right should exist. Regardless there is going to be a concern. if I have to be "declared" to be "not incompetent" by a healthcare professional then offices will spring up in hotel rooms to do just that the same as they have with medical marijuana cards. Large retailers might even keep a licensed professional on staff. People who should have mental healthcare and could lead perfectly normal lives with minimal treatment may decide not to seek any treatment at all to protect their rights creating the exact situation we are hoping to avoid.
You also have a consideration of the slippery slope. Do we want to start curtailing rights based on health status outside of the legal system?
Psychologists and other healthcare providers are going to be slow to diagnose certain conditions if it results in a loss of rights for their patients. Perhaps some are going to be too quick because they don't believe that right should exist. Regardless there is going to be a concern. if I have to be "declared" to be "not incompetent" by a healthcare professional then offices will spring up in hotel rooms to do just that the same as they have with medical marijuana cards. Large retailers might even keep a licensed professional on staff. People who should have mental healthcare and could lead perfectly normal lives with minimal treatment may decide not to seek any treatment at all to protect their rights creating the exact situation we are hoping to avoid.
You also have a consideration of the slippery slope. Do we want to start curtailing rights based on health status outside of the legal system?
Someone would have to be nuts to see a psychologist.
That's a joke.
RC20 said:There is always a danger. One recourse is to ensure its done right. Another is not to have a right wing bent and demonizing of an issue (guns or drugs) that then in turn winds up being allowed by the courts.That points to the danger: if you ask someone in government for a reason to violate rights one's rights, he is likely to offer one.
Frankly that is what Fascist regimes specialized in. That's why I detest the loose talk from Trump, it gets into those areas.
I want well thought out and considered actions, not knee jerk. Those actions should have started a long time ago in my opinion.
It isn't really well thought out to look for a violation of rights "done right". The greater foresight would be found in not violating peoples' rights in the first place.
Lohman said:You also have a consideration of the slippery slope. Do we want to start curtailing rights based on health status outside of the legal system?
Like not letting people vote if they have a co-dependent relationship with government?
medical data matches you get red flagged and denied.
What particular medical reasons may I be denied a right for absent court procedures? What if I have had an appointment with a doctor who primarily treats schizophrenia? Is that enough cause? What about one that treats depression? How about any therapist? What if my medical doctor, unqualified to give a mental health evaluation, suggests it? That enough?
Can I be denied a firearm because I was recently fired from a job and that may impact my mental health? What if I was fired and have an appointment with a therapist? What if a college teacher noticed something "off?" Who can put things in this file? Is it like the no fly list where no one has to tell me why I am on it or how to challenge it? What if I run for public office and some "qualified" individual ignores the Goldwater rule and says something on public television? Good enough to deny the right?
How long can my property be seized before I am given due process? A day, a week, a month, a decade?
In short he will throw gun owners under the bus if it gets him some kind of glory (at leas tin his mind). Democrats may be the boogey person) they at least believe in the rule of law and the process even if you disagree on the law in questions.
You are consistent, if nothing else. You want "well thought out and considered action, not knee jerk" and then make a knee jerk statement like the above. I am weary hearing about liberal politicians who are advocating the gutting of the second amendment who "believe in the rule of law" or their love of "the process."
In The Ten Ring
New member
The "no fly list" is the most serious threat to civil liberty we have seen since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
The very thought that a person can be put on a list they are not allowed to see or challenge, nor have any notice of being on the list is exactly what the Nuremburg Laws did. I have, since 2006, feared the Patriot Act would be used to target political enemies and eventually, to bar gun ownership and freedom.
There have been cases of people put onto the list because the govt. employee entered the wrong name, misspelled a name, or for outright punishment for a public statement. A high profile reporter was added to the list in what seems to have been punishment for asking embarrassing questions.
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/09/...tor-stephen-hayes-ended-dhs-terror-watch-list
I would say that anyone that has ever seen a psychologist, social worker, or taken any medications whatsoever for depression, no matter how long ago or how trifling, needs to be worried and it won't be easy to find out why your gun purchase was denied. A victim would see a lot of run-around and it would take years and lots of legal fees to even find out one has been put on the list, not to mention more money and time to find out why.
The one bright light at the end of this long, dark tunnel is that one has a right to own firearms, one doesn't have a right to ride on planes (although I would dispute that). So if "no fly, no buy" becomes federal law, there will be court challenges that might have an effect.
The very thought that a person can be put on a list they are not allowed to see or challenge, nor have any notice of being on the list is exactly what the Nuremburg Laws did. I have, since 2006, feared the Patriot Act would be used to target political enemies and eventually, to bar gun ownership and freedom.
There have been cases of people put onto the list because the govt. employee entered the wrong name, misspelled a name, or for outright punishment for a public statement. A high profile reporter was added to the list in what seems to have been punishment for asking embarrassing questions.
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/09/...tor-stephen-hayes-ended-dhs-terror-watch-list
I would say that anyone that has ever seen a psychologist, social worker, or taken any medications whatsoever for depression, no matter how long ago or how trifling, needs to be worried and it won't be easy to find out why your gun purchase was denied. A victim would see a lot of run-around and it would take years and lots of legal fees to even find out one has been put on the list, not to mention more money and time to find out why.
The one bright light at the end of this long, dark tunnel is that one has a right to own firearms, one doesn't have a right to ride on planes (although I would dispute that). So if "no fly, no buy" becomes federal law, there will be court challenges that might have an effect.
In short he will throw gun owners under the bus if it gets him some kind of glory (at leas tin his mind). Democrats may be the boogey person) they at least believe in the rule of law and the process even if you disagree on the law in questions.
Like a majority of gun owners, I would like a discussion and looking into various aspects of some restraint on guns that does not take them away.
If that is a licensing process, non high capacity magazines, gun sales restricted until 21, a community background check.
Any law can be sun settled in 5 to 10 years.
I know one guy is a serious gun owner that thinks ARs should have a 2k tax on them.
In the end, this country gets handed off to a new generation, its going to be something other than white majority and its going to go where they take it not us.
We are seeing a shift in access to the public. The NRA model is no longer the only one in town, NRA does not control social media and they are not remotely good at it.
The Parkland kids got ahead on the issue and they have maintained it. That's the new generation. They are vastly more media savy that I was in high school and they have the tools to get that message out and across.
Democrats believe in the rule of law and process? You have got to be kidding. Remember Fast and Furious? IRS targeting of conservative groups? Violations of the Espionage Act by Clinton, Obama,and Co? All buried by Democrats and their minions. Democrats had no problem with misidentified SS and VA benefit recipients being stripped of their gun rights without due process.
Your ideas for gun controls that "won't take them away" by their very nature will facilitate just that. Licenses can be easily denied and/or be made unaffordable. The time needed to do "community checks" could be stretched out indefinitely, or again, made unaffordable to most people. What is a high capacity magazine? NY seemed to think over 7 rounds was too many. Why some arbitrary number?
Democrats smell blood in the water, they aren't going to have any interest in a sunset provision like the first AWB had.
You have a valid point on the NRA needing to be better on social media.
I'm not sure it was just the Parkland kids being on the issue, they had lots of help from the usual suspects. I think they were just waiting for the next tragedy with a plan to use kids in such a manner.
My guess is Trump wants a record vote on a big package of gun control because he thinks that is a loser issue for the Dems and he wants GOP to be able to go into midterms with some progun votes against a heinous bill.
Of course, if enough gutless, wishy-washy Republicans vote to pass it, that could be a YUUUGE miscalculation.
In The Ten Ring
New member
Of course, if enough gutless, wishy-washy Republicans vote to pass it, that could be a YUUUGE miscalculation.
Only for those that voted for Trump......
"but, but, but we got a conservative on the Supreme Court!" And what happens with the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case? That has happened already.
And what happens if Trump gets another SC appointment and this time, doesn't appoint a conservative or the one he does appoint turns out be like Roberts on ACA?
I see now how the prediction "Trump will destroy the Republican Party" might have been correct.
Only for those that voted for Trump......
"but, but, but we got a conservative on the Supreme Court!" And what happens with the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case? That has happened already.
And what happens if Trump gets another SC appointment and this time, doesn't appoint a conservative or the one he does appoint turns out be like Roberts on ACA?
I see now how the prediction "Trump will destroy the Republican Party" might have been correct.
Last edited:
Never trust a politician, lawyer or billionaire... someone told me that growing up.
Stripping rights, before due process, should be concerning to all no matter your political affiliations.
I have always been convinced that nearly all of our leaders want us disarmed; some just use second amendment to gather votes.
Stripping rights, before due process, should be concerning to all no matter your political affiliations.
I have always been convinced that nearly all of our leaders want us disarmed; some just use second amendment to gather votes.
If anything, we need to learn a big lesson as a nation: stop voting based on slogans and emotional appeals.
The President's history on 2nd Amendment issues is no secret. As far back as 1996, he was on record supporting bans on "assault weapons" and waiting periods. It was foolish for the NRA to blow $53 million on his campaign just because he wasn't the other guy.
The President's history on 2nd Amendment issues is no secret. As far back as 1996, he was on record supporting bans on "assault weapons" and waiting periods. It was foolish for the NRA to blow $53 million on his campaign just because he wasn't the other guy.
.Never trust a politician, lawyer or billionaire..
I was also raised to distrust folks with money or position. As an adult I have come to know that judging people by what they do or have is a very poor way of determining their character.
What are the Parkland kids supposed to do? Going back to school quietly has not worked. Kids are dying because violent nutcases are shooting up schools. Adults have a very sorry record when it comes to addressing school massacres. Go kids!!!
Meanwhile every proposal to improve the reporting of mental cases to NICS is met with disapproval from gun owners: "Slippery slope" and all that.
Yep, folks get on the boards and blame "liberals" video games, moral decay, and other stuff for school massacres. IMO: The biggest factor in this stuff was no fault divorce. Ronald Reagan signed the first no fault divorce statute into law in 1969 in CA. He regretted that action for the rest of his life. No fault divorce is law in 50 states.
Millions of boys are being raised by females with little or no interaction with their fathers. i'm a Big Brother. My record mentoring boys is not great. However, one fatherless boy i mentored is a US Army special operations officer.
A boy growing up in a fatherless home is often floundering.
Meanwhile every proposal to improve the reporting of mental cases to NICS is met with disapproval from gun owners: "Slippery slope" and all that.
Yep, folks get on the boards and blame "liberals" video games, moral decay, and other stuff for school massacres. IMO: The biggest factor in this stuff was no fault divorce. Ronald Reagan signed the first no fault divorce statute into law in 1969 in CA. He regretted that action for the rest of his life. No fault divorce is law in 50 states.
Millions of boys are being raised by females with little or no interaction with their fathers. i'm a Big Brother. My record mentoring boys is not great. However, one fatherless boy i mentored is a US Army special operations officer.
A boy growing up in a fatherless home is often floundering.
In The Ten Ring
New member
"go kids?" Go where? Demand pointless new laws? Scream at and shout down gun owners and their advocates?
Govt failed those students every step of the way but somehow, more govt won't. Right.
Govt failed those students every step of the way but somehow, more govt won't. Right.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.