Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2013, 02:55:41 PM
-
I know many people here worry that mental health restrictions on gun ownership will go too far, or just be misused. Are the current laws (state or federal) ok on this issue, and if not what would you change?
-
It is incumbent upon us to demand that any action be directed at who is committing the gun crimes.
The focus must be laser like on WHO IS COMMITTING VIOLENT CRIME?
The overwhelming vast majority of not just crimes using guns but all violent crime come from very identifiable demographic parts of our nation.
Interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Until the real problem is addressed I oppose any further restrictions on self defense/RKBA.
We must refuse the lefts choosing of the battlefield and refuse to even acknowledge the legitimacy of their narrative. Period.
-
I know many people here worry that mental health restrictions on gun ownership will go too far, or just be misused. Are the current laws (state or federal) ok on this issue, and if not what would you change?
Is it just me, or is it kinda ironic trusting the psych "sciences" with our "mental health" considering that this field is predicated on a philosophy having the view that religion -- basically any belief in god/God/gods or a human "soul" -- is a mostly harmless delusion?
I've actually posed that question to clergy who were fond of recommending that people "seek professional help" for their emotional distress, and found that none of them, not one, had ever even bothered to notice this discrepancy.
For this, and a gift basket of other reasons, I have no faith in the world according to psychiatry or psychology.
Consequently, I have great difficulty recommending a subscription to their authority in determining who shall be permitted to have rights.
There's a longer rant on this subject, but I haven't written it yet.
You've all been subjected to my observation about the psych "sciences" and their involvement in public education, and the question of why, if their stuff has any validity, their unfettered access to the education system has resulted in the increasingly awful results from that quarter.
Given their history and their performance to date, I submit that they are very much the wrong people for the job.
With that in mind, I don't see any utility in writing new laws to give them more power and authority.
Maybe we could employ some actual judgment with regard to who's crazy, and not duck that responsibility in favor of incompetent "experts" who will be biased in favor of their funding source.
-
I don't know how the actual current system works. I get the impression its not terribly fair once one is blackballed, but it is also hard to get noticed by the "system".
But from a first principles perspective, rights should only be removed in a court of law, determined by a jury of peers, facing the accuser, and judgement of rights removal should be limited to pre-defined times proportional to the issue as defined by law (not regulatory power).
-
I'm not big on conspiracies, but this one grinds my gears.
1) Government takeover of healthcare, including mental health services
2) Big push for gun control, with even the so called "right" bringing up mental health issues
3) profit????
I am highly suspicious of any push for mental health restrictions on firearms ownership. Especially when government-paid doctors (even if indirectly) will be the ones deciding your mental health status. The AMA is anti gun.
Too many moving parts. It all looks bad for gun owners. I don't like the implications.
-
IIRC, you have to be adjudicated as Coo-Coo for Coco-Puffs. Meaning that not any mental health "expert" cann put your name on a piece of paper and turn you in to NICS for the "No Gun List".
Even the 72 hour involuntary, doesn't put you on the list. Self reporting/seeking treatment doesn't put you on the naughty list.
You have to be adjudicated crazy by a judge. You have to have legal representation and full on hearing.
At least that's how it is now.
-
IIRC, you have to be adjudicated as Coo-Coo for Coco-Puffs. Meaning that not any mental health "expert" cann put your name on a piece of paper and turn you in to NICS for the "No Gun List".
Even the 72 hour involuntary, doesn't put you on the list. Self reporting/seeking treatment doesn't put you on the naughty list.
You have to be adjudicated crazy by a judge. You have to have legal representation and full on hearing.
At least that's how it is now.
That's just statute, and easily changed, once you have a registry system put in place.
-
IIRC, you have to be adjudicated as Coo-Coo for Coco-Puffs. Meaning that not any mental health "expert" cann put your name on a piece of paper and turn you in to NICS for the "No Gun List".
Even the 72 hour involuntary, doesn't put you on the list. Self reporting/seeking treatment doesn't put you on the naughty list.
You have to be adjudicated crazy by a judge. You have to have legal representation and full on hearing.
At least that's how it is now.
For now. All they gotta do is change it. Require psychiatric evaluation to purchase. Require NICS check to include psychological medications (including ADD meds, etc etc). *expletive deleted*ck, they already have a database of that, since those are all "controlled substances".
While people like Feinstein and McCarthy are blithering jackwagon aholes, they have a whole army of people pushing this legislation.
Me, I'm not scared of them banning "assault rifles", magazines, legislating ammo purchases, etc.
My biggest concern is if they take that leap on "mental health".
-
If the murder and mayhem is to stop then a good first step is not letting convicted murderers and convicted attempted murderers out of jail, ever.
Armed robbery? Maximum sentence that has to be served in total, no early release.
Multiple violent felonies on your record and you get convicted of another? Maximum sentence plus more for being a repeat offender.
This is not a violent country. We have pockets of violence in our urban areas skewing the numbers.
Quit putting non violent druggies in jail and fill em up with violent offenders, then keep them there.
Any mental health legislation should be a non-starter.
Mental health issues have little to do with our skewed violent crime stats.
-
cut way back on plea bargains or rons changes are eviscerated
-
Good question...I wish I had a good answer. For starters, I think that personal responsibility (ad perhaps legal liability) lies with the families of the mentally ill. You can't do much with an adult who lives on their own - but you can, and should, be aware that someone in your own household who is unbalanced (and more importantly, has demonstrated violent delusional tendencies) should be denied access to any guns in the household...and if of legal age, should be on a "red flag' list...requiring some type of review of recent arrest and/ or treatment history. It's a slippery slope for sure...but so are many things.
-
Of all of the spree killings in recent history were there any of the perpetrators that hadn't displayed "red flags" that should have set in motion preventative measures?
I might exclude the DC "snipers" as I consider that to be an act of terrorism.
-
I was hoping that some of those who have concerns about being disqualified for mental health reasons would comment on this, and maybe tell us what would or would not be acceptable, from their point of view.
Is it just me, or is it kinda ironic trusting the psych "sciences" with our "mental health" considering that this field is predicated on a philosophy having the view that religion -- basically any belief in god/God/gods or a human "soul" -- is a mostly harmless delusion?
I've actually posed that question to clergy who were fond of recommending that people "seek professional help" for their emotional distress, and found that none of them, not one, had ever even bothered to notice this discrepancy.
There is a noticeable amount of suspicion toward psychology/psychiatry among American Christians. But then there is James Dobson, who made his reputation as a child psychologist.
-
Fistful,
I do have concerns.
The VA has treated me for PTSD and Adjustment Disorder.
It's all in my VA records.
From what I've studied so far, it isn't going to be a disqualifier.
Feinstein and crew could change that in short order. =(
-
Fistful,
I do have concerns.
The VA has treated me for PTSD and Adjustment Disorder.
It's all in my VA records.
From what I've studied so far, it isn't going to be a disqualifier.
Feinstein and crew could change that in short order.
I understand your concern !
I had my knee looked, after the normal question......... Are you upset , do you feel like hurting someone or you're self ,do you drinking a lot , and do thing you have PTSD.
No Doc i'm fine. Can you look at my knee now.
-
I know many people here worry that mental health restrictions on gun ownership will go too far, or just be misused. Are the current laws (state or federal) ok on this issue, and if not what would you change?
No, the current laws are not OK on this issue. The only laws that should apply to firearms are those laws that apply to other consumer items such as TVs and blenders.
Think about this: Would you want your worst enemy to have this law to use against you?
Edit to add: If a free adult can't be trusted with a firearm, then he can't be trusted with a knife/car/shoe/phone/internet/anything, and therefore he can't be trusted to be free.
-
No, the current laws are not OK on this issue. The only laws that should apply to firearms are those laws that apply to other consumer items such as TVs and blenders.
Think about this: Would you want your worst enemy to have this law to use against you?
What law? The whole point of this thread is that I don't know this area of the law, so I don't know what people are objecting to. =|
-
Things worked pretty well before the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1968 and GCA '68.
I truly believe that gun control laws cause most of the problems they claim to address -- perhaps an indirect cause, but still they always make the problem worse. (Here comes the conspiracy theory: that's what they are supposed to do)
-
Things worked pretty well before the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1968 and GCA '68.
Give this man a cee-gar.
But seriously, is there really such a big problem? Violent crime is declining, clearly America is doing something right.
-
What law? The whole point of this thread is that I don't know this area of the law, so I don't know what people are objecting to. =|
Each state's laws vary.
-
Give this man a cee-gar.
But seriously, is there really such a big problem? Violent crime is declining, clearly America is doing something right.
Don't go clouding my visceral emotional reaction and misinformation-fueled misperception with facts! LALALALAIcan'thearyouLALALALA...
-
They'll put as much thought and care into adding names to the mental health "No Gun List" as they do adding names to the "No Fly List."
-
They'll put as much thought and care into adding names to the mental health "No Gun List" as they do adding names to the "No Fly List."
Are you referring to the "people with whom I disagree politically" list?
-
Multiple violent felonies on your record and you get convicted of another? Maximum sentence plus more for being a repeat offender.
Instead of giving the judge a window of 8-25 years for armed robbery (a number I pulled out of a hat for this demonstration) narrow up the spread, so say 10-12 years and them multiply that by X+1, where X is the number of prior violent convictions. Same for violent offenses committed while in prison.
Further, since there is a culture in prison of lifers dicking over guys with short sentences by coercing them into violent and other illegal acts the prisons need to be more strictly segregated. First violent conviction? You should be in a population ONLY with other first time offenders serving similar sentences. Penitentiary. That name comes from penitence. If these are to truly be places of penitence and rehabilitation then they need to have an atmosphere conducive to that. Tossing fellas who have screwed up, but not totally thrown their life away, into the same box with a bunch of oxygen thieves is a recipe to make more oxygen thieves, not productive members of society.
-
Individual liberty is an affront to the Collective Good, not to mention toxically selfish, often delusional--haven't you heard? I think we all know where the wind's blowing... Just give 'em time. We cannot turn our freedom over to "experts."
-
They'll put as much thought and care into adding names to the mental health "No Gun List" as they do adding names to the "No Fly List."
Errrrrrr, uhhhhhhh...... FML.
Washington, DC – Congressman Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat, reintroduced the “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act” (H.R. 21) in the 113th Congress. The legislation would implement five commonsense gun safety reforms that polling shows are supported by at least 63 percent of NRA members.
“The “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act” (H.R. 21) goes after commonsense, popular, publicly polled, non-controversial gun safety measures that a majority of NRA members support, yet are opposed by the leadership at the NRA,” said Rep. Moran. “The NRA is working to block gun safety reforms, regardless of merit, and despite the schism between the group and their membership. In the wake of the most recent tragedy, enough is enough. It’s time to take steps to better protect the public in ways that do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.”
Specifically, the popular provisions in the legislation would:
• Require background checks for every gun purchase (74% NRA member support);
• Require background checks on gun shop employees (79% NRA member support);
• Prohibit individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms (71% NRA member support);
• Require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen (64% NRA member supports); and
• Establish minimum standards for concealed carry permits (63-75% NRA member support for each standard)
Moran continued: “As the first bill I introduced this Congress, H.R. 21 represents one of my top priorities – taking commonsense steps to prevent future gun-related deaths.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:21:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
-
This will last about as long as it takes the NRA to put articles in American Rifleman about how the List works.
-
I was hoping that some of those who have concerns about being disqualified for mental health reasons would comment on this, and maybe tell us what would or would not be acceptable, from their point of view.
There is a noticeable amount of suspicion toward psychology/psychiatry among American Christians. But then there is James Dobson, who made his reputation as a child psychologist.
I don't see this. I do know some Christians that are distrustful, but that has more to do with their belief that mental problems are a consequence of sinful behavior and a punishment. I spent 12 years (or so) working in the mental health field and never received and kind of instruction that was designed to convince me that religious belief was bad or the result of some kind of delusion. I am sure there are some practitioners that do believe that, but it is not a requirement of the profession.
-
As for what I think, I don't believe the federal prohibition should be expanded. If anything, it should be scaled back to allow people to challenge their inclusion on the list. It should not be a lifetime prohibition.
-
As for what I think, I don't believe the federal prohibition should be expanded. If anything, it should be scaled back to allow people to challenge their inclusion on the list. It should not be a lifetime prohibition.
But it isn't a lifetime prohibition, you can appeal it! (It's just that Congress has kept that appeals process defunded for the last 20 years.)
-
I don't see this. I do know some Christians that are distrustful, but that has more to do with their belief that mental problems are a consequence of sinful behavior and a punishment. I spent 12 years (or so) working in the mental health field and never received and kind of instruction that was designed to convince me that religious belief was bad or the result of some kind of delusion. I am sure there are some practitioners that do believe that, but it is not a requirement of the profession.
One wonders then, if psychology is . . . what -- tolerant? -- of religion, to what degree does psychology accept the underpinning of religion -- the human soul or spirit -- as a component of thinking and emotion?
I'm not even interested, really, in psychology's "interpretation" of God/god/gods, I'm much more interested in whether psychology understands that the essence of the human condition is non-physical -- is in fact spiritual -- and that they integrate that knowledge into their theory & practice.
If the technology factors in the human spirit, then it has a chance. If the idea of the human spirit is merely "tolerated" as a harmless illusion or delusion (or simply irrelevant), and the technology itself has no reflection of that aspect of the human condition, then all we have is lip service and jaw flapping, with the usual dismissive "well, it's fine if you want to believe that, it's no problem at all, you're welcome to your religion, whatever it is."
I have no use for, nor respect for, nor any trust of any "mental technology" that does not incorporate and integrate the human spirit into its theory and practice.
And why should I?
If I know that I am a spiritual being, and I know that some practitioner is willing to disregard that as unimportant in his formulation of counseling and remedies, why would I even bother consulting him?
He doesn't even think I exist. Screw that.
-
I understand your concern !
I had my knee looked, after the normal question......... Are you upset , do you feel like hurting someone or you're self ,do you drinking a lot , and do thing you have PTSD.
No Doc i'm fine. Can you look at my knee now.
These kinds of things bother me too. In the well baby visits for both of my sons, they have always asked the question "are there guns in the home?" My wife and I always answer no. There was one Dr. that I could tell didn't believe it, (I think it was because he saw that my oldest was born at a military hospital) and still gave us a lecture about safes and such. Then, without comment, handed us brochures about other things such as vaccines and swimming pools. :facepalm:
Also, apparently during pregnancies, it is SOP to ask questions that basically ask a dozen different ways if there is domestic abuse going on. My wife told me it always made her very uncomfortable, because she was afraid that she might answer "incorrectly" and set off some kind of inquisition.
These kinds of dynamics in Dr. offices give me pause when the "tightening up the NICS system" topic comes up.
-
One wonders then, if psychology is . . . what -- tolerant? -- of religion, to what degree does psychology accept the underpinning of religion -- the human soul or spirit -- as a component of thinking and emotion?
I'm not even interested, really, in psychology's "interpretation" of God/god/gods, I'm much more interested in whether psychology understands that the essence of the human condition is non-physical -- is in fact spiritual -- and that they integrate that knowledge into their theory & practice.
If the technology factors in the human spirit, then it has a chance. If the idea of the human spirit is merely "tolerated" as a harmless illusion or delusion (or simply irrelevant), and the technology itself has no reflection of that aspect of the human condition, then all we have is lip service and jaw flapping, with the usual dismissive "well, it's fine if you want to believe that, it's no problem at all, you're welcome to your religion, whatever it is."
I have no use for, nor respect for, nor any trust of any "mental technology" that does not incorporate and integrate the human spirit into its theory and practice.
And why should I?
If I know that I am a spiritual being, and I know that some practitioner is willing to disregard that as unimportant in his formulation of counseling and remedies, why would I even bother consulting him?
He doesn't even think I exist. Screw that.
I agree and wouldn't go to someone that took a tolerance view. As for Christian counselors, there are many organizations. Our church is planning on doing some trainings from this group, starting this summer:
http://www.ccef.org/
-
Considering that many in the mainstream, particularly "educated" professionals (like shrinks) see being a firearms enthusiast (let alone a prepared person) as 'crazy'....this is very bad.
-
These kinds of things bother me too. In the well baby visits for both of my sons, they have always asked the question "are there guns in the home?" My wife and I always answer no. There was one Dr. that I could tell didn't believe it, (I think it was because he saw that my oldest was born at a military hospital) and still gave us a lecture about safes and such. Then, without comment, handed us brochures about other things such as vaccines and swimming pools. :facepalm:
Also, apparently during pregnancies, it is SOP to ask questions that basically ask a dozen different ways if there is domestic abuse going on. My wife told me it always made her very uncomfortable, because she was afraid that she might answer "incorrectly" and set off some kind of inquisition.
These kinds of dynamics in Dr. offices give me pause when the "tightening up the NICS system" topic comes up.
Our ped in VA used to ask that question.....so I open carried to thier office once. I got a lot of :O looks. And they asked that question during the visit anyways. Answer....."I'm not answering those questions" :rofl:
Here in Texas, we're on our second pediatrician, and neither asked any of those *expletive deleted*ed up AMA questions.
-
Our doctor (pediatrician+internal medicine) is not a member of the AMA, which is one of the criteria we used in choosing him. As a result, we've never had any of those crummy AMA questions asked.
-
Each state's laws vary.
Are there any states that have a good approach to this issue? If not, what do you think is the right way for govt. to deal with mental health and guns? Or should they just stay out of it?
-
Are there any states that have a good approach to this issue? If not, what do you think is the right way for govt. to deal with mental health and guns? Or should they just stay out of it?
If someone is not mentally competent to own guns, they probably shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. So if someone is so crazy and dangerous that they have been adjudicated by a court of law (including zealous representation on their side) to be such a danger to themselves and others as to require involuntary treatment and/or confinement then yeah they probably hsouldn't be allowed to buy guns from a dealer.
-
If a free adult can't be trusted with a firearm, then he can't be trusted with a knife/car/shoe/phone/internet/anything, and therefore he can't be trusted to be free.
Amen, brother ;)
-
These kinds of things bother me too. In the well baby visits for both of my sons, they have always asked the question "are there guns in the home?" My wife and I always answer no. There was one Dr. that I could tell didn't believe it, (I think it was because he saw that my oldest was born at a military hospital) and still gave us a lecture about safes and such. Then, without comment, handed us brochures about other things such as vaccines and swimming pools. :facepalm:
Also, apparently during pregnancies, it is SOP to ask questions that basically ask a dozen different ways if there is domestic abuse going on. My wife told me it always made her very uncomfortable, because she was afraid that she might answer "incorrectly" and set off some kind of inquisition.
These kinds of dynamics in Dr. offices give me pause when the "tightening up the NICS system" topic comes up.
Well, you can thank Obamacare for one thing. There is a provision, Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c, that prevents the government from collecting any information related to the lawful ownership of firearms. I suppose doctors can still ask, but they can't turn the info over to any government agency or entity.
-
Of all of the spree killings in recent history were there any of the perpetrators that hadn't displayed "red flags" that should have set in motion preventative measures?
The problem is, these supposed 'red flags' are displayed by people all the time. The fact that they are seen as 'red flags' is usually just hindsight and confirmation bias. People get angry, depressed, say mean things, perform strange behaviors and otherwise do things that would look like 'red flags' but then DON'T go on killing sprees millions of times per day.
-
The problem is, these supposed 'red flags' are displayed by people all the time. The fact that they are seen as 'red flags' is usually just hindsight and confirmation bias. People get angry, depressed, say mean things, perform strange behaviors and otherwise do things that would look like 'red flags' but then DON'T go on killing sprees millions of times per day.
Okay, who are you and why have you been watching me ???
-
Okay, who are you and why have you been watching me ???
Paranoia and the belief that you are being watched is a red flag, you know.
-
Paranoia and the belief that you are being watched is a red flag, you know.
But how did he know that I was angry, depressed, and saying mean things? :lol:
-
But how did he know that I was angry, depressed, and saying mean things? :lol:
I think we can all agree that anyone who knows you can reasonably guess this. :angel:
-
I think we can all agree that anyone who knows you can reasonably guess this. :angel:
Sometimes I say things that have more than one meaning.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googlepixel.com%2Fimages%2Fingsoc.jpg&hash=4f5779272d0af73a50e3565fb1c4384d72c0bfe3)
-
If someone is not mentally competent to own guns, they probably shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. So if someone is so crazy and dangerous that they have been adjudicated by a court of law (including zealous representation on their side) to be such a danger to themselves and others as to require involuntary treatment and/or confinement then yeah they probably hsouldn't be allowed to buy guns from a dealer.
Thanks. That's the kind of info I was asking for.
-
If someone is not mentally competent to own guns, they probably shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets.
significant break with reality here.
funny .... almost
ironic
-
In what way?
-
there are many people who are capable of walking the streets who would be less capable with a gun. at least in real life as opposed to some hypothetical construct.unless of course we want to really tighten up on who we let walk the streets and thats not awfully libertarian
-
there are many people who are capable of walking the streets who would be less capable with a gun. at least in real life as opposed to some hypothetical construct.unless of course we want to really tighten up on who we let walk the streets and thats not awfully libertarian
Your "reality" is a slippery slope of decision making for other people.
-
there are many people who are capable of walking the streets who would be less capable with a gun. at least in real life as opposed to some hypothetical construct.unless of course we want to really tighten up on who we let walk the streets and thats not awfully libertarian
If they are so mentally incapable that they can not be trusted with a gun why do we trust them with cars, boats, knives, sporks, and all manner of other potentially dangerous gadgets?
-
If they are so mentally incapable that they can not be trusted with a gun why do we trust them with cars, boats, knives, sporks, and all manner of other potentially dangerous gadgets?
there are quite a number of fols we allow the freedom to walk the streets who we don't allow to drive is it your position we need to imprison those folks? why? wwrpd?
-
csd,
Context, dude. Read the whole post, not just the part you quotateded.
-
there are quite a number of fols we allow the freedom to walk the streets who we don't allow to drive is it your position we need to imprison those folks? why? wwrpd?
Oh FFS dude.
A little context and critical thinking, please.
-
In the context of this discussion, mental illness and guns, there are a great many folks whose mental illness makes them armed " not optimal". At the same time many are quite fit to mingle in the real world. Or do you think my paranoid schizo brother is safe with guns? Or maybe you advocate for greater institutionalization?
-
Here's what Balog said:
If someone is not mentally competent to own guns, they probably shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. So if someone is so crazy and dangerous that they have been adjudicated by a court of law (including zealous representation on their side) to be such a danger to themselves and others as to require involuntary treatment and/or confinement then yeah they probably hsouldn't be allowed to buy guns from a dealer.
-
In the context of this discussion, mental illness and guns, there are a great many folks whose mental illness makes them armed " not optimal". At the same time many are quite fit to mingle in the real world. Or do you think my paranoid schizo brother is safe with guns? Or maybe you advocate for greater institutionalization?
Is your paranoid schizo brother likely to have a psychotic break from reality and listen to the voices when they tell him to start stabbing up the KFC with his evil black assault spork? If so than yes, he should be institutionalized until he is no longer likely to do so. I don't particularly want to get pummeled with a brick, shot by a gun, blown up by refined cow *expletive deleted* and fermented dino juice, or stabbed with an evil black assault spork when your brother goes on his voices inspired rampage. And if he is likely to do so, as found by a court after review and representation in his "defense", he is a valid danger to society and should be in an appropriate institution.
If he has an effective medication combo, follows the treatment regimen, and isn't likely to listen to the voices in his head he should not be in an institution and I see no issue with him having a firearm. To suggest otherwise implies that there is an inherent danger from the firearm itself, when it is merely a tool. If he goes off his meds and shoots up the KFC and only resorts to his evil black assault spork when he runs out of ammo, the matter should be handed over to the courts and dealt with accordingly. And if such a scenario is likely, see paragraph one.
-
The truly psychotic, whose first act of outward violence is murder or mass murder are quite rare, and thus not statistically significant enough to risk the rights of everyone else.
Take the truly "broken"...like the infamous serial killers, plus all the mass murderers, and you end up with a very small number of overall homicides. Thus, mental health screening for firearms is a terrifyingly slippery slope for everyone else, and doesn't have a statistical effect--it ends up being an "if it saves just one life" fallacious argument that costs everyone else.
Psychology isn't predictive enough to do this, and even if it did, laws that punish the POTENTIAL to do things are bordering on Orwellian thought crime, not to mention in flagrant violation of multiple constitutional aspects.
-
All the people shot this past year by "deranged" gunmen is about equal to a busy summer weekend or two in Chicago.
-
While we worry about the random deranged shooter we have entire deranged subcultures and and a deranged government, but, hey, rock on.
-
How about when a government drone has a software glitch and crashes into a school full of children. =(
-
How about when a government drone has a software glitch and crashes into a school full of children. =(
Unfortunate collateral damage in the glorious War on Terror!
or War on Some Drugs
Quiet down, citizen.
-
How about when a government drone has a software glitch and crashes into a school full of children. =(
Blame it on conservatives.
-
How about when a government drone has a software glitch and crashes into a school full of children. =(
Or the drone is hacked and deliberately crashed into a school.
Our military drones have already been at least partially hacked. How long will it take the Chinese unknown persons to do it again?
-
How about when a government drone has a software glitch and crashes into a school full of children. =(
I'd bet a months pay (take home) that if that were to happen it would be reported that a racist, rightwing christian militia anti-government group had hacked the drone and crashed it on purpose.
-
I'd bet a months pay (take home) that if that were to happen it would be reported that a racist, rightwing christian militia anti-government group had hacked the drone and crashed it on purpose.
I suspect they would try to report it as a gas leak/explosion of some sort.
-
I suspect they would try to report it as a gas leak/explosion of some sort.
Marsh gas.
-
Or the drone is hacked and deliberately crashed into a school.
Our military drones have already been at least partially hacked. How long will it take the Chinese unknown persons to do it again?
Or when an F-16 pilot accidentally strafed a school? No, wait, that actually happened.
-
Drones are already regularly used to blow up weddings and birthday parties where someone Obama feels should die happens to be at.
-
I know a guy who's prescribed an anti-anxiety medication for restless leg syndrome. I'm concerned that could be used as a dis-qualifier for firearm ownership.
One of the doc's my wife and I see asks if we feel safe at home. Thing is, we're both in the room, at the same time, sitting side-by-side. How in hell am I supposed to tell the doc I'm scared???
-
I know a guy who's prescribed an anti-anxiety medication for restless leg syndrome. I'm concerned that could be used as a dis-qualifier for firearm ownership.
One of the doc's my wife and I see asks if we feel safe at home. Thing is, we're both in the room, at the same time, sitting side-by-side. How in hell am I supposed to tell the doc I'm scared???
:rofl: :rofl:
-
Ask for political asylum ?
:rofl: :rofl:
-
One of the doc's my wife and I see asks if we feel safe at home.
Sure! I have a loaded gun on my hip and one or more other loaded guns in every room.
=D