testtest

How about we start with Mental Health Assistance

KillerFord1977

KillerFord1977

SAINT
Founding Member
Ok, contrary view:

I bet all of us know someone that really shouldn’t have a gun—but there’s no legal reason (yet) to prevent them from having one.

All this is? Is people who can actually admit they shouldn’t from getting one.

I just can’t see where this is the end of the world.
 
HansGruber said:
Ok, contrary view:

I bet all of us know someone that really shouldn’t have a gun—but there’s no legal reason (yet) to prevent them from having one.

All this is? Is people who can actually admit they shouldn’t from getting one.

I just can’t see where this is the end of the world.
Click to expand...
Maybe not but you know the democrats didn’t introduce this bill to prevent gun suicides. In reality they don’t care. If they did they’d be introducing bills to help stop all the fentanyl deaths. Or to keep murderers in prison. Maybe something to make sure convicted rapists actually do some time.

It’s all BS.
 
I know a lot of people that shouldn't be voting, why aren't the Dems introducing bills to establish a National Registry of people that Voluntarily give up their right to vote?

If you don't think you can trust yourself to own a gun, we'll then don't buy one or sell/give away the ones you own.
There is no justifiable reason why there needs to be a National List of People that Voluntarily give up their right to own a firearm.

Should we have a National List of people that Voluntarily give up their Free Speech Rights, their Freedom of Association or Freedom of Religion, their right to be Free of unreasonable Search and Seizures, Right to equal protection under the law?

Cause as we all know, Liberals would never try to incrementally implement their agenda that they could never get passed because of how outrageous it is.

This is just a toe-hold to to get to a National Registry of people banned from owning firearms, that they can incrementally expand to include all sorts of folks involuntarily having their right to own a firearm taken away. It won't be long that they introduce legislation to include everyone that can't pass a background check. Then its going to be red flag and domestic violence and restraining orders. Then they'll be passing legislation to delegate the ATF to maintain the list and add to it for what ever regulatory reason they feel is necessary. Then you'll have liberal Presidents issuing executive orders to the ATF to put even more people on the list.
 
HansGruber said:
Ok, contrary view:

I bet all of us know someone that really shouldn’t have a gun—but there’s no legal reason (yet) to prevent them from having one.

All this is? Is people who can actually admit they shouldn’t from getting one.

I just can’t see where this is the end of the world.
Click to expand...
I guess the first parallel I can think of in answer to this question is owning an automobile and driving. I know A LOT more people who are truly dangerous drivers and probably shouldn't be allowed to drive at all. Roughly the same number of people die in auto accidents as die from firearms in the U.S. every year. Why aren't we equally concerned about those deaths? Why aren't we talking about pre-emptively taking cars away from people who may be a danger on the road to others?
 
Hammer67 said:
I guess the first parallel I can think of in answer to this question is owning an automobile and driving. I know A LOT more people who are truly dangerous drivers and probably shouldn't be allowed to drive at all. Roughly the same number of people die in auto accidents as die from firearms in the U.S. every year. Why aren't we equally concerned about those deaths? Why aren't we talking about pre-emptively taking cars away from people who may be a danger on the road to others?
Click to expand...
That’s what’s called a whataboutism…and is a Bravo Sierra (translation: bovine feces) argument.

Concentrate on the topic at hand.
 
HansGruber said:
That’s what’s called a whataboutism…and is a Bravo Sierra (translation: bovine feces) argument.

Concentrate on the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
And that's what I would call a deflection. It's entirely relevant to draw comparisons to other forms of "dangerous" activity that certain people probably shouldn't be engaging in.

But if you want me to stick to the topic at hand and another indication of an agenda that they are being less than honest with the public about. I trust nothing coming from the Dems anymore on this issue at all. How's that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hammer67 said:
And that's what I would call a deflection. It's entirely relevant to draw comparisons to other forms of "dangerous" activity that certain people probably shouldn't be engaging in.

But if you want me to stick to the topic at hand - it's absolute bull*** and another indication of an agenda that they are being less than honest with the public about. I trust nothing coming from the Dems anymore on this issue at all. How's that?

(Edited: some folks have a potty mouth)
Click to expand...
Do you know somebody who shouldn’t have access to a firearm, but hasn’t done anything—yet— to legally prevent them from getting one?

Would the world be a better place if they voluntarily prevented themselves from getting one?

That’s the point, here.
 
HansGruber said:
Do you know somebody who shouldn’t have access to a firearm, but hasn’t done anything—yet— to legally prevent them from getting one?

Would the world be a better place if they voluntarily prevented themselves from getting one?

That’s the point, here.
Click to expand...
How, and why, would I possibly speculate on that? I have no idea whether that's a decision someone else should make or not. But I would be highly dubious of how much compliance such a "voluntary" law would actually see, or how effective it would be.
 
Hammer67 said:
How, and why, would I possibly speculate on that? I have no idea whether that's a decision someone else should make or not. But I would be highly dubious of how much compliance such a "voluntary" law would actually see, or how effective it would be.
Click to expand...
Right—it’s the person themselves that makes that call.

Why do you have a problem with that?
 
I actually agree with Hans here for once! :)
Is it creepy utopian that people are choosing to give up their rights? Yes 100% BUT, if they know they are/will be a danger to themselves or others...this is a better choice then just banning guns for everyone for a few bad apples.
 
Bassbob said:
Maybe not but you know the democrats didn’t introduce this bill to prevent gun suicides. In reality they don’t care. If they did they’d be introducing bills to help stop all the fentanyl deaths. Or to keep murderers in prison. Maybe something to make sure convicted rapists actually do some time.

It’s all BS.
Click to expand...

Ok…illicit fentanyl is already a felony…what more would you like to see?

Keeping murderers in prison…isn’t that up to individual states to decide—for the most part (yes, there are federal-grade murderers, but…they make up a small percentage of the whole, and are any of them being released to the point it’s an actual problem?)

Rapists: see murderers; this is an issue, mainly, for the states under the 10th amendment, no?
 
HansGruber said:
Ok, contrary view:

I bet all of us know someone that really shouldn’t have a gun—but there’s no legal reason (yet) to prevent them from having one.

All this is? Is people who can actually admit they shouldn’t from getting one.

I just can’t see where this is the end of the world.
Click to expand...
I have known several in my life. Three come immediately to mind, two suicides, brothers who I grew up with and I always thought had bipolar characteristics. The third ended up killing an old shop keeper for drug money.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Good Grief 🙄
Democrats never cease to amaze.
How about the Administration sets up a funded suicide program /therapy/counseling rather than take away their rights forever

www.foxnews.com

Democrats push firearms purchasing ban for people who voluntarily give up their 2A rights

House Democrats advanced a bill that would set up a federal register of people who agree not to buy guns, an idea aimed at curbing gun suicides by the mentally ill.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly(and please correct me if I didn't), doesn't Florida have a law on the books where a convicted felon with a felony can vote if he stays out of trouble for a certain number of years?

If this is true, then why shouldn't people who get on the list mentioned in this article have an opportunity to be able to remove themselves after a certain period, once a few checks were done to confirm they were mentally stable?

To your point sir, some professionals(nurses for one) won't get professional help for their alcoholism or drug abuse because once they do, it's on their official record and it can affect their ability to move up in an organization or get a pay raise. It's a valid concern on their part in that they feel that once they get on a certain registry they're on it forever.

I had a good friend who was a mental health therapist and had a private practice. She had some clients that paid her cash so there was no financial paper trail that they had gotten mental health counseling.

People with mental issues should be able to get professional help without it ruining their lives.
 
HansGruber said:
But that’s what this law is about.

Yet everyone is turning this into a full-on chicken little “sky is falling” event…

Where you just admitted it’s something you support.
Click to expand...
"The ACLU has filed a legal challenge on behalf of fifteen American citizens and lawful permanent residents who cannot fly to or from the U.S. or over its airspace because they are on the list. Today’s article quotes one of the ACLU lawyers working on the case, Nusrat Choudhury, who said, “The news that the list is growing tells us that more people’s rights are being violated. It’s a secret list, and the government puts people on it without any explanation. Citizens have been stranded abroad.”


Indeed, none of our plaintiffs, including two veterans of the U.S. Marine Corps (one of whom is disabled), a U.S. Army veteran, and a U.S. Air Force veteran, have been told why they are on the list or given a meaningful chance to clear their names (watch a video with retired Marine Ayman Latif here). Yet, they have been prevented from flying to visit relatives, go to school, and access employment opportunities. Those who were stranded abroad due to placement on the No Fly List while traveling overseas were permitted to fly home to the U.S. on what appear to be one-time only waivers due to the ACLU’s intervention through its lawsuit.


To deprive people of their right to travel without any notice or opportunity to object is unfair and unconstitutional. The news that the list is getting bigger only magnifies the problem" February 2, 2012

There is no "chicken little, the sky is falling" about this. Here is proof of what WILL happen. Are you foolish enough to think they won't try to put everybody they can on that "voluntary list"? Their ultimate goal is gun confiscation. Period. And they will do that by any means necessary. And, I will be willing to bet that you would be singing a different tune if they put you on that "voluntary" list without your knowledge. And, good luck getting off that list.
 
Onewolf426 said:
"The ACLU has filed a legal challenge on behalf of fifteen American citizens and lawful permanent residents who cannot fly to or from the U.S. or over its airspace because they are on the list. Today’s article quotes one of the ACLU lawyers working on the case, Nusrat Choudhury, who said, “The news that the list is growing tells us that more people’s rights are being violated. It’s a secret list, and the government puts people on it without any explanation. Citizens have been stranded abroad.”


Indeed, none of our plaintiffs, including two veterans of the U.S. Marine Corps (one of whom is disabled), a U.S. Army veteran, and a U.S. Air Force veteran, have been told why they are on the list or given a meaningful chance to clear their names (watch a video with retired Marine Ayman Latif here). Yet, they have been prevented from flying to visit relatives, go to school, and access employment opportunities. Those who were stranded abroad due to placement on the No Fly List while traveling overseas were permitted to fly home to the U.S. on what appear to be one-time only waivers due to the ACLU’s intervention through its lawsuit.


To deprive people of their right to travel without any notice or opportunity to object is unfair and unconstitutional. The news that the list is getting bigger only magnifies the problem"

There is no "chicken little, the sky is falling" about this. Here is proof of what WILL happen. Are you foolish enough to think they won't try to put everybody they can on that "voluntary list"? Their ultimate goal is gun confiscation. Period. And they will do that by any means necessary. And, I will be willing to bet that you would be singing a different tune if they put you on that "voluntary" list without your knowledge. And, good luck getting off that list.
Click to expand...
And that’s simply pure, sky is falling falling, delusional, slippery slope ravings.

C’mon. You can do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top