Gunboards Forums banner
21 - 40 of 63 Posts

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
77,310 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
I keep hearing announcements and claims that go back and forth. I am not seeing any joint official announcement yet with a text of the proposed compromise. Just how long does it take to agree on something after you have agreed to agree lol?
Sometimes a long time - depending on the differences.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
103,535 Posts
Instead of focusing on this bogus boyfriend loophole, why don't they concentrate their efforts on dealing with the mentally ill, and their ability to easily obtain firearms.

In each of these mass shootings, mental illness is almost always the common denominator, yet the lawmakers always shy away from anything dealing with those who are mentally ill. I have no problems with someone with a diagnosed mental illness, like schizophrenia being denied purchase of firearms. Make it so their record shows up on the NICS check. And if they lie on the 4473 and it comes up they have mental health issues, then they should get denied instantly, and thrown in jail for lying on a govt form. HIPA privacy should not include those with known mental illness. The safety of society should take precedence in this case. And I'm not talking about somebody just saying Joe Schmoe is crazy. It's got to be a well documented history of mental issues. This way no red flag bullshit can be used to deny a person their rights. Anyone with a history of mental illness of say 5 years or more in duration, instant denial to purchase firearms. A one time incident where a person seeks treatment for depression, no, that should not be considered.

If I had my way, these life long mental cases would be in asylums where they belong, not mainstreamed where it isn't helping them one bit. We need to face reality, not everyone is sane, and those with known mental issues should not be allowed near firearms, much less purchase or own them. If these lawmakers would concentrate their efforts on mental illness, and leave the rest of us alone, then I'd have no problems supporting that.
We did that once. And abused as well as used the system. Result (as often happens when a system is abused enough) was High Court intervention and that led to what we see now. Going back is going to be resisted by unrealistic bleeding hearts who are just SURE that something "less restrictive" can and should be done AND by hard-right anti-government folks who like the fact that minimal long-term car facilities are cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
I wonder if republicans will even bother to read it.
Many of them asked in writing what the framework was that they were working on. Then Dems didn’t write anything down. They really want to see it in writing so that they can read it.

The budget bill is another mess. They wait until the last minute to throw it out for a vote. Thousands of pages too. Thus making it impossible to read in time for the vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
Many of them asked in writing what the framework was that they were working on. Then Dems didn’t write anything down. They really want to see it in writing so that they can read it.

The budget bill is another mess. They wait until the last minute to throw it out for a vote. Thousands of pages too. Thus making it impossible to read in time for the vote.
It's always boggled my mind since I was a child that they are allowed to do that with legislation. Absolutely criminal.

"Mental illness" is like "woman"-it's a term everybody uses and nobody can define.
Don't they mean the same thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,226 Posts
Five years of mental illness is bad…..
but four years and three-hundred and sixty-four days is cool?

Glad to see that the mental health of a stranger can be so quickly ruled upon to strip them of their rights.
First off, I just threw the 5 year thing out there. You have to have some benchmark. It could be more, it could be made less. It just can't be someone who calls in to 911 that their neighbor was acting "crazy" last weekend. Maybe they had an argument, and the neighbor figures "I'll get back at that *****" type of thing.

And yes, a known mental case should not have the right to own firearms, just as illegal aliens should not be allowed to enjoy the rights of legal citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,266 Posts
First off, I just threw the 5 year thing out there. You have to have some benchmark. It could be more, it could be made less. It just can't be someone who calls in to 911 that their neighbor was acting "crazy" last weekend. Maybe they had an argument, and the neighbor figures "I'll get back at that *" type of thing.

And yes, a known mental case should not have the right to own firearms, just as illegal aliens should not be allowed to enjoy the rights of legal citizens.
The problem with banning the crazies from having guns is that while we can all recognize crazy, we can’t cleanly define it, which is what I think you’re getting at in a roundabout way.

I think the flaw with trying to define it is that there simply isn’t a good way. The current system - were people are brought into court in hearings are held to determine their competency - is probably the best tool that we have at the moment. It doesn’t require a definition, but more recognizes the completion of a process and a ruling.

I apologize if my comment came off as harsh. It probably was, and that’s on me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
The Democrats really want to use the red flag laws as a end run around the constitution and confiscate guns. They can simply say anyone that owns a gun is mentally ill, so they need to disarm them. That is their goal. When you look at their early draft red flag laws that is how they word them too. No checks and balances and no judge needed to approve it. Thankfully these get amended and changed or voted down. But some blue states have passed onerous versions though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts
'
The Senate on Tuesday broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation by voting 64 to 34 to advance an 80-page gun safety bill to respond to the mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas, that left 31 people dead, including 19 school children.
The Senate voted to proceed to the bill just more than an hour after negotiators unveiled its text, giving lawmakers little time to digest its details.
The bill had strong momentum after a group of 10 Republican senators led by Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), who has an A-plus rating from the NRA, earlier this month signed onto a bipartisan framework of principles with 10 Democrats.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave the effort another boost last week when he announced that he supported the bipartisan framework and would also support legislation based on its key points.
Every Senate Democrat was expected to support the bill, even though it didn’t include more far-reaching reforms that many of them support, such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and universal background checks.
The vote shakes up the politics of the gun violence debate in Congress as many of the Republicans who voted to proceed to the bill have A or A-plus NRA ratings.
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
77,310 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
I'm sure it'll be full of feel good legislation and ineffectual laws so it will look like they are doing something to appease voters that want something done as well as the ones that think there are enough laws that are already ineffective on the books. Just trying to justify their paychecks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barnetmill

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts
I'm sure it'll be full of feel good legislation and ineffectual laws so it will look like they are doing something to appease voters that want something done as well as the ones that think there are enough laws that are already ineffective on the books. Just trying to justify their paychecks.
The could be some large spending as part of the package that is always attractive to politicians.
In his own floor speech, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, emphasized the billions of dollars in the bill that would go to expand the federal certified community health center model.

Cornyn called it “the single largest investment in community-based mental health treatment in American history” and a major provision of the bill. The bill would provide several billion dollars for those mental health centers, as well as school security funding and local Justice Department grants, paid for by delaying a Medicare drug rebate by one year.
Anytime there is a lot of money, the object of getting hands on the money is more important than the original issue at hand.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts
There is a change on the definition of a dealer.
Proposed change in law
SEC. 12002. DEFINING ‘‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’’.
20 Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
21 amended—
22 (1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ‘‘with the
23 principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and in24
serting ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’;
New proposed law
6 ‘‘(22) The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’
7 means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition
8 of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary
9 gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or

10 liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, That
11 proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who
12 engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposi13
tion of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.
 
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Top