Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Maybe this is why you don't jump into arguments mid stream, cause the danger is you clamor off cluelessly not knowing exactly what the other two were going on about. You don't understand the comment I made about rewriting history so, I dunno, just stop or something. Your comments were off topic and stupid and I responded to them perfectly. In your excitement you said a couple more stupid things which were also answered quite properly. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Not about background checks, although I'm sure a case could be made for precluding mentally ill and those with a history of violence. They are already precluded if it's documentable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (and in your statement you said you had no idea what I was talking about. Which is par for the course for you in a conversation with any of your betters but not an excuse) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Your comments were off topic and stupid and I responded to them perfectly. In your excitement you said a couple more stupid things which were also answered quite properly. WSS My comments were in response to cals comment about civil unions, so ask him why he put that in this discussion. I know this is probably way over your head but when someone makes a comment in direct response to someone else's comment...it's the original poster who was "off topic". Do you understand this or do you need some sort of schematic that highlights this rudimentary logic? A CAD drawing maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 That wasn't even funny and you're still an idiot. We did change history. Then you asked who is we. Maybe a response you could grasp would be blow me so... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 That wasn't even funny and you're still an idiot. We did change history. Then you asked who is we. Maybe a response you could grasp would be blow me so... And your response to Cal was bullshit but I'll leave that to him. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 They are already precluded if it's documentable. Is any history of documented mental illness a disqualifier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Is any history of documented mental illness a disqualifier? How could it not be and how could that not be protected under HIPAA? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 That wasn't even funny and you're still an idiot. We did change history. Then you asked who is we. Maybe a response you could grasp would be blow me so... WSS Your right I'm still not following you on your whole "we changed history" with the supreme court ruling. That's your own logic matrix centered around your own belief structure and have at it, that's your business. You're still not grasping the point though that my comment to cal was about his assertion that conservatives in the past were the ones to offer the civil union compromise. If you're drinking at home today or something, just turn the PC off and go take a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I would like to see the CAD drawing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 How could it not be and how could that not be protected under HIPAA? WSS Mental illness can come and go. Lots of patients see mental health professionals for major depressive disorder voluntarily. 20% of the US population has had major depressive disorder at some point in their life. I don't think that barring them from gun ownership is going to do anything to the gun crime rate (excluding suicide, maybe). It's taking rights away from the people who are cognizant enough to seek treatment for their mental health and does nothing for undiagnosed cases. To do so would be a knee jerk response to gun crimes by the lunatic fringe; I hate how the Patriot Act was made after 9/11, and I don't want something like that to happen here too. This article says that using previous institutionalization for mental health as a disqualifier for gun ownership is unconstitutional. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-20/mental-illness-history-ruled-on-appeal-to-not-bar-gun-ownership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 we need to be careful though and examine the criteria for "institutionalization". I agree that someone having seen a shrink at some point in their life shouldn't exclude them from gun ownership. But being "institutionalized" might be a different story. But people either by their own volition institutionalize themselves or are forced into it for various reasons. Someone being put in for sex addiction for instance, probably shouldn't mean they can't own a gun. Tricky area this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Is history of violent crime a disqualifer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Is history of violent crime a disqualifer? I would think so yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 we need to be careful though and examine the criteria for "institutionalization". I agree that someone having seen a shrink at some point in their life shouldn't exclude them from gun ownership. But being "institutionalized" might be a different story. But people either by their own volition institutionalize themselves or are forced into it for various reasons. Someone being put in for sex addiction for instance, probably shouldn't mean they can't own a gun. Tricky area this is. Has it had an affect on your attempts to purchase weapons crazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Is any history of documented mental illness a disqualifier? I don't know but if it's actually documented and those documents are accessible by the government I would hope so. Just seeing a psychiatrist would probably not be enough to document I'd guess. Being committed, I'd hope, would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Should the government be allowed to dig into your medical records to see what medications you've taken? I mean, ideally, knowing what we know, people with a history of taking antidepressants probably shouldn't have guns but what about benzos? What about opiates? Should people with a history of pot be precluded? Where do you draw a line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Is any history of documented mental illness a disqualifier? This is where there could be better record keeping. As it stands, most nutjobs can just fib on that part of the background check. Unless they have a storied mental health history, they won't set off any alarms. More cooperation between health providers could weed out more nutty people trying to buy guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Is history of violent crime a disqualifer? Yeah. Also, it isn't all mental health records. They are only concerned with whether or not you were previously deemed "mentally defective" or been committed to a mental health facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Should the government be allowed to dig into your medical records to see what medications you've taken? I mean, ideally, knowing what we know, people with a history of taking antidepressants probably shouldn't have guns but what about benzos? What about opiates? Should people with a history of pot be precluded? Where do you draw a line? Anyone care to comment on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 With 30 million Americans taking anti depressants that would mean a pretty large number of American citizens losing their gun rights. It is a slippery slope. We have enough gun laws already that need to be enforced and not more laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Right I agree but antidepressants are known to create violent homicidal and suicidal actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Part of the point I'm getting at is that there's a certain political spectrum that will rail against guns and seek to control them but will not rail against drugs known to cause violent behavior. They will, in fact, fight tooth and nail for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 What bugs me about the left is that when there is a shooting like this they immediately go into gun confiscation mode before any facts of the shooting are even known. "Never let a crisis go to waste"...the left uses any and every situation to try to advance their positions and causes. In the case of the racist who killed the black people in the church we had laws on the books that should have prevented him from getting a gun. That is one area we could look at more stringent enforcement of existing laws. Until we can read minds and get rid of evil in the world I don't think there is a perfect answer or solution to some of these shootings. As for your point about some on the left who want their own sacred cows left alone while they slaughter others I see time and time again hypocrisy from this crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Right I agree but antidepressants are known to create violent homicidal and suicidal actions. I would bet that anyone who knows a bipolar person also knows that getting them to take their meds is often difficult to say the least. Also Vapor, 20% is one day out of every work week. Can you imagine if someone were given a gun who had only minor mental health issues recorded and he shoots someone. How happy do you think the lawyers are there? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 What bugs me about the left is that when there is a shooting like this they immediately go into gun confiscation mode before any facts of the shooting are even known. "Never let a crisis go to waste"...the left uses any and every situation to try to advance their positions and causes. In the case of the racist who killed the black people in the church we had laws on the books that should have prevented him from getting a gun. That is one area we could look at more stringent enforcement of existing laws. Until we can read minds and get rid of evil in the world I don't think there is a perfect answer or solution to some of these shootings. As for your point about some on the left who want their own sacred cows left alone while they slaughter others I see time and time again hypocrisy from this crowd. There's hypocrisy from both crowds and both sides will use a crisis as an opportunity to push their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 There's hypocrisy from both crowds and both sides will use a crisis as an opportunity to push their agenda. Woody ************************************************* Not to the extent that guns are blamed for the tragedies, Woody. I can see that conservatives who are alarmed about illegal aliens infiltrating our country and threatening our security as a nation of states and communities.... and we keep harping about the violent crimes by said illegals. But that isn't the same thing. Can you give us a better example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 You have people on active duty who are on anti-depresents. It would depend if it were a temporary thing, or if they were diagnosed with a personality disorder or bipolar which are long term illnesses. It would have to be left up to the treating physician whether or not he deemed them a risk to own firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 There's hypocrisy from both crowds and both sides will use a crisis as an opportunity to push their agenda. Woody ************************************************* Not to the extent that guns are blamed for the tragedies, Woody. I can see that conservatives who are alarmed about illegal aliens infiltrating our country and threatening our security as a nation of states and communities.... and we keep harping about the violent crimes by said illegals. But that isn't the same thing. Can you give us a better example? There is some hypocrisy involved in wanting a smaller, less intrusive government while supporting the interference of government to restrict marriage rights and abortion. As for taking advantage of a crisis, the words "terrorism" and "Muslim" are thrown around pretty regularly immediately following something like this until proven otherwise. At lunch when this happened the restaurant had Fox News on. They had a terrorism expert talking about the shooting. But like I said, it isn't unique to either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 You have people on active duty who are on anti-depresents. It would depend if it were a temporary thing, or if they were diagnosed with a personality disorder or bipolar which are long term illnesses. It would have to be left up to the treating physician whether or not he deemed them a risk to own firearms. The thing I would hate to see are law abiding citizens losing gun rights not because of something they have done but what they possibly could do? Who can really predict human behavior? Psychology is not an exact science with all kinds of different views being presented in the psychology field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.