Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Seldom Seen #16162

Team SASS: Senators seek deal on gun-sale background checks

Recommended Posts

Well sports fan as I have predicated it isn’t. As a matter of fact it is far from it.

 

“A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F'' ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks…

 

A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Barack Obama's gun control plan…

 

The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons…”

 

It looks like the effort to make citizens with mental illness, whatever type that might be, the whipping boy for causing crime and in the most need for not being allowed to own guns is alive and well with conservatives and the NRA buying into it.

 

Once a national register is created is created for “mental illness” it will only be a series of small steps to add all forms of mental illness to the database and with it banning ownership by all of those groups.

 

Complete text can be found here;

 

http://news.yahoo.com/senators-seek-deal-gun-sale-background-checks-083943375--politics.html

Share this post


Link to post

Well sports fan as I have predicated it isn’t. As a matter of fact it is far from it.

 

“A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F'' ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks…

 

A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Barack Obama's gun control plan…

 

The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons…”

 

It looks like the effort to make citizens with mental illness, whatever type that might be, the whipping boy for causing crime and in the most need for not being allowed to own guns is alive and well with conservatives and the NRA buying into it.

 

Once a national register is created is created for “mental illness” it will only be a series of small steps to add all forms of mental illness to the database and with it banning ownership by all of those groups.

 

Complete text can be found here;

 

http://news.yahoo.com/senators-seek-deal-gun-sale-background-checks-083943375--politics.html

Not one inch!

 

"MOLON LABE"

Share this post


Link to post

And who gets to decide who has a mental illness? What type of appeal process is there and how expensive is that going to be? What happens when you no longer have this mental illness? Are you banned for life when diagnoses with depression at age 20 by your family doctor?

 

Is being a Gun Addict considered a mental illness? My wife thinks so. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get your point.

 

Is it that you are against keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to diagnose that someone is mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to keep a list of the mentally ill?

 

Seriously. What's your solution to the problem?

Share this post


Link to post

Background checks are still ONLY going to affect the legitimate gun owner. They can expand and modify backgrounds checks on law abiding citizens thousands of times and it still won't take the guns out of the hands of the criminal. What they NEED to do is enforce the laws that are already on the books. You commit a crime...you go to jail. You commit a crime with a gun...you go to jail for a long time. You commit murder with a gun...you take a long jump at the end of a short rope!

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get your point.

 

Is it that you are against keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to diagnose that someone is mentally ill?

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to keep a list of the mentally ill?

 

Seriously. What's your solution to the problem?

I don't have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of the truly mentally ill. I'm just real suspicious of the gun grabbers and expect them to expand the definition of mentally ill to support their agenda. Your right, I don't trust them.

Share this post


Link to post

yadda some other stuf.....

 

Is being a Gun Addict considered a mental illness? My wife thinks so. dry.gif

BLB, I think you would be convicted by a jury of your peers of more than just mental illness :) Of course if I was on trial for being mentally fit I think a rope would be involved somewhere!

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what I don't understand.

 

if I have to fill out certain paperwork in a gun store and have a background check processed on me before the gun dealer can sell me the gun, then what is so difficult about having to do the same process thru a private sale?

 

I think what it does is make sure that when I sell one of my pistols/rifles to John Doe, who is the 2nd cousin to my Uncles neighbor, that he is not some nut case trying to obtain a firearm just for the purpose of shooting somebody.

 

Sure, we all know that criminals (and even not criminals who have a history of mental illness) will get their guns one way or the other, but personally speaking, I would prefer that Ole Widder not be one of those ways.

 

When some of our Wire pards buy a gun on the Wire, it has to go thru proper channels for the transfer. Shouldn't be any different for person to person transfers, in my opinion.

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post

The thing that bothers me about the "mental health" aspect is, who will do the evaluations? Will the US become like the old Soviet Union where psychiatrists were agents of the government & could pronounce someone insane at their whim or on the orders of some party hack? How many dissidents in the Soviet Union were declared to be insane & sentenced to mental institutions? It happened a lot in the later years of the Soviet Union, after the international outcry about the gulags in Siberia. Propaganda also played a big part in that process, because the government would say "look at these people, they do not love the motherland, they must be crazy!".

 

It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to think that this country is heading in that same direction. Physicians are now asking patients if they have guns in their homes & this emphasis on mental health in background checks. If that patient shows any kind of resistance to the question, or otherwise shows emotions during the visit, what is to stop an anti-gun doctor from labeling them as mentally unstable? It has happened before.

 

When you look at all the things that are happening politically in this country, it all tends to point that way.

 

Holler

Share this post


Link to post

"Liberalism" is a mental disorder therefore all "Liberals" should be banned from buying/owning guns!

Share this post


Link to post

One of the things that bothers me about this whole process is that the "powers that be" keep insisting that we need to have background checks on all gun sales and transfers. They've been told numerous times that this will not curtail transactions undertaken by criminals. I don't think that any of them have responded to how the background check will keep criminals from getting guns.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what I don't understand.

 

if I have to fill out certain paperwork in a gun store and have a background check processed on me before the gun dealer can sell me the gun, then what is so difficult about having to do the same process thru a private sale?

 

I think what it does is make sure that when I sell one of my pistols/rifles to John Doe, who is the 2nd cousin to my Uncles neighbor, that he is not some nut case trying to obtain a firearm just for the purpose of shooting somebody.

 

Sure, we all know that criminals (and even not criminals who have a history of mental illness) will get their guns one way or the other, but personally speaking, I would prefer that Ole Widder not be one of those ways.

 

When some of our Wire pards buy a gun on the Wire, it has to go thru proper channels for the transfer. Shouldn't be any different for person to person transfers, in my opinion.

 

 

..........Widder

 

The problem is now the sale is in the system and you're trusting the government not to use the FFL paperwork to create a national gun registry, which could lead to a knock on the door at some point in the future. I prefer to have the opportunity to stay 'off the grid'.

 

The thing that bothers me about the "mental health" aspect is, who will do the evaluations? Will the US become like the old Soviet Union where psychiatrists were agents of the government & could pronounce someone insane at their whim or on the orders of some party hack? How many dissidents in the Soviet Union were declared to be insane & sentenced to mental institutions? It happened a lot in the later years of the Soviet Union, after the international outcry about the gulags in Siberia. Propaganda also played a big part in that process, because the government would say "look at these people, they do not love the motherland, they must be crazy!".

 

It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to think that this country is heading in that same direction. Physicians are now asking patients if they have guns in their homes & this emphasis on mental health in background checks. If that patient shows any kind of resistance to the question, or otherwise shows emotions during the visit, what is to stop an anti-gun doctor from labeling them as mentally unstable? It has happened before.

 

When you look at all the things that are happening politically in this country, it all tends to point that way.

 

Holler

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. We now have to buy health insurance, what happens when we have to submit to an 'examination'?

Share this post


Link to post

More questions: How do you define a "prohibitive" mental illness? If the definition is too broad, do people suffering from, for example, postpartum depression, or depression from loss of a loved one, avoid seeking help from a therapist ,or such, for fear of being added to the "list"? Does this cause tragic results? If the definition is to precise, do we miss the window of mental problems that seem to be most common in these tragedies? I, personally, am afraid this avenue is impossible to be realistically defined or fairly monitored.

 

Yes, I realize something must be done, but I think we need to keep looking for a better solution.

 

Really, we all are a little "nutty" by someones definition. How do we decide which "nuts" are dangerous and which "nuts" are just "characters"?

 

Silver "hopefully just a character" Shadow

Share this post


Link to post

More questions: How do you define a "prohibitive" mental illness? If the definition is too broad, do people suffering from, for example, postpartum depression, or depression from loss of a loved one, avoid seeking help from a therapist ,or such, for fear of being added to the "list"? Does this cause tragic results? If the definition is to precise, do we miss the window of mental problems that seem to be most common in these tragedies? I, personally, am afraid this avenue is impossible to be realistically defined or fairly monitored.

 

Yes, I realize something must be done, but I think we need to keep looking for a better solution.

 

Really, we all are a little "nutty" by someones definition. How do we decide which "nuts" are dangerous and which "nuts" are just "characters"?

 

Silver "hopefully just a character" Shadow

 

 

That should give everyone pause...The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, has over 300 categories. Plenty of things could be considered "prohibitive". Unless the categories are narrowly defined this could be problematic for lots of folks.

 

 

Olen

 

Share this post


Link to post

The thing that bothers me about the "mental health" aspect is, who will do the evaluations? Will the US become like the old Soviet Union where psychiatrists were agents of the government & could pronounce someone insane at their whim or on the orders of some party hack? How many dissidents in the Soviet Union were declared to be insane & sentenced to mental institutions? It happened a lot in the later years of the Soviet Union, after the international outcry about the gulags in Siberia. Propaganda also played a big part in that process, because the government would say "look at these people, they do not love the motherland, they must be crazy!".

 

It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to think that this country is heading in that same direction. Physicians are now asking patients if they have guns in their homes & this emphasis on mental health in background checks. If that patient shows any kind of resistance to the question, or otherwise shows emotions during the visit, what is to stop an anti-gun doctor from labeling them as mentally unstable? It has happened before.

 

When you look at all the things that are happening politically in this country, it all tends to point that way.

 

Holler

 

 

 

I have an honest question. Who on here has personally had a doctor ask them if they have a gun in their house?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Texas Jack Black

So what is the answer? there are to many guns in the wrong hands now what?/ Remember a few years ago the NRA was for background checks now they SAY they are against them could this be the carrot?

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what I don't understand.

 

if I have to fill out certain paperwork in a gun store and have a background check processed on me before the gun dealer can sell me the gun, then what is so difficult about having to do the same process thru a private sale?

 

I think what it does is make sure that when I sell one of my pistols/rifles to John Doe, who is the 2nd cousin to my Uncles neighbor, that he is not some nut case trying to obtain a firearm just for the purpose of shooting somebody.

 

Sure, we all know that criminals (and even not criminals who have a history of mental illness) will get their guns one way or the other, but personally speaking, I would prefer that Ole Widder not be one of those ways.

 

When some of our Wire pards buy a gun on the Wire, it has to go thru proper channels for the transfer. Shouldn't be any different for person to person transfers, in my opinion.

 

 

..........Widder

 

Agree. I don't see the fuss.

Share this post


Link to post

I have an honest question. Who on here has personally had a doctor ask them if they have a gun in their house?

 

In 30 years of medicine, I never asked the question. I did talk guns with some patients when they brought in their pictures of the elk they took.

Share this post


Link to post

I have an honest question. Who on here has personally had a doctor ask them if they have a gun in their house?

 

I have recently started going to the VA medical clinics and have seen 2 different Doctors and not one word about guns

Share this post


Link to post

I have an honest question. Who on here has personally had a doctor ask them if they have a gun in their house?

 

 

I have. He was kinda taken aback when I asked him if he was an NRA qualified instructor. After replying "No" to my question, I told him that if he went to school to learn about medicine in order to ask me questions about my health, then he'd better go to school to learn to be a firearms instructor in order to ask me questions about something he otherwise knows nothing about.

 

 

Boothill

Share this post


Link to post

In 30 years of medicine, I never asked the question. I did talk guns with some patients when they brought in their pictures of the elk they took.

But you did mention on a previous thread that you're technically required to ask that question did you not? How many other doctors have the intestinal fortitude and common sense that you do?

Share this post


Link to post

I have an honest question. Who on here has personally had a doctor ask them if they have a gun in their house?

And the point?

But will answer. I have a new doctor now, my last leaving to go into sports medicine (Left because of Obama care and Medi-care). My new doctor, who I visted a month ago was going through some update, (had his laptop on table as we were going through questions), about 3/4 through, he asked if I owned or had any firearms in my home. I answered if this question had anything to do with my health? He said No! Just questions he was asked to ask. I told him in my opinion, it had nohing to do with my check-up, same as how many cars I owned, or if I had a plasma or LED tv. MT

 

I will add. Seems as if some are willing to concede to new laws, rules and regulations. When many of the present, are not enforced nor followed. Kinda like the Hunter, who will never purchase, nor use a so called "Assault" firearm. He's willing to concede, because it doesn't effect him.

Don't get me wrong, firearms have no place in the hands of the mentally disturbed, but once passed, who will pass judgement on who is, and isn't fit? Will each and every gun buyer/owner have to take a mental test, or see a doctor to acquire a permit to buy? Beware of gifts, and new laws thinking they won't, or can't effect you and your future as gun owners. Remember, these are the same that said "you need to pass it, to find out what's in it".

Share this post


Link to post

Hoss: We just changed to a new doctor for the kids as the old one moved away. On the informational form you have to fill out as a new patient it asked if there were any firearms in my house. I left it blank and no one said anything, but they DID ask. I suppose they consider it a child safety thing but I considered it none of their business.

Share this post


Link to post

But you did mention on a previous thread that you're technically required to ask that question did you not? How many other doctors have the intestinal fortitude and common sense that you do?

 

You have to keep in mind the majority of docs are liberals. :wacko: They don't mind gun control. The AMA is anti-gun. The AMA's resolution, which also was introduced by the California delegation, officially opposes any laws placing restrictions on gun safety discussions from occurring between physicians, patients, and their families, and says that doctors should be free to have firearm safety conversations during office visits.

Share this post


Link to post

You have to keep in mind the majority of docs are liberals. :wacko:/> They don't mind gun control. The AMA is anti-gun. The AMA's resolution, which also was introduced by the California delegation, officially opposes any laws placing restrictions on gun safety discussions from occurring between physicians, patients, and their families, and says that doctors should be free to have firearm safety conversations during office visits.

Yep, and those same liberal docs will be the ones deciding if someone is mentally ill and should be denied their 2nd amendment rights. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

If the majority of Docs are Liberal, they must also know that over 1/2 of the population probably has atleast 1 firearm in the home.

 

Docs in the South will know that probably 75% or more of homes have a gun. Probably a high % of their female patients have a gun and probably have a CCW.

 

Docs up North, atleast in some states or cities, already know that their patient base probably have very few guns.

 

I don't think there is anything new to this information.

 

Personally, my PCP is an active shooter and enjoys guns. But, he has never inquired if I own any. Maybe he's noticed it under my t-shirt in the summer time and didn't have to ask..... :lol:

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post

A number of the recent, say last 20 years mass shootings were done by folks using or supposed to be using prescriptions for drugs to help with serious mental issues. We need to find ways to keep guns from these folks hands at least until certified healthy. From what I have read, even the NRA supports such a law. How many of the recent mass shootings were done by folks with previous criminal records? Do not remember too many, but have seen no data. I am not talking about gang wars here. Gang members and career criminals will continue to acquire guns no matter the laws.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, and those same liberal docs will be the ones deciding if someone is mentally ill and should be denied their 2nd amendment rights. :huh:/>

 

I figure for me to call somebody nuts, they have to be nuttier than me, so most folks are safe as a baby in momma's arms. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post

The "universal background check" idea has way, way too many possibilities for abuse.

 

I don't trust our government or any politician in this regard...at all.

 

We don't need any "deals". No more "compromising". period.

 

Criminals by definition will ignore it anyway, law or no law.

 

Bp

Share this post


Link to post

Their definition of compromise is me giving up something and getting nothing.

 

Not one inch.

Share this post


Link to post

my trouble with more laws? in Brazil, no one except leo's and those that can prove the essential need for a firearm cannot git one...Brazil has the highest homicide rate, anywhere.

 

Chicago,,, some of the harshest gun laws in the US and they have one of the worst crime rates.

 

 

Mental illness? this is the one that needs addressed the most, and yet is the one that many of us trust the govt the least about. we fear that it would be abused by the govt, and who is going to write the guidelines?? The Govt? This does need to be addressed, perhaps if the govt would step back, drop all the nonsense and address this issue as a stand alone perhaps it could move forward. Tie it in with the rest of the garbage that want and, pardon my French, but to Hell with them! :angry:

 

ask me how i really feel? naw,,, yu know... :o

 

Cheyenne, Don't tread on me, Culpepper

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get your point.

 

And I don’t get yours. I never know if you are just trying to stir things up or if you are that truly ignorant of the topic.

 

Is it that you are against keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill?

 

First of all mental illness is a medical problem not a criminal one. There are no criminal laws against simply having a mental illness. Involuntary commitments are usually a civil court issue. In fact the only time I can think of when a criminal court can order a mental health evaluation, not treatment, is determining if a defendant who has been charged with committing a crime is competent to stand trial.

 

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrative (SAMHSA) released a report recently on mental health statistics for our country. They found that in the past year, 45.9 million Americans above the age of 18 years, or 20% of American adults, experienced mental illness. The Center for Disease Control agrees with those statistics.

 

http://www.treatmentsolutions.com/mental-illness-statistics/

 

With a adult population as of September 7, 2012, is approximately 314,325,838. So 20 % of that number is 62,865,167.

 

Second the part of the report is very interesting;

 

“Mental illness is not an isolated public health problem. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity often co-exist with mental illness and treatment of the mental illness can reduce the effects of these disorders.”

 

So now medical evidence supports that people who have heart disease, diabetes and are overweight directly contributes to mental illness.

 

The CDC estimates that every year 935,000 Americans have a heart attack

 

http://www.cdc.gov/HeartDisease/facts.htm

 

The American Diabetes Association estimates that 25.8 million children and adults in the United States—8.3% of the population—have diabetes.

 

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

 

Our friends at the CDC estimates that the percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 35.9%

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm

 

Third is the pesky 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments of the Bill of Rights getting in the way again.

 

If mental illness is to be judged as a crime instead of medical issue then we have;

 

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

 

Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

On the other hand if it is to be tried as a civil case then we have;

 

Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials

 

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

And what about posting bail?

 

Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

 

 

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to diagnose that someone is mentally ill?

 

Not any more than I trust a medical doctor to make a correct medical diagnoses. In fact patients are encouraged to seek a second medical opinion and most importantly are allowed to choose the doctor and treatment option they prefer.

 

Or that you don't trust anybody to keep a list of the mentally ill?

 

To quote Olen Rugged; The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, has over 300 categories. Plenty of things could be considered "prohibitive".

 

But why stop with just a list of the mentally ill. What about people that have suffered head trauma such as repeated concussions like football players Jovan Belcher who killed his girlfriend and then committed suicide?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/chiefs/2012/12/01/kansas-city-chiefs-player-shot-suicide-arrowhead/1738971/

 

 

Seriously. What's your solution to the problem?

 

How about arming teachers, janitors and assigning armed guards in larger schools?

 

Other than jumping on the Newtown bandwagon with your liberal buddies you have not presented a case strong case on how stripping millions of Americans, who have committed no crime, of many of their protections in The Bill of Rights.

 

While you anti-gun position is well known on this forum hopefully many other Americans will recognize that throwing out the rights of millions of Americans is excessive.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what I don't understand.

 

if I have to fill out certain paperwork in a gun store and have a background check processed on me before the gun dealer can sell me the gun, then what is so difficult about having to do the same process thru a private sale?

 

What if there isn't a FFL dealer in your community which requires both of you to travel another community that has a licensed dealer?

 

How about a single mother with young children living alone who is being threatened by a estranged husband or ex-boyfriend?

Why should she have to wait until a gun shop is open and she and seller to go the store to do the transfer? What if the system gives her a delayed reply which is not uncommon?

 

I hope your attitude isn't she doesn't deserve a gun anyway and deserves what she gets from her ex including being beatened, raped and killed along with children?

 

I think what it does is make sure that when I sell one of my pistols/rifles to John Doe, who is the 2nd cousin to my Uncles neighbor, that he is not some nut case trying to obtain a firearm just for the purpose of shooting somebody.

 

How does a filling out a form and a telephone call replace a medical diagnoses and most importantly how does it predict future behavior?

 

Sure, we all know that criminals (and even not criminals who have a history of mental illness) will get their guns one way or the other, but personally speaking, I would prefer that Ole Widder not be one of those ways.

 

If you are that uncomfortable selling a firearm DON'T do it.

 

When some of our Wire pards buy a gun on the Wire, it has to go thru proper channels for the transfer.

 

And so are ftf transfers when allowed by law.

 

Shouldn't be any different for person to person transfers, in my opinion.

 

Sad and uninformed.

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post

Seldom Seen:

 

Yep, thats me.....Mr. Uninformed.

 

And I guess everyone who might express a different view than yours is also uninformed.

 

Thats nice to know.

 

Now excuse me while I crawl back into my shell.

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.