quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

As for violent criminals getting their gun rights back, the majority of prisoners in both state and federal systems are not violent criminals. Our penal system is full to over crowding with non violent offenders that are getting hit with mandatory sentences

..

What does the percentage of violent to nonviolent felons have to do with anything?

As to your question... you didnt ask me.

Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.

While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all

Do you think I give fuck what an accountant who was cooking books and snagged up a felony conviction does after prison?

I would hope you give one about what the violent felon does afterwards.

quote:

Funny thing, most "violent" felons I met while in law enforcement who completed their full sentences never committed another violent act in their lives.

quote:

By the way, I am not talking about accountants. You should really look into the non violent offenders who are serving 10, 20 even 30 years due to mandatory minimums.

quote:

Funny thing about people talking about criminals committing more crimes, 90% of those people would not offer one of these people a decent job, rent them a decent apartment or house, or treat them as anything other than scum.

So, are you part of the 90% or do you just have a hard on for a certain group of felons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I said nothing about mental issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

23.. read em ..... grab your tin foil hats for you conspiracy nut cases.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2IAfg7OIT

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

23.. read em ..... grab your tin foil hats for you conspiracy nut cases.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2IAfg7OIT

I see nothing particularly onerous in any of those. All this chest thumping in Washington and that's it? Pffft. Nothing along the lines of what Cuomo signed. The big difference in that Cuomo is trying to punch his ticket to the White House. Obama has no choice but to resort to executive order. Congress remembers what happened last time they tried this in Congress. A lot of Congressional Dems pray every night that this doesn't come up in legislation.

Obama-backed gun bills considered a long shot in Congress

quote:

No, you were talking about people with a violent history.

quote:

I am sure you can see the comparison. People used to violence are more prone to act in a violent manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thats not what he is saying.

There are ways for a convicted felon to get the right to own guns. And the NRA was behind that push.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Funny thing, most "violent" felons I met while in law enforcement who completed their full sentences never committed another violent act in their lives.

That you know about. Most dont stay in one area. I can name, quickly, three repeat offenders who repeated multiple times.

quote:

By the way, I am not talking about accountants. You should really look into the non violent offenders who are serving 10, 20 even 30 years due to mandatory minimums.

You remember Baretta?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAUFuTKdWAw

Dont do the crime if you cant do the time.

quote:

Funny thing about people talking about criminals committing more crimes, 90% of those people would not offer one of these people a decent job, rent them a decent apartment or house, or treat them as anything other than scum.

So, are you part of the 90% or do you just have a hard on for a certain group of felons.

I made my position quite clear.

Felons convicted of violent crimes should NOT have their gun rights restored.

How much clearer do I need to be?

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/answers-on-felons-and-gun-rights/

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/1/123.full

The National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act has serious implications for persons with mental illness with regard to the ability to purchase firearms. Federally prohibited persons include those who have been adjudicated as mentally defective, or have been committed to a mental institution, or are unlawful users of or are addicted to a controlled substance. The legislation was intended to expand the reporting practices of states by providing significant financial incentives and disincentives for releasing all relevant records, including those contained within mental health databases, to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). As of April 2007, only 22 states were voluntarily submitting records from mental health databases to the NICS. The legislation was introduced following the Virginia Tech tragedy, when public opinion favored tightening control over access to firearms of persons with mental illness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

No, you were talking about people with a violent history.

No, I was speaking strictly about felons. Those with a violent conviction.

Felons convicted of violent crimes should NOT have their gun rights restored.

quote:

I am sure you can see the comparison. People used to violence are more prone to act in a violent manner.

Which means they have no ability to control that action, therefore, should not possess weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
These executive orders will subvert HIPAA, and place anyone with 'a mental illness' (a term without a legal definition) on the same FBI/Homeland Security watch lists as convicted felons and known terrorists without the benefit of any form of due process. And of course on BATF do not sell lists.

Because every single person who has a mental illness, disability, or issue is dangerous right? You know, like Aspergers? Post partum depresson? Mild agoraphobia? Sado-masochistic paraphilia? Now all open to being disenfranchised.

The big difference is that before, in order to lose your franchise as a citizen, you had to have been adjudicated either guilty of a felony, domestic violence, or as mentally incompetent ( i.e. proven a danger to yourself and others). 'Adjudicated' as in 'by a judge', after hearing your defense.

Under the new plan, random bureaucrats or therapists can place anyone in that status by fiat. No hearing, no appeal. Just liek the old days in the USSR.

You know who is alllowed to practice 'therapy' in the US today? Among other folks, people with a 120 hour certificate, or preachers. That's right, any ordained minister can practice addiction and subtance abuse therapy, domestic violence therapy, 'pray away the gay' therapy... and now, they can refer people to the 'dangerous' watch list. In the next state over from me, a free online Universal Life Church certificate and a few bucks to the county clerk is all it takes to make one legally an ordained minister.


But Hey, no problem. Don't see the issue. Looks good. Not unreasonable.

Only DesideriScuri caught how far this hysteria may well go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
These executive orders will subvert HIPAA, and place anyone with 'a mental illness' (a term without a legal definition) on the same FBI/Homeland Security watch lists as convicted felons and known terrorists without the benefit of any form of due process. And of course on BATF do not sell lists.
Because every single person who has a mental illness, disability, or issue is dangerous right? You know, like Aspergers? Post partum depresson? Mild agoraphobia? Sado-masochistic paraphilia? Now all open to being disenfranchised.
The big difference is that before, in order to lose your franchise as a citizen, you had to have been adjudicated either guilty of a felony, domestic violence, or as mentally incompetent ( i.e. proven a danger to yourself and others). 'Adjudicated' as in 'by a judge', after hearing your defense.
Under the new plan, random bureaucrats or therapists can place anyone in that status by fiat. No hearing, no appeal. Just liek the old days in the USSR.
You know who is alllowed to practice 'therapy' in the US today? Among other folks, people with a 120 hour certificate, or preachers. That's right, any ordained minister can practice addiction and subtance abuse therapy, domestic violence therapy, 'pray away the gay' therapy... and now, they can refer people to the 'dangerous' watch list. In the next state over from me, a free online Universal Life Church certificate and a few bucks to the county clerk is all it takes to make one legally an ordained minister.
But Hey, no problem. Don't see the issue. Looks good. Not unreasonable.
Only DesideriScuri caught how far this hysteria may well go.

Its nice to know that the 'tin foil industry' is alive and doing very well. Tell me, do you have an image of yourself wearing a pirate's tin foil hat? How about a cowboy hat in tin foil? Or a NASCAR driver's helmet in tin foil?
Because your post is just that, one giant delusional crap-ola. Mental Illness does have a defination. However, that is used in placed of a very long defination. Rather than saying 'The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009', people refer to it as 'The Stimulus Bill'. Or the 'Affordable Care Act of 2010' is 'Obamacare'. Notice in both cases how the number of letters used were dramstically reduced so that common people could keep up with what their goverment does?
People that have treatable mental or emotional problems will likely never show up on the list. Those that require hospitalization because their condition is deep and concentrated would be. Such persons are a threat to themselves and everyone else around them. Because conservatives have tried every which way to keep good health care out of the hands of ordinary Americans; why should those that REALLY need to be hospitalized get health care? Yes, even knowing that most conservatives seem to suffer in varying degrees of illnesses like depression, paranoia and schizophrenia will likely NOT be disallowed from obtaining firearms is even true.
Hell, anyone whom watchs FOX News not for its entertainment value but its 'journalistic quality' should NOT be allowed to obtain firearms on the grounds that they ARE delusional! Didn't they, The Druge Report, The Wall Street Journal, and several other groups and individuals (like uncle Limbaugh and Beck) say that the President would use his executive privilage to outlaw guns? They are looking pretty 'out of touch with reality' right now, arent they?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
Stripping people with a mental illness of their franchise as citizens on the say-so of of random apparatchik doesn't strike you as particularly onerous in what context?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

23.. read em ..... grab your tin foil hats for you conspiracy nut cases.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2IAfg7OIT

I see nothing particularly onerous in any of those. All this chest thumping in Washington and that's it? Pffft. Nothing along the lines of what Cuomo signed. The big difference in that Cuomo is trying to punch his ticket to the White House. Obama has no choice but to resort to executive order. Congress remembers what happened last time they tried this in Congress. A lot of Congressional Dems pray every night that this doesn't come up in legislation.

Obama-backed gun bills considered a long shot in Congress

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
These executive orders will subvert HIPAA, and place anyone with 'a mental illness' (a term without a legal definition) on the same FBI/Homeland Security watch lists as convicted felons and known terrorists without the benefit of any form of due process. And of course on BATF do not sell lists.

Because every single person who has a mental illness, disability, or issue is dangerous right? You know, like Aspergers? Post partum depresson? Mild agoraphobia? Sado-masochistic paraphilia? Now all open to being disenfranchised.

The big difference is that before, in order to lose your franchise as a citizen, you had to have been adjudicated either guilty of a felony, domestic violence, or as mentally incompetent ( i.e. proven a danger to yourself and others). 'Adjudicated' as in 'by a judge', after hearing your defense.

Under the new plan, random bureaucrats or therapists can place anyone in that status by fiat. No hearing, no appeal. Just liek the old days in the USSR.

You know who is alllowed to practice 'therapy' in the US today? Among other folks, people with a 120 hour certificate, or preachers. That's right, any ordained minister can practice addiction and subtance abuse therapy, domestic violence therapy, 'pray away the gay' therapy... and now, they can refer people to the 'dangerous' watch list. In the next state over from me, a free online Universal Life Church certificate and a few bucks to the county clerk is all it takes to make one legally an ordained minister.


But Hey, no problem. Don't see the issue. Looks good. Not unreasonable.

Only DesideriScuri caught how far this hysteria may well go.

Its nice to know that the 'tin foil industry' is alive and doing very well. Tell me, do you have an image of yourself wearing a pirate's tin foil hat? How about a cowboy hat in tin foil? Or a NASCAR driver's helmet in tin foil?

Because your post is just that, one giant delusional crap-ola. Mental Illness does have a defination. However, that is used in placed of a very long defination. Rather than saying 'The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009', people refer to it as 'The Stimulus Bill'. Or the 'Affordable Care Act of 2010' is 'Obamacare'. Notice in both cases how the number of letters used were dramstically reduced so that common people could keep up with what their goverment does?

People that have treatable mental or emotional problems will likely never show up on the list. Those that require hospitalization because their condition is deep and concentrated would be. Such persons are a threat to themselves and everyone else around them. Because conservatives have tried every which way to keep good health care out of the hands of ordinary Americans; why should those that REALLY need to be hospitalized get health care? Yes, even knowing that most conservatives seem to suffer in varying degrees of illnesses like depression, paranoia and schizophrenia will likely NOT be disallowed from obtaining firearms is even true.

Hell, anyone whom watchs FOX News not for its entertainment value but its 'journalistic quality' should NOT be allowed to obtain firearms on the grounds that they ARE delusional! Didn't they, The Druge Report, The Wall Street Journal, and several other groups and individuals (like uncle Limbaugh and Beck) say that the President would use his executive privilage to outlaw guns? They are looking pretty 'out of touch with reality' right now, arent they?