RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control

RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

bounty44 -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 6:50:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Like if you find it desirable that somebody with a mental health problem can go and buy guns Haven't paid attention have you, I have long decried the states refusing to enter it into the data base when someone is ajudicated to be a threat. ann coulter has some interesting things to say about this topic: quote: ...There's a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns.... But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It's a crazy person. How long is this going to go on? When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter... Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws. True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people... Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors. The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings... After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here's an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine? Liberals will howl about "stigmatizing" the mentally ill, but they sure don't mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country. But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population -- I think we've found the crucial ingredient!... How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons -- and, every now and then, commit mass murder? http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-07.html

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 7:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-obamas-gun-081616692.html Fact Check summary. Seems the laws are already in place and have been for a long time as best as I can find. What I don't understand is the lack of just enforcing the existing law. If you don't enforce the laws you can claim that they don't work and push for more restrictive ones. The new parts are allowing doctors to violate hippa laws and making anyone who ever sells a gun to have an ffl

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 7:13:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Like if you find it desirable that somebody with a mental health problem can go and buy guns Haven't paid attention have you, I have long decried the states refusing to enter it into the data base when someone is ajudicated to be a threat. ann coulter has some interesting things to say about this topic: quote: ...There's a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns.... But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It's a crazy person. How long is this going to go on? When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter... Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws. True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people... Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors. The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings... After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here's an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine? Liberals will howl about "stigmatizing" the mentally ill, but they sure don't mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country. But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population -- I think we've found the crucial ingredient!... How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons -- and, every now and then, commit mass murder? http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-07.html Now they want to ban people who are suspected by others with no training in mental illness. They claim to be fixing the problem but some people consider wanting a gun to be proof of mental illness. Futher it seems this will be handled like the no fly list, you won't even know you are banned till you get turned down. Then rather than them having to prove you are mentally ill you have to proove you aren't, guilty untill proven innocent. People who are ajudicated by the courts to be a danger aren't supposed to be able to buy firearms, as you know, but too many states (one would be too many) refuse to enter that information in the database.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 7:18:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Like if you find it desirable that somebody with a mental health problem can go and buy guns Haven't paid attention have you, I have long decried the states refusing to enter it into the data base when someone is ajudicated to be a threat. ann coulter has some interesting things to say about this topic: quote: ...There's a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns.... But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It's a crazy person. How long is this going to go on? When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter... Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws. True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people... Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors. The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings... After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here's an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine? Liberals will howl about "stigmatizing" the mentally ill, but they sure don't mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country. But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population -- I think we've found the crucial ingredient!... How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons -- and, every now and then, commit mass murder? http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-07.html Now they want to ban people who are suspected by others with no training in mental illness. They claim to be fixing the problem but some people consider wanting a gun to be proof of mental illness. Futher it seems this will be handled like the no fly list, you won't even know you are banned till you get turned down. Then rather than them having to prove you are mentally ill you have to proove you aren't, guilty untill proven innocent. People who are ajudicated by the courts to be a danger aren't supposed to be able to buy firearms, as you know, but too many states (one would be too many) refuse to enter that information in the database. Nutsuckers want to do this? Because hold the phone, they are a mental illness. Otherwise, nutsucker asswipe.

bounty44 -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 7:28:51 AM)
here's an American thinker piece that touches on some of that too: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/obamacare_does_not_trump_the_second_amendment.html

mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 7:44:40 AM)
that site is an american nutsucker slobber blog, there is not thought displayed.

itsSIRtou -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 9:47:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Like if you find it desirable that somebody with a mental health problem can go and buy guns Haven't paid attention have you, I have long decried the states refusing to enter it into the data base when someone is ajudicated to be a threat. ann coulter has some interesting things to say about this topic: quote: ...There's a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns.... But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It's a crazy person. How long is this going to go on? When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter... Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws. True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people... Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors. The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings... After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here's an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine? Liberals will howl about "stigmatizing" the mentally ill, but they sure don't mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country. But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population -- I think we've found the crucial ingredient!... How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons -- and, every now and then, commit mass murder? http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-07.html I knew it wouldn't be long before somebody would allow that angry cross-dresser ann coulter into this, because she doesn't bother to check her own parties actions before dishing out more of her lame crap. For decades now Republican cost-cutting & budget-cutting has wiped out many mental health care facilities across the country. Leaving the mentally ill to fend for themselves in ways that they are in no small way able to. Now Wwe liberals have long said to Republicans if you're going to cut programs and push these people out into the general populace by cutting their programs and then stigmatizing them as outcasts only exacerbates the problems of these people. And when you do that to mentally ill people guess what ann,... some of them act out!! HELLOOO!! Since shes going to allow them access to guns, they see the power that angry white men feel when they have them and want to get it themselves!! HELLOO!! Here's some links for those who really need to have them. All I did was Google "mental-health budget cuts, 1990" & "mental-health budget cuts, 1980" https://www2.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=125018 http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=all http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/timeline-mental-health-america ( I tossed this one in just as a show of how long the GOP has had a hand in defunding anything to do with mental health.) and ann,.... Since since you are going to talk about white men and mental illness, you failed to mention that the vast majority of serial killers are indeed white men. Furthermore if you really want to be pointed about it, the greatest takers of human life in the last century have come from white men. And I'm sure somewhere a solid case could be made that over the world's history white men have committed the greatest genocide of human beings on this entire planet, including their own race. So please spare me the whining about poor gun loving white men and their deadly toys being vilified in this issue. If you look at the numbers that are in the hundreds of thousands who been kicked out of the health care system since Reagan was in office, add to that the people since then, then add the people who are completely undiagnosed early because they have had no access to mental healthcare, and the GOP keep trying to vote out Obamacare even now??.. We are going to have this type of crap go on for years from now because of conservative people like you.... ann coulter.

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 2:21:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/index.html Oh wow! Obama using tears now! His determined to pass whatever he wants to pass before he leaves his Presidency! You should see what lefties think about your....angst. http://on.cc.com/1mJd6B0

KenDckey -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 7:06:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-obamas-gun-081616692.html Fact Check summary. Seems the laws are already in place and have been for a long time as best as I can find. What I don't understand is the lack of just enforcing the existing law. If you don't enforce the laws you can claim that they don't work and push for more restrictive ones. The new parts are allowing doctors to violate hippa laws and making anyone who ever sells a gun to have an ffl Yeah And I just looked again at the white house executive action files and there is still nothing. It is all smoke and mirrors. I agree that if you don't enforce our laws then you have lawlessness. It is funny tho how the anti-gun crowd is so proud of his non=existant executive actions and failure to enforce existing laws. LOL

ifmaz -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 8:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-obamas-gun-081616692.html Fact Check summary. Seems the laws are already in place and have been for a long time as best as I can find. What I don't understand is the lack of just enforcing the existing law. Why enforce existing laws when you can get your name in the news by creating a new law?

Crouchingtiger77 -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 2:38:48 AM)
Obama does not give a shit about the constitution as he acts in defiance of what it says congress must do. This latest act by Obama would not have stopped a single mass murder, as Taya Kyle told Obama at the Home Town Meeting.

KenDckey -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 6:15:25 AM)
quote: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-ambushes-tries-to-execute-cop-in-philadelphia/ Jim Kenney, who is in his first week as mayor of the nation's fifth largest city, said, "There are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that." Cop gets ambushed and shot 3 times in the name of Islam and it is the guns fault. ugh

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 6:23:02 AM)
no, that would be the perps fault. my question is how did he get the gun...

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 6:24:30 AM)
OMG thats right...even muslims can get guns...legally Gasp

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 6:27:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crouchingtiger77 Obama does not give a shit about the constitution as he acts in defiance of what it says congress must do. This latest act by Obama would not have stopped a single mass murder, as Taya Kyle told Obama at the Home Town Meeting. that must be why he wasted all those years as a constitutional lawyer Also there is quantifiable evidence out there that your last attempt at a sentence is wrong.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 7:45:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-obamas-gun-081616692.html Fact Check summary. Seems the laws are already in place and have been for a long time as best as I can find. What I don't understand is the lack of just enforcing the existing law. If you don't enforce the laws you can claim that they don't work and push for more restrictive ones. The new parts are allowing doctors to violate hippa laws and making anyone who ever sells a gun to have an ffl Yeah And I just looked again at the white house executive action files and there is still nothing. It is all smoke and mirrors. I agree that if you don't enforce our laws then you have lawlessness. It is funny tho how the anti-gun crowd is so proud of his non=existant executive actions and failure to enforce existing laws. LOL What existing laws are not being enforced (except the ones nobody will pay to have enforced?)

KenDckey -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 8:33:14 AM)
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/07/10-myths-about-guns/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 8:54:27 AM)
bloody hell now how would you feel if I told you that the most recent poll from CNN said that 67% support President Obama's executive action on guns. ALl the ball aching and creeching before he actually announced his plan, about him "writing laws" and chicken littling like pussies at a catnip burning since..omg he isnt doing anything... Paul Ryan WOULD love the changes, but he wanted the republicans to do it, not obama... or rather, he will only accept a republican plan. Like the replacement for the ACA< its been seven years, wheres this magical plan. They just partied the night away cos they finally managed to get a repeal thru a vote, only took them how many years and how many attempts, 62, bunch of wankers .... and the pres aint gonna sign it.... Talk about premature bullshit.

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 8:56:06 AM)
oh and here is an article from the wapo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/obama-said-gun-owners-would-support-his-new-restrictions-he-was-right/

crumpets -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 9:53:29 AM)
I must apologize that I haven't logged in for more than a month, due to bugs implemented in the captcha challenge for people who care about their privacy, some of which still exist on the collarchat site (but most or all of which were fixed in the collarspace site). But on topic, I must say that most people do not understand what is REALLY going on here with Obama's executive action. 1. He's stumping for the democratic party. 2. He's circumventing Congress. 3. He's trying to break the Constitution. Really, it's all about #1 above. The other two are merely consequences of #1 above. The proof is legion, and obvious, crocodile tears being one of the indications, as is the idiotic assemblage of people with dead children (whenever a politician either kisses a baby or holds up a dead one, you can rest assured he's being "political"). If he really wanted to do the executive action he just did, he could have done it 7 years ago. And, the "epidemic" he's discussing is far far far far far far far far less than the number of people killed in a whole host of other activities. He's stumping, mostly to DIFFERENTIATE the democrats from the republicans. Most of the democrats are stupid, and they won't see through his maneuver, while most of the republicans are just as stupid and they will fall into the trap which Obama cleverly set of talking about "THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL" (which is DESIGNED to make the republicans LOOK stupid - which will work - because they are). Let's get on to #2, which is merely a consequence. If this went through the normal process, it would get nowhere. So why does Obama do it? See #1 above. Now let's get to #3. This is really the crux of the issue, other than #1. What really is happening, for the most part, is that democrats, on the whole, want to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Specifically they want to reduce or limit or eliminate one of our rights. But they can't do that, directly. So, what do they do? They put up barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after ... and so on. ... against the right. This is merely yet another barrier. So, what do the republicans do? They fall into the trap cleverly set by Obama, which is to "discuss" this particular barrier (as if it matters)! Then, what happens? They look stupid! Yup. Because the barrier is so tiny that it "seems" reasonable. (It's only when you notice that the barriers will NEVER STOP that you realize that it's not reasonable, on the whole. What REALLY is happening is the age-old process of eliminating a constitutional right by putting up a series of miniscule barriers that never end. So one side finally draws a line in the sand, saying NO MORE BARRIERS! And, that's where the idiots start chiming in. They THINK the argument is about that silly particular barrier. And that EXACTLY what Obama wants to happen! It's beautifully clever. But it only works because people are stupid. [PS] Collarchata is still stupidly broken, because it took a half-dozen attempts just to get this post to take. Sigh. The admins don't know what they're doing, or, they never tested it, probably both at the same time.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625