jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Mental health professionals are not REQUIRED by ANY LAW to report those patients who suffer from the disqualifying conditions. In other words, unless they walk in and admit to having a disqualifying condition, there is no record of it outside the fucking doctor's office.
Delivering on its promise to deliver "common sense" gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
BIG SNIP
Since the Newtown shootings, the number of mental health records submitted to the FBI system has tripled to more than 3 million records, according to an analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety, a group promoting an end to gun violence. The FBI system resulted in more than 6,000 denials of firearm purchases because of mental health criteria.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-gun-control-rule-mental-illness-217340#ixzz4LKEoXDEu
So, jlf, how about those loopholes at gun shows, proxy purchasers, and private sales???
Let me point out that I said not one word about confiscating guns. I fully understand the shitload of guns out there and I fully understand the Court rulings on the Second Amendment.
However, I do not understand the paranoia that the gun lobby uses to pull you owners along on a leash. Do you seriously believe that you Minutemen could take down the American military if somehow in your wildest demented dreams a would be dictator could command the Armed forces to take away your guns? Fucking amazing. Even worse than your self-defense argument.
I'll say it again: the one conspicuous variable between the United States high gun mortality and other nations is the availability of guns here. That seems indisputable to me.
Make of it what you wish.
The gun show loophole you are referring to as well as private sales are the same thing.
Licensed gun dealers either store front or at a gun show are required by federal law to run back ground checks.
The problem is 'unlicensed' dealers, AKA private sellers.
Now, many of the sponsors of gun shows require that anyone who sells firearms be licensed. I said 'many.'
The majority of gun shows are actually scheduled events sponsored by, believe it or not, marketing companies who use the shows to get products noticed, then there are those sponsored by specialty groups, i.e promoting antique or rare firearms.
Again, these sponsors, for the most part require those in the business of selling firearms to be licensed.
Then there are a growing number of states that require people selling firearms at gun shows to be licensed.
However, to really throw a monkey wrench into your 'gun show' myth, there are more guns sold at flea markets by private sellers than your average gun show.
And you brought up proxy buyers, aka straw purchasers.
Well, it is illegal to purchase a gun for someone not legally allowed to own a gun. Pretty hefty penalty for that.
Doesnt stop it from happening, and short of spot checking gun owners after the sale, it is a hit and miss. Kind like the fact it is illegal to buy alcohol for people under legal drinking age.
Does not stop it from happening, pretty hefty penalty for doing it, but it still goes on.
The problem with reporting people with disqualifying mental health issues has not been the enabling, but that it is not MANDATORY. There is a big difference. Sorry you cannot grasp that point.
It has always been possible for doctors and mental health professionals to report patients with such conditions, how else would the law prohibiting them from buying a gun be used, the problem is getting these people to do it.
And yes the number of people reported has gone up tremendously.
But you might want to look at current statistics on people suffering those disqualifying conditions.
And your final point, the minuteman remark.
Two points that you and every other person fails to grasp.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
That is the oath of enlistment.
There is also the fact that no soldier is legally obligated to follow any order that 1) violates the constitution, or 2) violates the UCMJ. In fact it is the duty of every person in the military to prevent such orders from being carried out.
See Lt. Calley.
But let me ask you this question.
If it came to the very situation that would make the gun owners fight against the government, how many of you anti gun people are going to stand back and do nothing. We may be losing our guns, but are you willing to lose the rights you value?
I doubt if gun owners will be alone, should that happen. I figure a hell of a lot of anti gun people may just sign up to put a stop to it.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: AND WHY ? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread