Obama moving forward on gun control without congress

[GIJEW]

Even going around HIPPA, something more would have to be done in order to get someone into the NICS system as unable to purchase. The law is Adjudicate with mental illness. Is this the start of a plan for the Feds to get the records and then have people declared mentally unfit? Heck, the easiest place to start would be VA, then they could disarm all of the "right wing extremist veterans."

I understand that they're already doing that, besides given operation "fast & assinine", what's the rule of law mean to this administration?

 

[Fullmag]

The only bad thing about impeaching BO is the fact that Walter, er, um, Uncle Joe would take his place. And that would likely be worse (If that is even possible).

Oh my, I've tried to envision what Joe-scumbag would be like in there.
It's makes me sick to my stomach and could possibly be worse but on the bright side I don't think he would get anything done.

 

[Racechase1]

Under Obamascare, Hippa will mean nothing , 0 . With all your health care records going online, the government will be able to do anything they want with your medical history. It will be up to you to prove your mentally competent , once the government says your not.

It's like the gun question at the doctor. Yes it's illegal in one part of Obamascare, but has to be asked in another part. The fed in the medical system, terminal cancer.

 

[EvilElmo]

The only bad thing about impeaching BO is the fact that Walter, er, um, Uncle Joe would take his place. And that would likely be worse (If that is even possible).

That wouldn't be so bad. If the Republicans, or congress in general, had the numbers and the stones to boot Obummer I doubt they'd be too interested in Walter pulling the same kind of crap.

Besides, it wouldn't possibly happen until after 2014, so we wouldn't have to live with Walter that long anyway...

 

[cobber]

Doin' it on his own, sorta like this, but without Easy Co. to back you up...

[ame]http://youtu.be/WeW6drdOD1M[/ame]

 

[finity]

Obama taking action on gun background check system

in a nutshell he is going/trying to remove patient DR privacy law so that your mental health can be sent to feds so you get denied a purchase.

OK, I actually read the article. And actually took the time to understand it.

No where did the article say anything about getting rid of doctor patient privacy.

The article was talking about informing the states that the records of people found LEGALLY a danger to themselves or others or mentally incompetent can still be sent to the NICS system. HIPPA was just recently passed & mental health record were sent to NICS (or should have been) before then. That's the only thing being looked into with this.

Are we all saying that we are against the records of people who have been adjudicated in a court of law with all of their Constitutional protections intact, shouldn't be used to prevent them from getting a gun?

Talk about liberals allowing their emotions to override their common sense... sheesh!

Liberals don't have anything on you guys where emotional rantings & letting them cloud your judgement are concerned.

 

[ModernGunner]

Obama moving forward on gun control without congress

Then, Congress should proceed without delay to impeach the bastard.

 

[Expat]

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, I actually read the article. And actually took the time to understand it.

No where did the article say anything about getting rid of doctor patient privacy.

The article was talking about informing the states that the records of people found LEGALLY a danger to themselves or others or mentally incompetent can still be sent to the NICS system. HIPPA was just recently passed & mental health record were sent to NICS (or should have been) before then. That's the only thing being looked into with this.

Are we all saying that we are against the records of people who have been adjudicated in a court of law with all of their Constitutional protections intact, shouldn't be used to prevent them from getting a gun?

Talk about liberals allowing their emotions to override their common sense... sheesh!

Liberals don't have anything on you guys where emotional rantings & letting them cloud your judgement are concerned.

I'm against that, but not because of the liberal/conservative difference... I'm against it because I think if you're too dangerous to be "allowed" to have a gun (that language still rankles me,) then you're too dangerous to be "allowed" to walk free, unsupervised, have access to knives, rocks, cars, etc., and certainly too dangerous to be allowed to vote. At least that latter is actually a privilege, not a right.
In sum, as I've said so many times, I think if you're free, you should really be free, and our current society doesn't seem to see it that way.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

I'm against that, but not because of the liberal/conservative difference... I'm against it because I think if you're too dangerous to be "allowed" to have a gun (that language still rankles me,) then you're too dangerous to be "allowed" to walk free, unsupervised, have access to knives, rocks, cars, etc., and certainly too dangerous to be allowed to vote. At least that latter is actually a privilege, not a right.
In sum, as I've said so many times, I think if you're free, you should really be free, and our current society doesn't seem to see it that way.

Blessings,
Bill

I generally agree with you on that (& I think you know that from past posts) but the difference I see is that it's not that these people ARE dangerous, it's that they might be because of an inability to understand the repercussions of their actions. It's the same reason that we don't allow children to buy guns but we don't lock them up either.

Are you saying we should completely get rid of the prohibition on mentally I'll people being able to buy & own guns?

Out of all the "prohibited" catagories that's the one that I mostly agree with.

As to the "liberal/conservative" comment:

I've seen no one in this thread (aside from yours above) give any attempt at a logical reason why we shouldn't provide the records of those LEGALLY adjudicated mentally ill to NICS.

It's been "since Obama did it it has to be bad". Bush was a horrible president but I admit even he had some good ideas occasionally.

 

[mopar]

big concern - you new know what he going to do to get his own way. Congress need to stop him from bypassing them

 

[DFM914]

How about this country impeach Obama before he completely destroys it?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I generally agree with you on that (& I think you know that from past posts) but the difference I see is that it's not that these people ARE dangerous, it's that they might be because of an inability to understand the repercussions of their actions. It's the same reason that we don't allow children to buy guns but we don't lock them up either.

Are you saying we should completely get rid of the prohibition on mentally I'll people being able to buy & own guns?

Out of all the "prohibited" catagories that's the one that I mostly agree with.

As to the "liberal/conservative" comment:

I've seen no one in this thread (aside from yours above) give any attempt at a logical reason why we shouldn't provide the records of those LEGALLY adjudicated mentally ill to NICS.

It's been "since Obama did it it has to be bad". Bush was a horrible president but I admit even he had some good ideas occasionally.

Neither of them is worth a tinker's damn, IMHO. The only good thing I can think of about Bush is that he kept Gore and Kerry out of office.

Leaving that aside, you asked whether I'd support ending the prohibition on the mentally ill owning firearms. As a matter of priniciple, I'd have to give that a qualified yes. I see where you're going with the comparison to childhood, but it's a false comparison: Children are under the charge and responsibility of their parents. I'm of the opinion (and the law agrees) that if the parent thinks the child can be trusted with a gun and the parent is willing to accept responsibility for what the child does with that gun, there should be no hindrance in the law. If someone who is "mentally ill" (and that is such a nebulous and arbitrary term- A recent article reported that the new DSM-5 will classify all human emotions as mental illnesses!) is responsible enough to be free, then that person is responsible enough to be armed and vice versa: If they're not responsible enough to lawfully be armed, they're not responsible enough to be free.

I don't think I can look at it any other way and still be a man of principle, but I'm willing to listen to a reasoned approach to the contrary, if you have one.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Mark 1911]

Just when I thought my opinion of Obama could not get any worse, he has shown me new horizons. There is nothing more disgusting than the king of all liars getting up and pointing a finger at the people who handed him a defeat, all the while calling them "willful liars" who "ought to be ashamed of themselves".

 

[finity]

Neither of them is worth a tinker's damn, IMHO. The only good thing I can think of about Bush is that he kept Gore and Kerry out of office.

Leaving that aside, you asked whether I'd support ending the prohibition on the mentally ill owning firearms. As a matter of priniciple, I'd have to give that a qualified yes. I see where you're going with the comparison to childhood, but it's a false comparison: Children are under the charge and responsibility of their parents. I'm of the opinion (and the law agrees) that if the parent thinks the child can be trusted with a gun and the parent is willing to accept responsibility for what the child does with that gun, there should be no hindrance in the law. If someone who is "mentally ill" (and that is such a nebulous and arbitrary term- A recent article reported that the new DSM-5 will classify all human emotions as mental illnesses!) is responsible enough to be free, then that person is responsible enough to be armed and vice versa: If they're not responsible enough to lawfully be armed, they're not responsible enough to be free.

I don't think I can look at it any other way and still be a man of principle, but I'm willing to listen to a reasoned approach to the contrary, if you have one.

Blessings,
Bill

Sorry it took so long to get back to this...

Again, I have to reiterate that we aren't talking about someone who goes to a counselor to deal with a divorce or other loss & gets some Xanax to take for a while.

I'm talking about those who have gone through the civil court system & have been found BY A JUDGE to be incapable of handling their own affairs & by implication have no ability to adequately determine right from wrong or the cognitive reasoning to understand the implications of their actions.

I think the comparison to a child is completely accurate.

Most of the time those individuals have people who are their legal guardians (like children) but aren't at the level that they are necessarily dangerous so they wouldn't be locked up. We don't let a child go into a gun store & buy a gun without the express permission of their parents. The way we ensure that permission is obtained is that we require the parent to buy the gun & then give it to the child as a gift.

If the legal guardian of a mentally defective person wanted to grant permission to allow them to have a gun, and subsequently supervise them in it's use (just like a they would a child) then I would have no problem with it.

However, that guardian would then have to take complete responsibility for any misuse of the gun by the mentally defective person (just like they should with a child under those same circumstances).

I think there's a great number of people who would take umbrage at your suggestion that just because they have a mentally defective person under their care that that person should be locked away. There are a great number of mentally retarded adults who live at home with their caregivers who function perfectly fine in society UNDER THAT AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION (IOW, they don't need locked away) but I still don't want them to have the freedom to walk into a gun store unsupervised & buy a gun. The same as I wouldn't want an 8 year old child to be free to walk into a gun store & buy a gun unsupervised, either.

Really, I understand the internal twinge involved in denying a Right such as this to a person but there are times when it IS actually a necessity.

 

[calcot7]

As it stands now, I've not heard of people being denied a NICS check based on anything like this.

I'd be interested in the first case of a person being denied based on counseling or being prescribed a mood enhancing/anti-depressant drug (sorry if those are not interchangeable terms - I'm ignorant about the terminology).

It is known that only a person judged in court as mentally unstable is to be denied.

Am I misinformed?

Yea, under Obama rules, court is just something you play B-Ball on.

 

[Mark 1911]

How about this country impeach Obama before he completely destroys it?

Would you rather call Joe Biden the President until 2016?? I'm honestly not sure.