Jeb Bush talks gun control on Late Show

[Teachu2]

wow....congrats on posting the most ignorant thing ive read all day.

That's a slick trick - insulting the poster and beating them out of the position you are trying to award them at the same time! Irony at it's best.

 

[TimSr]

It will probably sound far fetched, but I would not be shocked if some day being doubtful of man made global warming is classified as a mental illness. Or pick whatever PC whipping stick out there. Hold bigoted beliefs = mentally ill. Believe a man was killed to pay for the sins of the world, then resurrected = must be mentally ill.

Not very farfetched at all. Look at what passes for "hate speech" and "racism" these days. I'm very concerned about a government that can determine the Bible is hate speech, or that being critical of a black politician is racist trying to decide who is mentally competent enough to own a firearm.

I'm not a Bush supporter, nor do I support either "check", but need clarity as to whether his "metal health checks" are about mandatory evaluations for every purchaser or simply checking records of adjudicated cases and involuntary committments.

 

[TruthTellers]

What we currently have is a case of those running the Republican party willing to lose an election rather than risk losing their control of the Republican party.

Should Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, etc. win the nomination and / or the election, the powers that be in the Republican party are afraid their power will greatly be diminished, and they're gonna fight like heck to see that doesn't happen.

Even if it means giving the election to the Dems...

Very true. I wouldn't doubt it if we would see the Republican controlled congress initiate impeachment proceedings against a Trump/Cruz/Carson presidency and vice president to put establishment John Boehner in the white house.

 

[TruthTellers]

The mental health issue is definitely a slippery slope when we start mandating evaluation to exercise specific enumerated rights.

Which is why I believe what Jeb Bush said is so important to pay attention to as it makes him as bad as Chris Christie on the second amendment.

Mental health issues and concerns is the trojan horse to abolishing the second amendment. Should everyone be able to own a gun? Well, criminals and mental nuts have shown themselves to be a danger to society, so they don't qualify to receive all the benefits of the Bill of Rights.

How are we to stop people who have mental issues from acquiring a gun when there's nothing on their record that shows them having mental illness? I can't answer that question, but I can say that universal mental health checks are not the answer.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm no fan of Jeb Bush; but there appears to be some historical revisionism going on regarding W. I've already outlined what W accomplished for the Second Anendment in just the first four years - and that is before the Heller decision with two W appointees in the majority.

Was he even half what I wanted? No. And like most elections his value was relative since his opponent was a hard core anti-gun candidate who flew back on Super Tuesday to vote for a ban on ordinary rifle ammo (including .30-30 by name).

Jeb Bush gives me the willies. Aside from my sheer dislike of political dynasties, which is extremely strong, his answer here betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional roles and gun issues. I would not vote for him in the Primary ever. Having said that, Clinton isn't a weak ally - she's a strong enemy. Her husband threw away an almost unbroken 30 years of a Democrat majority Congress to push gun control -AND DID NOT REGRET IT in hindsight. All of the Dem candidates save James Webb are in favor of bans and confiscation of semi-autos (and Sanders and Clinton have voted for that in the Senate).

If you don't trust Jeb then get involved in the Primaries and make sure he doesn't get the nomination; but don't fool yourself that you'll get a better deal from the Dem side.

 

[MtnCreek]

^ Very true. Remember it's 5-4 in SCOTUS. With a republican in office, you get about a 50% chance of a pro gun justice (it's probably less than that if you go back further). If it's a Democrat president, it's about a 100% chance of an anti gun justice.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How are we to stop people who have mental issues from acquiring a gun when there's nothing on their record that shows them having mental illness? I can't answer that question, but I can say that universal mental health checks are not the answer.

OK, first of all, Jeb said nothing about universal mental health checks in that clip. Second, people who are adjudicated mentally defective are already prohibited by law from possessing or purchasing firearms and have been since 1968. Now that process has both a great potential for future abuse depending on what laws are passed, and is already being abused in several jurisdictions due to various court interpretations of "gray area" language; but I think it is important that people understand that prohibiting people from possessing firearms due to mental illness has been around almost 50 years now and isn't likely to disappear soon.

The key is to make sure that this isn't done arbitrarily and without due process.

So my answer would be:
A) the process for prohibiting someone from owning a firearm due to mental illness is spelled out in the law - and the current law has some real problems we need to fix, especially if you are concerned about future abuses.
B) Your reply gives the impression Jeb was pushing "universal mental health checks" to someone who didn't watch the video - which is not the case. Though there is certainly nothing in that clip (which was cut from the Late Show's TV appearance by the way) that does Jeb credit on the Second Amendment.

 

[TruthTellers]

OK, first of all, Jeb said nothing about universal mental health checks in that clip. Second, people who are adjudicated mentally defective are already prohibited by law from possessing or purchasing firearms and have been since 1968. Now that process has both a great potential for future abuse depending on what laws are passed, and is already being abused in several jurisdictions due to various court interpretations of "gray area" language; but I think it is important that people understand that prohibiting people from possessing firearms due to mental illness has been around almost 50 years now and isn't likely to disappear soon.

The key is to make sure that this isn't done arbitrarily and without due process.

So my answer would be:
A) the process for prohibiting someone from owning a firearm due to mental illness is spelled out in the law - and the current law has some real problems we need to fix, especially if you are concerned about future abuses.
B) Your reply gives the impression Jeb was pushing "universal mental health checks" to someone who didn't watch the video - which is not the case. Though there is certainly nothing in that clip (which was cut from the Late Show's TV appearance by the way) that does Jeb credit on the Second Amendment.

I wasn't talking about people who had already been found mentally ill, I'm talking about people who are mentally ill, but have never received treatment for it and found to be ill.

What Jeb Bush said was the next step in background checks was to "figure out ways to make sure we know if people have mental health issues."

As you said, we already have that in adjudication of people who are mentally ill. Jeb Bush knows this, what he is thinking, but not saying is every gun purchaser needs to be found NOT mentally defective before he/she can buy a gun because that will supposedly eliminate the ability of mentally ill people to buy a gun.

It's another case of being found guilty and having to prove your innocence.

 

[Rembrandt]

Of the 17 Republican Presidential candidates......3 don't own a gun. Chris Christie, Carly, and Jeb Bush.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Which potential Democratic Party presidential nominee if elected to the presidency would be the most supportive of the RKBA?

 

[Walkalong]

None?

Or is that the point?

 

[orionengnr]

If Jeb gets the nomination, the Rs will lose the election, no matter who the Ds nominate.

Absolutely right.
There are at least four-five potential R nominees who will guarantee a D victory. Jeb is at the front of that pack, but Christie is not far behind.

Fortunately (at least for now) most who fall into that category are so far buried in the back of the pack that this will not be a factor.

However...as long as Reince Priebus and his ilk are in charge of the RNC, we are not safe from their machinations.

The RNC has a history of choosing "The Anointed One" and foisting him off on us. (See McCain 2008, Romney 2012).

Until the RNC starts listening to the actual voters, they are doomed to perpetual failure.

My money says the RNC has bestowed Jeb as The Anointed One for 2016, and will try like Hell to make that happen.

If that happens, Hillary is a shoe-in, because a large number of Rs will stay home (see McCain 2008, Romney 2012).

The fact that the RNC has still not learned this lesson is a near guarantee of future failure...

 

[TruthTellers]

Of the 17 Republican Presidential candidates......3 don't own a gun. Chris Christie, Carly, and Jeb Bush.

I'm so not surprised by this. The two most anti gun in the Republican field and a woman.

If there's one thing I want people who read this post to remember, it's this: woman politicians do not like guns regardless of party. Unless it's Sarah Palin, who hunts moose in Alaska, you cannot trust a female political figure to support the second amendment.

 

[DeepSouth]

Humm, I didn't think it was possible but I like him less now.

 

[Nom de Forum]

None?

Or is that the point?

Ha, hah, that was a clever reply. Perhaps "supportive" was the wrong choice of word. Let us try again.

Which potential Democratic Party presidential nominee if elected to the presidency would be the least antagonistic toward the RKBA?

 

[TruthTellers]

Ha, hah, that was a clever reply. Perhaps "supportive" was the wrong choice of word. Let us try again.

Which potential Democratic Party presidential nominee if elected to the presidency would be the least antagonistic toward the RKBA?

Let's drop the non-contenders in the field and focus solely on Bernie and Hilary for this question.

I would have to say Bernie and he sucks with 2A.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Let's drop the non-contenders in the field and focus solely on Bernie and Hilary for this question.

I would have to say Bernie and he sucks with 2A.

You don't think Joe "getta shotgun" Biden is a potential contender? What about the other Democratic Party potential contenders? If you insist on dropping them because of poll standings you should drop all the Republicans except Trump and Carson.

 

[entropy]

That was rude.

Read up on HIPAA 1st and then try explain how it violates HIPAA.

Be specific rather than vague.

I did just read up and test on HIPAA for a new job at work; The good news and the bad news; Except for a subpoena or directly to the patient, a provider is not required to release info at all. Of course, a lot of things won't get done if that happens. I couldn't fit glasses if the Dr.'s office doesn't release the Rx to me. I couldn't bill the patient's insurance either. According to #(5) of the Permitted Uses and Disclosures, a provider wouldn't be required to release info to NICS or the ATF unless they subpoenaed them. The bad news is many providers, particularly in the mental health field, would be only too happy to not only release results of testing and therapy, but skew the results to support their own profession's agenda. Not all in the field would do so, of course, but the professional associations and governmental bodys in that field (NIMH, etc.) most certainly support that. Apparently the VA has joined them.

 

[entropy]

I'm so not surprised by this. The two most anti gun in the Republican field and a woman.

If there's one thing I want people who read this post to remember, it's this: woman politicians do not like guns regardless of party. Unless it's Sarah Palin, who hunts moose in Alaska, you cannot trust a female political figure to support the second amendment.

Condolezza Rice does. Too bad she won't run.

 

[Onmilo]

I think Jeb's Mom said it best,
"The world doesn't need another Bush in the White House."

 

[TruthTellers]

You don't think Joe "getta shotgun" Biden is a potential contender? What about the other Democratic Party potential contenders? If you insist on dropping them because of poll standings you should drop all the Republicans except Trump and Carson.

He's not an officially declared candidate, so I don't think he's a contender.

 

[A Pause for the Coz]

We do seem to see a very high percentage of gun crimes have a Mental health issue attached.
But why just guns??? These sick people also get in to cars. Grab knifes, ect.

Its a symptom of a problem not the root cause.

The root is we as a country are doing a very bad job treating people with mental health issues.

How about instead of using county lock ups as mental heath clinics. We treat these sick people?
Might find the whole Guns and mental health issue disappears on its own.
No new gun law needed. But maybe thats the point. They may want the problem as an excuse to infringe.

 

[Partizanai]

The last two party election......

I see this as America's very last two party election. The "Dems" are
very divided (with the exception of hating us of course...) and over 50%
want a much further left, even more Socialist party now. I see them headed
for a split into two parties after this election.
The first will be what remains of the present party and the second will be a
"Socialist/Workers/Minority driven" abomination.
The other party (I am an Independent) with facture into two as well. The
first will also be what they presently are (weak, Dem-lite and spineless) The
second will be a "Conservative/Patriot driven" party. I see it having much
deeper "right values" and more "True American" values.
Guess who I'll support and defend?
P

 

[Praxidike]

What we currently have is a case of those running the Republican party willing to lose an election rather than risk losing their control of the Republican party.

Should Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, etc. win the nomination and / or the election, the powers that be in the Republican party are afraid their power will greatly be diminished, and they're gonna fight like heck to see that doesn't happen.

Even if it means giving the election to the Dems...

They can NOT do anything to see that all of the alfomentioned candidates aren't elected. The ball is squarely in our court. We only won the Heller decisions by one vote, and the next President will very well likely add not just one, but possibly TWO Justices to the Supreme Court! If and when that happens, we can kiss our 2nd A rights goodbye, and we can look forward to New York and California style Gun legislation or worse. They would have won the war.

Seems like all Republicans politicians and voters are willing to cut off their noise to spite their face at this point. They rather vote for someone who says what they want to hear, but can't when a general election rather than to vote for someone who can win.

I care more about who can win a general election, and who won't have an on going determined agenda for more Gun Control vs giving the election to the antis because the guy who could win didn't reguritate the far Right rhetoric I wanted to hear 100% of the time. All or nothing with many gun owners and the party that supports them. If we lose this election, gun owners will have just that.... Nothing...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As you said, we already have that in adjudication of people who are mentally ill. Jeb Bush knows this, what he is thinking, but not saying is every gun purchaser needs to be found NOT mentally defective before he/she can buy a gun because that will supposedly eliminate the ability of mentally ill people to buy a gun.

Is your ability to determine what people are thinking but not saying limited to Jeb Bush or is it more generally applicable? For example, what am I thinking but not saying right now?

Which potential Democratic Party presidential nominee if elected to the presidency would be the least antagonistic toward the RKBA?

That would be James Webb, who is unlikely to win the nomination; but is stronger on RKBA than at least a few of the GOP nominees (Christie and Pataki for example). The next least antagonistic is Sanders, who not even two years voted to ban most semi-auto firearms, prohibit further transfers by those who own them and confiscate them upon death. Sooooooo....