NRA cuts secret deal with the dems to ban buyers

[Titan6]

Potato - I told you before I am no medical professional. But I am not deaf or blind either. That was the .mil link the docs gave me to look at and I recall clearly what they said. If the information is dated it matters little since the docs were using it and you have not refuted it anyway.

In any case it matters not. Once you go down that road the path only gets wider not more narrow. As with loss of gun rights for ''felons'' who commit crimes like DUI or involuntary manslaughter and are done forever in most cases so it will become with this. Defend gun right removal if you like but don't expect any support from me.

 

[PotatoJudge]

Titan6, no offense intended. I was only pointing out, for the benefit of everyone else reading (especially since many expressed concern and fear over the criteria you were citing), that

Feels the need to carry a weapon in situations where none is needed such as driving to work or on a picnic.

is definitely NOT an official piece of the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis, and further, that no self-respecting doctor would use that singular piece of information to make ANY diagnosis, PTSD or otherwise. There is actually nothing in the DSM (the profession-wide standard for psychological diagnosis) that references any sort of heightened measures of defense (as in carrying a gun) as a factor in PTSD, only increased arousal/hypervigilance are cited. And hypervigilance isn't the situational awareness discussed in Strategies and Tactics - it's a pathological state that consistently interferes with your ability to live a normal, functioning life.

 

[camacho]

2. There is no part of this bill that would compel private practices and HMO’s to release their patient’s mental health records.

Everything I have read about this legislation has not mention of anything like that. Furthermore, I believe this will be in violation of HIPPA.

 

[Caimlas]

Diagnostic criteria not essential for understanding of the diagnosis? Also, they misspelled copyrighted.

They also misspelled "because" as "becuase".

Everything I have read about this legislation has not mention of anything like that. Furthermore, I believe this will be in violation of HIPPA.

From my recollection of HIPPA, it most certainly is. But you must realize that government is not responsible to obey the laws they make. Laws are for subjects, not rulers.

For those who support denying those who have been declared crazy by the state from owning firearms, let me ask you: can you cite a single case before the Brady law was put into place where a crazy person used a firearm in a crime?[/i] I doubt there are many, if any. I know schizophrenics and bipolar people who are great people who are fully functional with medication. They're not dangerous while off it, just "crazy".

Most 'crazy people' aren't dangerous. They have behavioral problems and can not typically do basic things, or do not function normally, without some sort of assistance - whether it be deal with modernities like credit cards, read and write, and drive. Many of them would've functioned just fine within society 50+ years ago, and would likely have had no problem possessing firearms. Should savants be disallowed to own firearms? How about "retards"? I see no reason why not, unless they've been shown to be dangerous.

If a person can function well enough to work a job, rent or own a house, and even drive, then there is no reason to prevent them from owning firearms. If they're so crazy they've got to be committed on a long-term basis, that's another story entirely - but those people aren't the types who are allowed so much as their own razor blade or money management, let alone to go out and buy a gun.

This is NOT about "enforcing existing legislation". Laws do not enforce legislation, it is the legislation. This is new legislation, and it amends the law. I don't know how a person could reasonably say this law does nothing.

Additionally, this law only prevents fringe cases like Cho - a case which, lest we forget, could've been greatly mitigated if VATech had simply obeyed the law and not infringed upon the rights of the students and faculty, not to mention the apparent incompetence of the campus and local police to act appropriately to the morning events (by shutting down campus) - or, even earlier by the campus faculty if they'd attempted to help the guy out (as he was obviously disturbed).

Don't any of you remember how everyone here on THR saw this coming after Cho shot up VT? How we said someone would invariably try to push more restrictions on firearm purchases as a result, and how we wouldn't have it? Yeah, that's what this is.

 

[Zundfolge]

neverfreakinmind

I'm sick of arguing with the all or nothing crowd. I give up.

Sure, you'll all be able to claim Ideological Purity while you're sitting in the camps.

 

[oldfart]

Everybody seems to want to look at this issue from some different point of view. Let me open up a slightly different vista here.

First, we need to decide who is our enemy. Some will say that we are our own worst enemy. We've already heard from some of them. But when it comes to gun rights I think we all agree that our primary enemy is all those liberals, elected, appointed and just plain hanging around, that want us to either give up our guns or at least register them - which we know would lead to confiscation sometime in the future.
We can further define them by name and Carolyn McCarthy sits right near the top of the pile alongside Lautenberg, Clinton, Schumer and the guy in the back row at the city council meeting that wants all the handguns banned.
Now then, do we help our emeny? Well, perhaps if he/she is trying to decide whether or not to jump off a cliff but not if they're trying to write another piece of "sensible" legislation that will do 'nothing to harm our right to hunt ducks.'
Look at it this way: If a Stormtrooper is taking you off to a gas chamber, do you help him by getting smartly into line or do you fight, scream and kick dirt on his boots? Obviously, some here would actually polish those boots before they got into line. After all, we wouldn't want the Stormtroopers Union thinking badly of us, now would we?
NICS and Brady checks may very well be here to stay. But we don't have to help them become more efficient. That's too much like making the gas chambers more efficient.
Now then, for those of you who will claim that I'm going overboard on the gas chamber thing; I'm sure there were a lot of Germans who thought so too in 1938! While I might well be wrong, what if I'm right?

 

[JohnBT]

"NICS and Brady checks may very well be here to stay. But we don't have to help them become more efficient."

Okay, have it your way, let's leave Congress to write the new NICS law on their own with NO INPUT from us the gun owners. And writing laws is what they do, with our involvement or without our involvement.

Really, you can't be serious. You must be trying to make things worse for all gun owners.

John

 

[Fburgtx]

Caimlas- quote -"can you cite an incident before the Brady Law took effect in which a crazy person used a gun in a crime"???


Uh, yeah, I think his name was John Hinckley. If I recall, he shot President Reagan and James Brady. Pretty sure he was crazy (remember all the Jodie Foster stuff????) He's the reason why we have so many of our ridiculous gun laws today.....

 

[gunsmith]

so what else does the bill cover other then crazy people?

it looks as if other things, like minor non violent crimes are considered, am I wrong?
I hope I am!

can you cite an incident before the Brady Law took effect in which a crazy person used a gun in a crime"???

in early December of 1980 nut case Mark Chapman shot John Lennon.
A year later President Reagan and Jim BRADY were shot....leading to the BRADY bill.

both Hinkly and Chapman deserve the death penalty imo

 

[HiroProX]

PotatoJudge, the "best" in this case, is absolutely unacceptable.

And I believe I have quite legitimate grounds to ask what the NRA's long term goals are.

Repeal of the Hughs Amendment to the FOPA? Repeal of the GCA of 68? Repeal of the NFA? Those are the goals I want. Compromise, got us into this mess. We compromised, the antis didn't.

So it's time to play hardball and make THEM compromise.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

We compromised, the antis didn't.

Not true. The antis want complete confiscation of firearms. We still have firearms. They compromised also.

 

[HiroProX]

Not true. The antis want complete confiscation of firearms. We still have firearms. They compromised also.

No, they just put off their goal for a future date. We on the other hand have lost rights, and they aren't coming back short of some serious changes that look more and more unlikely every single day. Net result, we lose.

You do not win by fighting holding actions, you go on the offensive, outflank, and route your opponent. Cut off their retreat and go for full victory. As it stands, we may have won some battles, but we are losing the war. That would indicate that present strategies are not working.

 

[gunsmith]

I "feel your pain" Hiro but I gently disagree

but we are losing the war.

Look how far we have come in regards to CCW, 30 years ago many places today that have CCW did not back then.

Instant gratification would be super, but winning the Parker case was sweet too.
Now we need a sweeping victory in SCOTUS.

 

[Mike128]

Gunsmith,

The Parker case does not involve the NRA. It is being brought on by a private individual.

I think a lot of people are wondering what their dues are going for since we do not see the actions the NRA is taking, especially on the local level. We keep getting the same old it's a secret plan to ensure gun freedoms. What are the exact goals the NRA is trying to achieve?

In Md I lost faith this past year in the NRA and put my dues into local organizations instead. When the semi-auto ban was being debated the NRA rep submitted a written report and left. Out of over 200 private individual that were there no one saw or heard from him. The local organization leaders where the ones that got people out, talked to the reps, and basically stopped the bill from leaving committee.

 

[JohnBT]

"I think a lot of people are wondering what their dues are going for since we do not see the actions the NRA is taking, especially on the local level."

By federal law, dues cannot be used for lobbying. That's why the NRA created the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF. Spelled out, they're the Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund. They raise their own money.

I belong to a local organization and the NRA.

John

 

[Ryder]

These distinctions are important

To who and for how long? Expect the infringement to go beyond involuntary commital. Proof is in Lautenburg.

They are registering people for future discrimination. The Dems will eventually use the medical database to cut the number of legal gun owners in half. Guaranteed.

 

[Justin]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!