The Goat Pen

In this rare case, I agree with IB. Keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people is a very, very good thing. That is what might actually prevent another Newtown. Unlike the other claptrap that has been advanced by the leftists WRT guns.

Professor Tiger wrote:In this rare case, I agree with IB. Keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people is a very, very good thing. That is what might actually prevent another Newtown. Unlike the other claptrap that has been advanced by the leftists WRT guns.

Its kind of hard to pass legislation to fix a problem when you are functionally incapable of even identifying the problem.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-10.html

First Wife wrote:Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people.

As soon as the issue of mental illness came up at a Senate hearing on gun violence in January, Sen. Al Franken leapt in to say: "I want to be careful here -- that we don't stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population."

Liberals at ThinkProgress.org and The Huffington Post hailed Franken for his sensitivity. Can we check with the families of the children murdered by crazy people on the danger of "stigmatizing" the mentally ill?

Why do I get the impression that Ann did not misquote (nor take out of context) one Senator Franken....

innocentbystander wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:In this rare case, I agree with IB. Keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people is a very, very good thing. That is what might actually prevent another Newtown. Unlike the other claptrap that has been advanced by the leftists WRT guns.

Its kind of hard to pass legislation to fix a problem when you are functionally incapable of even identifying the problem.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-10.html

First Wife wrote:Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people.

As soon as the issue of mental illness came up at a Senate hearing on gun violence in January, Sen. Al Franken leapt in to say: "I want to be careful here -- that we don't stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population."

Liberals at ThinkProgress.org and The Huffington Post hailed Franken for his sensitivity. Can we check with the families of the children murdered by crazy people on the danger of "stigmatizing" the mentally ill?

Why do I get the impression that Ann did not misquote (nor take out of context) one Senator Franken....

In general don't have a problem with what Franken said, we do need to be careful because the way "mental illness" is classified if they jump off the deep end with it they may keep people that have ever had an episode of depression from getting a gun and that is just rediculous.

There are certian people with mental illness that have violent tendencys, and others that do not. You can't be right on everyone but some are violent and some are not. We need to deal with the known violent ones first. This is where I do have a problem with what Franken said because there is NOTHING WRONG with stigmatizing the violent mental illness. We need to be wary of those and know to watch them a little closer.

There's nothing wrong with stigmatizing idiocy, either. That's why I stigmatize you and IB...

Big Orange Junky wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:Its kind of hard to pass legislation to fix a problem when you are functionally incapable of even identifying the problem.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-10.html

Why do I get the impression that Ann did not misquote (nor take out of context) one Senator Franken....

In general don't have a problem with what Franken said, we do need to be careful

no we do not need to be careful

do you want to stop future Sandy Hooks? yeah me too. you do that by signing very exact, precise, gun legisaltion with respect to mental health. you got a mental health condition, you don't get a gun until you are "fixed." you got a son or a daughter with a mental health condition living in your house, you can't get a gun (and you must turn in all your guns to local law enforcement) until your son or daughter are "fixed."

Big Orange Junky wrote:because the way "mental illness" is classified if they jump off the deep end with it they may keep people that have ever had an episode of depression from getting a gun and that is just rediculous.

There are certian people with mental illness that have violent tendencys, and others that do not. You can't be right on everyone but some are violent and some are not. We need to deal with the known violent ones first. This is where I do have a problem with what Franken said because there is NOTHING WRONG with stigmatizing the violent mental illness. We need to be wary of those and know to watch them a little closer.

prior to Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza had never shot anyone before, not once in his life. this was a first time and last time shot (literally.) so stigmatizing violent mental illness, (one way or the other) does nothing. and worrying about previous episodes of violence for the mentally ill is much too late (be pro-active or don't do anything.) we can't wait for a "history" of violence here with the mentally ill

gun legislation (well really any legislation) must live in the world of absolutes or don't do it. period, end of story. people like Senator Franken will say what HE said because people with mental illness (and families who have children who are fucked up in the head) are more likely to go on government welfare assistance and are more likely to vote Democrat. those are his constituents. so OF COURSE we need to be careful about labeling these people because his re-election depends upon them being happy with him. Franken does not give a fuck about emotionally stable gun owners who don't have mental illness (or gun owners whose chilren are emotionally stable unlike Adam Lanza's mom in Sandy Hook) because those people DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT

Im thinking IB needs to be put on the watch list next to the Boston bombers mama. Dude is wacko. When CNN comes calling, I will be the first to tell them so.

Sadly, Andy Coulter and IB are mistaken - there is no crazy-mass-murder constituency for dems. It is a known fact that ninety eight and a half percent of all spree/serial killers since Charlie Whitman have been white-or-asian male rwnj psychopaths (the lone exception - Malvo and Muhammed, the DC snipers who were staunchly apolitical-bordering-on-libertarian).

bluetick wrote:Sadly, Andy Coulter and IB are mistaken - there is no crazy-mass-murder constituency for dems.

there is not a crazy-mass-murder constituency for dems.

there IS a perminant disability constituency (whether it be physical or mental) where the recpient gets Social Security at age 45 or whatever, for the Dems. they don't like it if they have their guns taken from them. and if they are 42 year old three-times-divorced women who suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder, who have taken multiple restraining orders out against each of their three previous husbands because, well, just because she was 'afraid', she is REALLY not going to like it if she has to turn in her guns because she was diagnosed BPD

bluetick wrote: It is a known fact that ninety eight and a half percent of all spree/serial killers since Charlie Whitman have been white-or-asian male rwnj psychopaths

they were insane

bluetick wrote:(the lone exception - Malvo and Muhammed, the DC snipers who were staunchly apolitical-bordering-on-libertarian).

Mohammed and the Boston Bombers were staunchly Muslim-bordering-on-fundamental

innocentbystander wrote:
Mohammed and the Boston Bombers were staunchly Muslim-bordering-on-fundamental

James Allen Muhammed, not Mohammed. Prosecuters claimed he went on the rampage as part of a plot to kill his ex-wife and get out of paying child-support (something you would never condone...but you DO understand the sentiment, right?)

Christie: Obama Kept Every Promise

http://local.msn.com/christie-obama-kep ... -storm-aid

bluetick wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:
Mohammed and the Boston Bombers were staunchly Muslim-bordering-on-fundamental

James Allen Muhammed, not Mohammed. Prosecuters claimed he went on the rampage as part of a plot to kill his ex-wife and get out of paying child-support (something you would never condone...but you DO understand the sentiment, right?)

i understand the sentiment and i understand that you can read wiki. i also understand that telling a 16 year old boy laying in the trunk of my car to shoot random people with a sniper rifle as they are pumping gas, is not going to do anything to help kill my ex-wife or get me out of paying child support. but if might get me 72 virgins in paradise as killing these infidels is commanded of me in the Koran, Allah Akbar!

S & P Reaches New High - WSJournal

I hope IB is on the FBI & Russian radar.

"It is a known fact that ninety eight and a half percent of all spree/serial killers since Charlie Whitman have been white-or-asian male rwnj psychopaths (the lone exception - Malvo and Muhammed, the DC snipers who were staunchly apolitical-bordering-on-libertarian)."

tick's racism makes me weep...

I'm all for keeping crazy people away from guns. And I'm open minded to laws that seek to do that. But who gets to make that determination?

Do the police get to decide a person is too dangerous to own a gun? Do judges? And what are the criteria? Conservatives have reason to be concerned since a lot of liberals consider conservatism to be a dangerous mental illness. The forces of tolerance, pluralism and diversity might strip people of their 2A rights for being a member of the tea party or an evangelical church.

Keeping crazy people from possessing guns is complicated.

Professor Tiger wrote:I'm all for keeping crazy people away from guns. And I'm open minded to laws that seek to do that. But who gets to make that determination?

Do the police get to decide a person is too dangerous to own a gun? Do judges? And what are the criteria?

In Massachusetts (a state that might have the strictest gun control laws in the country) it is pretty straight forward for anything NOT held with one hand.

If you want a rifle or a shotgun, you must first apply for an FID card. That cost a few bucks, not that much. Then "the State of Massachusetts" does some kind of "background check" (which is probably some state civil servant calling law enforcement agencies in your town in which you live to see if there are any restraining orders against you, since those are public records) and if there isn't, in 30 days, you get an FID card and you can walk into any gun store in the state and buy a rifle or shotgun and ammunition.

Pistol? That is far more subjective.

A Massachusetts pistol permit is entirely at the whim of the "Chief of Police" in your town. You go to your Police Chief and "ask" for a pistol permit. In 99 cases out of 100, the "Chief" will ask four questions: are you a Bail Bondsman? Do you work security/armed guard? Are you a Private Investigator? Do you own your own business where you are constantly interfacing with "the public?" Answer yes to any of those four and you will probably be given permission to buy a hand gun. Otherwise, the "Chief" could just say "no" and (well) if you want a hand gun, you'll have to MOVE.

Professor Tiger wrote:Conservatives have reason to be concerned since a lot of liberals consider conservatism to be a dangerous mental illness. The forces of tolerance, pluralism and diversity might strip people of their 2A rights for being a member of the tea party or an evangelical church.

Keeping crazy people from possessing guns is complicated.

You would have to involve mental health providers and they would have to violate current HIPPA laws that protect the confidentiality of patient health care information. So if you are being "treated" for some kind of health condition, the psychiatrist would be mandated (by law) to inform some kind of buearocratic agency at the Federal level that had some kind of "oversight" of firearms at the state level, to then DENY you the right to buy and infact, mandate that you "turn in" any firearms you currently own until you get a clean bill of mental health from the person that is treating you.

Yeah, looking at it like that (in a way to prevent future Sandy Hooks) that does seem a little complicated. And it is also very error prone (what forces these psychatrists to turn over that information to the government?) But that is the kind of legislation that is needed.

That kind of legislation would be beyond idiotic. Despite violating the sanctity of patient privilege, these two issues

-Many crazies would not seek treatment if they thought they would be ratted out. If I'm the paranoid crazy with a gun, I'm not going. Ever.

-if it were a law, most psychiatrists would submit everyone's name. Why run the risk of treating someone and suffer if one of your patients snapped? So, dealing with some mild depression and going to therapy? Yeah, you're going on the list. Defensive medicine.

-what if the psychiatrist is just anti-gun?

No, this whole idea is absurd.

AlabamAlum wrote:That kind of legislation would be beyond idiotic. Despite violating the sanctity of patient privilege, these two issues

-Many crazies would not seek treatment if they thought they would be ratted out. If I'm the paranoid crazy with a gun, I'm not going. Ever.

-if it were a law, most psychiatrists would submit everyone's name. Why run the risk of treating someone and suffer if one of your patients snapped? So, dealing with some mild depression and going to therapy? Yeah, you're going on the list. Defensive medicine.

-what if the psychiatrist is just anti-gun?

No, this whole idea is absurd.

So was the last comprehensive gun control bill. That too was absurd because it would have done ZERO to stop future Sandy Hooks.

We all want the same thing, to stop crazy people from touching guns while at the same time, we want sane people to be able to arm themselves against would be felons. Suggestion box is wide open so.... what say you?

I feel safe enough. I think the best course is dont waste money and time on any new regulations.