Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

Ron, why do you ask totally ridiculous questions? I mean it's SOP for libs, but you've taken it to the next level.

 

None of which does anything to change the fact that it will be the opinion of the physician in question that is ultimately used as the basis of evidence against the accused. Meaning constitutional rights are removed without due process of law, because physicians have decided to engage in politics rather than practicing medicine.

Are those who are mentally unstable enough to be regarded as dangerous, in fact synonymous with ex-felons? The two standards are one in the same with no difference between them?

 

You need to catch up. Libs define mental illness as anyone that disagrees with their agenda of the collective... they don’t figure anyone sane could not want to conform.

 

"Jim, I am just a Country Doctor !
Bones McCoy Star Trek TOS.

 

no, the person can appeal the longer seizure of gun rights.

 

we ban ex-felons from possessing firarms.

I guess you oppose this.

 

Im following his logic.

try reading the thread before responding

 

No, we pretend that ex-felons are only dangerous with firearms and not any other lethal weapon, and that banning them means that they can't get a weapon through straw purchases, FFL diversions, illegal street sales or theft. It's pure security theater.

 

No Ron, you make statements or ask questions based upon fantasy and wishful thinking and somehow expect to either be believed or taken seriously.

 

Yes, people can still commit suicide without a firearm but it is NOT as easy and therefore there is time for intervention. While I agree that is is possible that the overall suicide rate may not diminish significantly there are significant advantages to keeping guns away from the mentally unstable. Law enforcement knows that they have to deal with "suicide by cop" and for a normal person having to live with knowing that they killed an innocent person who was literally in desperate need of help has got to be a troubling thing to have to live with for the rest of your life.

When it comes to mass shootings there are now entire websites devoted to the subject they have become so prevalent.

http://www.shootingtracker.com/

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

That is ONLY FOUR MONTHS worth of gun violence in this year alone.

Not asking for a registry of mentally unstable people. I am asking for a registry of PRESCRIPTIONS for certain drugs to be compared to the UBC registry when someone wants to buy a gun. All it does is send up a red flag than needs to be green lighted by a physician.

 

In summary gun owners are afraid of smart gun technology.

Got it!

When driving on the highway and forced to slam on the brakes what smart technology keeps drivers from losing control of the vehicle? What happens if there is an impact and the driver and/or passengers failed to put on safety belts? Do the airbags fail to deploy?

Must We the People do away with all of that safety because it is too complicated for the average driver to understand?

The reality is that life and death situations like that occur on the roads on a daily basis and lives are saved by smart technology.

Just because the gun industry is too scared of the NRA to implement smart technology does not mean that We the People cannot move forward and legislate that all guns must be retrofitted with it and all new guns must come with it as standard.

The REALITY is that We the People have had enough and are demanding an end to the slaughter and the irony is that the NRA has no one else to blame but themselves for this situation.

 

Isn't that like calling the EXPERTS who know how to deal with FIRES and PREVENT a bunch of "far left politically motivated fanatics"?

EXPERTS who care about the LIVES of the mentally unstable and small children actually want to keep them SAFE from firearms!

Too bad that the Parkland kids are motivating We the People to remove the NRA obstructionists from Congress in 2018 and 2020 so that our children and the mentally unstable can be free from the menace of firearms.

 

Too bad that pulling the trigger means that none of the "societal issues" that are causing the mental instability are ever addressed.

Perhaps if there weren't any triggers to pull there would be more pressure on addressing those societal issues.

And no, you did not answer the question, you just deflected from it.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/319859-nra-the-mentally-ill-have-gun-rights-too

 

The glaring FALLACY of the above can be illustrated by applying it to everyone who goes to a bar and has a few too many. According to the above the danger posed by the person who over imbibes has nothing to do with them driving in that state but instead they must be incarcerated just for drinking in the first place.

The solution is to TAKE AWAY THEIR CAR KEYS thus removing the DANGER that they pose to themselves and others.

The SAME SOLUTION applies to the mentally unstable. Taking away their firearms removes the danger to themselves and others.

That this OBVIOUS SOLUTION is ignored and the asinine idiocy above was even proposed says volumes about those who cannot abide by any sane and reasonable solution that actually addresses the problem itself.

 

Ironic given that your FALLACY about the Founding Fathers was EXPOSED when you failed miserably regarding the FACTS pertaining to the Militia Acts of 1792.

 

Too bad you didn't provide SQUAT to support that allegation of yours.

Instead we can look at some ACTUAL FACTS and see if your allegation has any merit.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211925/

https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-conditions/related-conditions/suicide

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/12/5993075/depression-suicide-13-facts

Did not find anything at all that supported your fallacious allegation and the FACTS from NCBI and NAMI refuted it.

 

That's a stupid post. Do you ever post anything of substance? You go on the list of people not worth reading.

 

Oh, the IRONY is all respects!

 

Nearly every shooting in those lists are by people who are not allowed to own guns, ie, gang and drug related violence. The modal number of deaths is one, and the modal number of injuries is four. That's the bare minimum to even make the list. Almost none are committed by people who would be prevented by your plan from owning guns. You would be better served looking at the Mother Jones numbers.

One, it would create a partial list of gun owners, ie, a registry. Thats against federal law. Two, it creates a new category of prohibited person. That would need to be changed by Congress. Three, it would violate HIPAA privacy and be opposed by all of the aforementioned mental health organizations that opposed the SSA rule recently overturned. Four, it would encourage those needing treatment to avoid to stay off of the government's list. Lastly, it doesn't prevent a person from getting a gun through straw purchase, FFL diversion, illegal street sales, theft, and in most states, private sales.

 

Well in that case lets ban all building greater than 5 stories and all bridges in the process. Just remember the liberal mantra " if you can just save one life it's ok to ban."

 

So instead of CHANGING Federal Laws to DEAL with the problem we must throw them all out because criminals don't obey the law!

That fallacy is worn out and debunked!

Right now we can COMPROMISE on a SOLUTION or the NRA can wait until it's influence in Congress is nullified and it has no option but to just accept what We the People are going to do to stop the slaughter.

 

Fatuous puerile drivel ignored for obvious reasons.

 

And what will the basis be for the patient making the argument that their physician does not have a clue what they are talking about? How will the accused be able to demonstrate in a court of law that the opinion of one who is legally regarded as an expert in the field of medicine, knows less than the patient they are employed to provide care for? Explain such. How will the individual whose constitutional rights are being violated, demonstrate conclusively that the violation is without basis?

 

Try actually answering the question as it was presented to yourself, rather than trying to change the subject from mentally unstable individuals who are known to be dangerous, to that of ex-felons.