Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

Your fallacies in this regard have already been established and rehashing your fallacies is not going to make them any less fallacious.

 

Incorrect. Whatever records were compiled pertained exclusively to which individuals were able-bodied, and were within the specified age range. Anyone who owned firearms and was under the age of eighteen, over the age of forty one, or who was a woman, were excluded from being recorded. Meaning there were a great many firearm owners who were not known about.

 

Hissyfits do not alter the FACT that Chris Cox was making a statement on behalf of the NRA as befits his executive position within the organization.

 

Let me reiterate...your fallacies in this regard have already been established and rehashing your fallacies is not going to make them any less fallacious.

 

Didn't this just register the existence of firearms that militia members brought to a muster? It didn't note any of the firearms owned by non-militia members nor could it note anything other than "rifle or musket" owned by those in the militia.

Was this registration an effort in gun control or to help solve criminal cases?

 

Pray tell precisely how so? How is any supposed fallacy presented on the part of myself, by the comparison of mental illness with intoxication being presented on the part of yourself?

 

Not to mention being classified as Mentally defective by UNQUALIFIED personnel.
Perfect grounds for a lawsuit.

This reminds Me of a time I was in an Emergency room for a severe nose bleed, and a crazy looking Nurse yells at me, your Bipolar right ?
And I asked, what gave you such a notion ?

You told me she answered, and I had said no such thing as I never utter or speak the word Bipolar, out loud in any verbal conversations with anyone.

I filed a professional standards grievance complaint with the State Nursing board.

 

Then is it being claimed by yourself that Chris Cox, executive director for the NRA, dictated what he wanted the article of the title to say? That was his choice, rather than the one who published the article? Is it being claimed that the title is more important than the whole of the article itself?

Be specific about what is trying to be claimed by yourself, and stop wasting time with vagueness.

 

In the instance of the Militia Acts the registry was necessary so that Congress and the POTUS would have accurate figures of the manpower and firearms available to defend the nation.

 

Since the explanation failed to achieve the goal in the first instance it would be a waste of time expecting it to be any more effective by repeating it again.

 

Fatuous strawman since no such "classification" is being made in the first place given that all that is happening is a red flag occurring because of certain prescribed medications.

 

Ironic given that the title speaks for itself and the article is nothing more than a clarification of the intent of the title.

 

If anyone is to be classified as Mentally defective in a way to make that person ineligible or prohibited from owning or acquiring firearms for any legal purposes, there is a burden of proof required as well as applicable legal standards as I learned in Medical Legal classes in College.

In My early days in E.M.S. I learned a valuable lesson in professional reporting and responsibilities, I had just attended those classes a few nights before, and we get an Ambulance call for burn victim, turned out to be a baby an infant, and the Mother had been ironing and she had the ironing board out, the infant had first and second degree burns and was going to Hospital regardless, everything was fine until I pressed her for an accurate account of how the child had been burned, and she told an outlandish story of the infant child climbing up the ironing board and getting burned, I excused myself and called central communications for an E.M.S. field Supervisor and a Police Sergeant, as I knew I was not qualified to decide anything in this case.

I was commended for My actions.

This is an example of bad law and execution thereof by UNQUALIFIED personnel.

 

And there is your fallacy, as it is not within professional standards of Medical reporting to redflag anyone for any prescribed medications by a qualified Physician or Psychiatrist as this would be in Direct violation of Doctor Patient confidentiality and would preclude many from seeking
Mental Health-care out of fear.

I know of zero medications that in and of themselves require any manner of notifications to Government due to Public safety concerns, not even Narcotics except triplicate Rxes with a D.E.A. copy for schedule Narcotics.

 

Only legislators, have a solution.

 

Once again you are making an assumption without looking at the proposal.

ONLY if someone applies to purchase a firearm they would need to undergo a background check and part of the process is granting PERMISSION to check against prescriptions for certain medications.

Since the patient has the right to waive that confidentiality it is on them, and no one else, if they want a gun.

 

Or, he/she will go see the drug/gun dealer and buy one that was imported with the smack. Nothing like new opportunities for the criminal class.

 

Also opening up opportunities for police to conduct sting operations to take down criminals dealing in guns.

 

As if they're not doing that now? BTW we know how successful the war on drugs has been going.

 

That has various names, Buy & Bust is a popular name.
I used to help out with that.

 

Write your legislators and insist on hot militia chics to get us, well regulated!

 

They can do that already.

 

Citywide Detectives were constantly calling unknown fresh faces to go out and do Buy & Bust, since too many Cops were too well known or burned to work stuff like that, so a neat disguise and Walla !

A bit of travel and nobody knows you, go to a local Pub and order a drink and see who is selling what for how much and try and buy it.

 

Meaning that it is not actually possible for yourself to demonstrate just what supposed fallacy is being referred to regarding the post presented myself. Exactly where is the fallacy to be found in stating that individuals who are mentally unstable, and who are known to be dangerous, have no place free in society where they can cause the most harm? What is the reason for not confining such individuals to the appropriate facilities for the duration of their natural lives?

 

Factually incorrect. The article being cited by yourself referred specifically to social security recipients who need assistance with governmental paperwork. There was absolutely no mention of prescribed medications anywhere in the entire article.