Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

[Buddha Dharma]

Licensing, training, mental capacity, law abiding

How interesting for a Libertarian

 

[Stanyon]

It did not attract a ton of attention at the time (nothing does these days) but about a year ago on February 28, 2017, Congress passed and Donald Trump signed a law revoking an Obama-era regulatory initiative that made it harder for people with mental illness to buy a gun.

Yet despite this effort to roll back even a very modest effort to restrain the ability of seriously incapacitated people from obtaining deadly weapons, this morning Trump tweeted that there were “so many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed,” implying that someone should have done something to report him.

But it’s Trump’s party — and Trump himself — who have consistently prevented the federal government from doing anything about this kind of situation. The Obama-era gun regulation wouldn’t have had a massive impact on gun violence in the US since it’s estimated that it would only affect about 75,000 people. And disability rights groups had their own objections to the bill so some liberal groups, including the ACLU, joined with the National Rifle Association in urging Trump to reverse it.

The box 11f on ATF form 4473 is still present and one must still pass the background check. The shooter in Vegas should not have been able to legally purchase or possess a firearm due to his record. The shooter in Florida was known to the F.B.I and supposedly made numerous threats, had he been reported and arrested for making terroristic threats he would have been barred from legally purchasing or owning firearms.

 

[Revoltingest]

How interesting for a Libertarian

We live in the real world, not some loopy libertarian paradise.
The most I can hope for is steering the political system
we have in the most libertarian direction achievable.

 

[Phantasman]

It did not attract a ton of attention at the time (nothing does these days) but about a year ago on February 28, 2017, Congress passed and Donald Trump signed a law revoking an Obama-era regulatory initiative that made it harder for people with mental illness to buy a gun.

Yet despite this effort to roll back even a very modest effort to restrain the ability of seriously incapacitated people from obtaining deadly weapons, this morning Trump tweeted that there were “so many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed,” implying that someone should have done something to report him.

But it’s Trump’s party — and Trump himself — who have consistently prevented the federal government from doing anything about this kind of situation. The Obama-era gun regulation wouldn’t have had a massive impact on gun violence in the US since it’s estimated that it would only affect about 75,000 people. And disability rights groups had their own objections to the bill so some liberal groups, including the ACLU, joined with the National Rifle Association in urging Trump to reverse it.

If you choose to follow NBC or Jimmy Kimmel, you are just following their views. There was more to it. Plus both Congressional sides enacted it.

Trump Nixed Gun-Control Rule - FactCheck.org

"Trump opposed the rule, the White House said, because it “could endanger the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.” Other critics of the SSA’s rule included the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, two groups that are usually on opposite sides on gun-related issues."

It was a "joint resolution" by both sides.

"That joint resolution didn’t affect all “people with severe mental illness,” as Kimmel’s comment may have suggested. It rescinded a Social Security Administration rule requiring the agency to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System disability applicants unable to manage their finances due to a mental health condition."

Facts matter. And NBC has been prven before of twisting or just down right changing the conclusions of them. I quit watching them once Jeffery Immelt (GE) purchased it. Went downhill after that, for me anyways.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you choose to follow NBC or Jimmy Kimmel, you are just following their views. There was more to it. Plus both Congressional sides enacted it.

Trump Nixed Gun-Control Rule - FactCheck.org

"Trump opposed the rule, the White House said, because it “could endanger the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.” Other critics of the SSA’s rule included the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, two groups that are usually on opposite sides on gun-related issues."

It was a "joint resolution" by both sides.

"That joint resolution didn’t affect all “people with severe mental illness,” as Kimmel’s comment may have suggested. It rescinded a Social Security Administration rule requiring the agency to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System disability applicants unable to manage their finances due to a mental health condition."

Facts matter. And NBC has been prven before of twisting or just down right changing the conclusions of them. I quit watching them once Jeffery Immelt (GE) purchased it. Went downhill after that, for me anyways.

Woe unto a country when the ex-host of The Man
Show becomes a primary source of news for many.
It was bad enuf when SNL skits became confused
with news.

 

[Phantasman]

Woe unto a country when the ex-host of The Man
Show becomes a primary source of news for many.
It was bad enuf when SNL skits became confused
with news.

If you watched today, the asist deputy AG said that 13 Russians have been indicted for causing "discourse" in the US with our electoral process, from the Mueller investigation. This was successful in that the MSM and the Democrats fell right into it. But don't expect them to apologize or even admit it. Those Russians are laughing, as the discourse was successful, bringing our democracy to an almost stand still in the US government.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you watched today, the asist deputy AG said that 13 Russians have been indicted for causing "discourse" in the US with our electoral process, from the Mueller investigation. This was successful in that the MSM and the Democrats fell right into it. But don't expect them to apologize or even admit it. Those Russians are laughing, as the discourse was successful, bringing our democracy to an almost stand still in the US government.

I don't think democracy is suffering all that much.
We've always had corruption of one kind of another.
Government grinds on as before....& perhaps more
smoothly than other times.

 

[Phantasman]

I don't think democracy is suffering all that much.
We've always had corruption of one kind of another.
Government grinds on as before....& perhaps more
smoothly than other times.

I just believe my own findings at the time (2014-2016) to follow a path of clarity I arrived at through seeking all sources rather than following MSM interjections.

Like I said, I was pro Obama in 2008. Then I saw the ruse.

In 2012, Obama's debate with Romney had him disagreeing with Romney that Russia was more of a threat to America than Al Quida. When Obama was elected second term, he all but dismissed ISIS in it's infancy. Meanwhile, Russia invaded Crimea. Obama was again dissociated from facts. Similar to the "you can keep your plan and your doctor" belief.

In 2016, Obama said that the electoral process was sound. His party agreed. But when Hillary lost, their view changed. Not very impressive to an independent voter.

The Dem-Rep fight goes on. If most independents are like me, they discard the views of the pundits on each side, get views on both sides of the coin, and vote from what is best for all Americans. Not just one party or another (to maintain control of any office). To understand what a candidate WILL do is judged by his past performances, not what he merely says.

This DACA deal is a good example. The Democrats (and many Reps) wanted to give an assurance to 800,000 former children from foreign countries, a chance to become American citizens (over deportation of immigration laws). The House minority leader and Senate minority leader touted that an act had to pass that would take care of this issue. The President went beyond that request, taking care of not only DACA children, but many foreigners that had overstayed Visas and other law violations that resulted in a weak border enforcement. But now, the Dems want more. It tells me that they don't care about the problem that created the issue, just the issue itself. Two party systems do not work that way. No side gets everything they want. Except for things like the ACA (Obamacare). And look how that worked out.

If the Dems are concerned about the DACA issue, I see what the WH proposed is a solution to what the Dems asked for and what the DACA children want. To milk it for more or nothing, is going to hurt the Dems and Reps who side with them, much more than the WH, who seems to have a solution all Americans can benefit from.

This deal seemed fair:

The legislation from a group of 16 bipartisan senators would offer nearly 2 million young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children before 2012 -- like those protected under DACA -- a path to citizenship over 10 to 12 years.
The plan would also place $25 billion in a guarded trust for border security, would cut a small number of green cards each year for adult children of current green card holders, and would prevent parents from being sponsored for citizenship by their US citizen children if those children gained citizenship through the pathway created in the bill or if they brought the children to the US illegally. Bipartisan DACA, border security deal fails in Senate - CNNPolitics

The vote was 54-45. This means that some Dems saw the benefit. If they cannot get 60 people to agree, 2018 will be interesting come vote time.

I see it this way. When you adopt a child, that doesn't mean you adopt the parents as well. But that is what the Dems want, and what immigration law prevents.

Just my view.

 

[Skipper]

If you choose to follow NBC or Jimmy Kimmel, you are just following their views. There was more to it. Plus both Congressional sides enacted it.

Trump Nixed Gun-Control Rule - FactCheck.org

"Trump opposed the rule, the White House said, because it “could endanger the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.” Other critics of the SSA’s rule included the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, two groups that are usually on opposite sides on gun-related issues."

It was a "joint resolution" by both sides.

"That joint resolution didn’t affect all “people with severe mental illness,” as Kimmel’s comment may have suggested. It rescinded a Social Security Administration rule requiring the agency to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System disability applicants unable to manage their finances due to a mental health condition."

Facts matter. And NBC has been prven before of twisting or just down right changing the conclusions of them. I quit watching them once Jeffery Immelt (GE) purchased it. Went downhill after that, for me anyways.

A society that loves it guns more than its children is a sick society.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A society that loves it guns more than its children is a sick society.

Spoiler: Possible language issue

 

[Curious George]

Concerning the tool argument... Keep in mind, I didn't propose a prohibition of guns. I proposed stricter gun control. That is the safety precaution to avoid public massacres caused by guns.

Sally of course gets to choose how to defend herself, but there will always be a notion of how to effectively defend oneself. If she chooses a lesser method, that is her volition. I'm not arguing one's right to defend themselves. I'm making the point that the most effective defense is based on the environment. It cannot be concluded without understanding the types of attackers, their experiences and the types of weapons used. That is the "environment." In our environment, the best defense that I would agree with is to own a gun with proper training. That is the environment we've created for ourselves. Hypothetically speaking, if there were no guns in the hands of criminals then we could suggest a lesser form of defense that would still constitute as effective. But as it is, guns have become the best form of defense. That is not the same as me saying Sally is forced to use a gun for her self-defense. She could still use any thing else but we could objectively measure her effectiveness from her choices given the environment she is in. I hope that makes sense.

The conundrum of weapons used for self-defense, is that these same weapons can turn around and be used for offense. There is absolutely no guarantee that all these weapons will maintain a position of defense. So the more these weapons enter the environment, the more the environment will basically be these weapons. It is a catch 22 that the NRA surely knows of and pushes on the American public. The equation of effectively defending against such an environment is a feedback loop. The weapons used for defense has to be the same weapons used from offense. So, although technically there is no forcing of anyone to choose a defense, the environment effectively forces the public to have to choose that defense.

I mean Sally could choose to use only pepper spray as her defense. But given the worst case scenario that an attacker would be a male and own a gun, is that the best scenario for her? What "choice" does she really have in this matter?

Again I see your point, you have no argument from me that were we in an environment where attackers owned no guns, less gun would be needed or useful. But this still misses the point. It is not for us to argue the utility. It is only for us to argue whether or not a restriction has compelling reasoning and whether that restriction is narrowly tailored to fit that reasoning.

Certainly utility can come into play during that conversation but the boundaries of that conversation must be set first. The boundaries are how we examine a possible restriction. Given the fundamental nature of self defense, the boundaries are very strict. If we were discussing something less fundamental we could use less scrutiny.

The problem is that when discussing this issue, people, coping with the suffering involved, want to find any fix. This rush means people are more likely to make rash decisions. While I wouldn't suggest that the topic should not be discussed, I think it is very important to remember the boundaries of the discussion. We must carefully weigh the harm that impeding a fundamental right would impose with the suffering it would alleviate.

 

[Curious George]

Woe unto a country when the ex-host of The Man
Show becomes a primary source of news for many.
It was bad enuf when SNL skits became confused
with news.

Lol, and nothing of the same rhetoric about woe to a country when an ex-reality TV show star becomes President.

We are just doomed on all fronts.

 

[Phantasman]

A society that loves it guns more than its children is a sick society.

I would agree with that statement. Love is not something you give to physical things over spiritual things.

 

[Phantasman]

Spoiler: Possible language issue

View attachment 20417

I disagree with that. It is a foolish comment of physical, not spiritual, understanding.

Christ rips people from their mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, etc. And God does it because he does care.

Luke:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Galatians:
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Matthew:
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

The teachings of the physical is apparent in the early catholic (small c) ideology. The spiritual knowledge is revealed, yet not accepted in favor of flesh.

What makes us a son of God (John 1) is to be born again, of Spirit. Our true mother and father. The Holy Spirit and God (the father).

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I disagree with that. It is a foolish comment of physical, not spiritual, understanding.

Christ rips people from their mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, etc. And God does it because he does care.

Luke:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Galatians:
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Matthew:
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

The teachings of the physical is apparent in the early catholic (small c) ideology. The spiritual knowledge is revealed, yet not accepted in favor of flesh.

What makes us a son of God (John 1) is to be born again, of Spirit. Our true mother and father. The Holy Spirit and God (the father).

No idea how you think this is helpful.

 

[Phantasman]

No idea how you think this is helpful.

I feel the same about the "spoiler".

 

[suncowiam]

Again I see your point, you have no argument from me that were we in an environment where attackers owned no guns, less gun would be needed or useful. But this still misses the point. It is not for us to argue the utility. It is only for us to argue whether or not a restriction has compelling reasoning and whether that restriction is narrowly tailored to fit that reasoning.

Certainly utility can come into play during that conversation but the boundaries of that conversation must be set first. The boundaries are how we examine a possible restriction. Given the fundamental nature of self defense, the boundaries are very strict. If we were discussing something less fundamental we could use less scrutiny.

The problem is that when discussing this issue, people, coping with the suffering involved, want to find any fix. This rush means people are more likely to make rash decisions. While I wouldn't suggest that the topic should not be discussed, I think it is very important to remember the boundaries of the discussion. We must carefully weigh the harm that impeding a fundamental right would impose with the suffering it would alleviate.

It's not just any fix...

It's a fix that has been implemented by many other Western developed nations which they have been successful with by factors of 10 to 100 when compared to the US. It's a very simple fix. It's just stricter gun control with actual enforcement. It limits the path to gun ownership through more training, more evaluations, and increases the cost to ensure safety and commitment. It's not rash at all. It is literally "control" of guns. This has been known for decades. I might be more vocal about this after every public massacre but this is definitely not an emotional appeal. If you read my first comment on this thread, I presented the correlation of more gun control to less gun violence from other Western nations. It's absolutely there. If anything, US is the counter example of this correlation because of the second amendment. The statistics do not lie. After every massacre since I've been on RF, which is about three now, I presented the same data.

 

[Curious George]

It's not just any fix...

It's a fix that has been implemented by many other Western developed nations which they have been successful with by factors of 10 to 100 when compared to the US. It's a very simple fix. It's just stricter gun control with actual enforcement. It limits the path to gun ownership through more training, more evaluations, and increases the cost to ensure safety and commitment. It's not rash at all. It is literally "control" of guns. This has been known for decades. I might be more vocal about this after every public massacre but this is definitely not an emotional appeal. If you read my first comment on this thread, I presented the correlation of more gun control to less gun violence from other Western nations. It's absolutely there. If anything, US is the counter example of this correlation because of the second amendment. The statistics do not lie. After every massacre since I've been on RF, which is about three now, I presented the same data.

I agree it is not just any fix. It is a fix that other countries have done that has severely diminished the ability for individuals to choose a gun to protect themselves. That infringement on their liberty is not a rational choice when the root problems still exist. The statistics don't lie, yet we commonly acknowledge that statistics can be manipulated to say nearly anything. And while I agree that gun violence would go down were we to implement your fix, I do not agree that the murder rate would go down. The murder rate in the U.S. is not astronomically higher than other developed nations.

Removing guns from murder with guns still leaves the murder. Yes deaths by guns will decrease. But will suicides decrease? What reason do you have to suggest that it will. Do suicide rates have a correlation with guns? Does murder? Gun violence does. Gun deaths do. And of course they do. Because we are discussing those murders and deaths related to guns.

So we are not talking about factors of 10 to 100. We are talking about questionable figures of 0-5 times when we discuss what we are actually trying to address.

If we are going to use statistics, let us at least try to do so honestly.

 

[suncowiam]

I agree it is not just any fix. It is a fix that other countries have done that has severely diminished the ability for individuals to choose a gun to protect themselves. That infringement on their liberty is not a rational choice when the root problems still exist. The statistics don't lie, yet we commonly acknowledge that statistics can be manipulated to say nearly anything. And while I agree that gun violence would go down were we to implement your fix, I do not agree that the murder rate would go down. The murder rate in the U.S. is not astronomically higher than other developed nations.

Removing guns from murder with guns still leaves the murder. Yes deaths by guns will decrease. But will suicides decrease? What reason do you have to suggest that it will. Do suicide rates have a correlation with guns? Does murder? Gun violence does. Gun deaths do. And of course they do. Because we are discussing those murders and deaths related to guns.

So we are not talking about factors of 10 to 100. We are talking about questionable figures of 0-5 times when we discuss what we are actually trying to address.

If we are going to use statistics, let us at least try to do so honestly.

I have no idea why you bring up suicide rate. It has nothing to with murders or gun violence. I won't address that.

We are addressing gun violence, right? So statistics on gun violence are exactly what's needed and that is exactly the data I presented. So trying to paint me as dishonest is well, quite dishonest. The fact that other Western nations have considerably less gun violence than us is not considered proper evidence? I find that preposterous. Other countries deal with their gun violence just fine without adding more guns to the population. They deal with it by taking more guns away from the population.

Since you brought up murder rates, here it is. This is rated by per million so it's normalized to ratio.
All countries compared for Crime > Violent crime > Murder rate per million people

US: 42.01
Japan: 3.97
UK: 11.68
Australia: 10.38

So again, US is leading other Western nations in the homicide rates by factors of 10 to 100.

You came to a conclusion prematurely without presented any data. There, I did it for you and it shows a similar correlation.

But then again, one only has to think it through to consider what weapon is best to commit a homicide. Obviously, the best weapon is a gun. Do I need to prove that also?

If you're willing to continue to call me dishonest while I'm the only one presenting statistics, then I have to say that you are simply already biased.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A society that loves it guns more than its children is a sick society.

One could also argue you wouldn't even have a free society to raise your children if it wasn't for guns.

Honestly you can't compare the two anyways.

Another thing is that people ought to stop calling young adults children.