1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Democrats and the NRA

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by jnoemanh, Jun 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    <<<Look for the Democrats to write legislation deeming anyone who has ever used mental health services to be deemed mentally adjudicated. >>>

    Nonsense. Adjudicated means adjudicated.
     
  2. Fast Oil

    Fast Oil TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    918
    Bet anyone here a dollar to donut that Congress CAN'T run this legislation through without adding a bunch of amendments(ie. gun control) Keep an eye on this one.
     
  3. The Rock

    The Rock Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,491
    All it will do is force some people that need help not get it on their own. I would not if it meant that I could not shoot anymore.

    Go see a shrink because of money problems or other non violent things that have you screwed up and a little worried and no more trap. All because you saw a shrink???

    Rock

    Jim
     
  4. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    Yep times have changed if you believe in fairy tales

    Bill Clinton will be the next president of the NRA?

    regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  5. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Sam, quote: "....This seems to be something both sides want. Anyone who wants mentally challenged people to own guns should have themselves checked out by a shrink. How can anyone be against this?"<br>
    <br>
    wireguy, quote: "Look for the Democrats to write legislation deeming anyone who has ever used mental health services to be deemed mentally adjudicated."<br>
    <br>
    jnoemanh, quote: "Nonsense. Adjudicated means adjudicated."<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Well, while these seems to be reasonable legislation on the surface, we still need to be very wary about the details. Past history tells us that....<br>
    <br>
    For example, who would have thought that a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would result in a gun ban for life?<br>
    <br>
    That non-ajudicated mental treatment for a huge number of veterans via the VA would result in their not being able to purchase a firearm? (And technically not own one.)<br>
    <br>
    I remember legislation back in the 1970's and 80's that would have banned gun ownership for any violence conviction, which by definition (according to the NRA) included a fistfight with another soldier in the military.<br>
    <br>
    What we have to be very careful about is when the politicians change the playing field after its been levelled. All they have to do is introduce legislation that rachets up the "loophole", as they like to call it. By the stroke of a pen, you suddenly find your rights evaporated because your status has been redefined.<br>
    <br>
    Is this good legislation? Again, on the surface, yes. But the devil is in the details, and with future changes.
     
  6. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    Certainly there are some things reasonable people can agree on, for example -

    If you've been diagnosed, and confirmed in a court of law, that you have a mental disorder which makes you a danger to yourself and others, you shouldn't have a gun.

    If you've previously been convicted of a violent crime, you shouldn't have a gun. If that crime is domestic violence, that counts too.

    If you're not a citizen or legal imigrant, you shouldn't have a gun.

    Not tough standards to meet. Don't want your right to own a gun taken away - don't commit the crime.
     
  7. Beancounter

    Beancounter TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    482
    Here it is folks, a reality check. If all legal gun owners joined together and voted and just once a year sent a 100 bucks to the NRA to maintain lobbying activities, we not even be having this conversation.

    If we had more folks, I would be totally against the NRA position. Fact is the leadership recognizes the spot we are in and is working hard to get out of it. without the support, the NRA would look pretty stupid trying to defend a get the heck out of here approach.

    did you notice how quickly the woman who drove her car into crowds of people in DC faded out of the spotlight? The media just did not want to push it. Fair?? No, but this it what we have. The NRA needs more members or there will be more comprimises. I don't like it but that is the way it is.
     
  8. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    The usual - it sounds good on the surface - but rotten to the core on the inside
     
  9. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    Defining adjudicated? Clinton tried to re-define the word "is". Which Liberal freak will try to redefine "adjudicated" to serve their purposes?

    There are some people that should not own guns. I have no problem with denying a mentally disturbed individual from purchasing one. I DO have a problem with denying that right to someone who had a temporary issue, such as grief, marital strife, financial troubles, etc. You need to provide a safety net in that legislation for those people. What about a husband or wife that is ordered to undergo mental health counselling/evaluation in a custody situation during a divorce? Would that preclude them from purchasing a firearm in the future?
     
  10. GunDr

    GunDr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,913
    "The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program."


    The part that puzzles me....is it "the judicially order to submit" that prevents you from possessing or would it be the results of the "psychiatric evaluation"?

    Somebody would be in deep "do-do" if they were to "flip-off" a politician, and that politician got a judge to "judicially order to submit" to psychiatric evaluation.
     
  11. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "BS, In this country you have the right to bear arms PERIOD, lets not fanagle that around PERIOD, if you give a fraction of an inch, in 20 years no one will have that right, wake UP people,"

    Aw, c'mon...you know better than that. The right to own full-autos was given up 70 years ago; the right to own bazookas and grenades never existed; the right to mail-order was given up 40 years ago; So where's your twenty year theory? It doesn't exist. That's just NRA style fearmongering.
     
  12. ANTRIM UDF

    ANTRIM UDF TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    212
    I payroll deduct money to the NRA every month. If each of us.....Just ask the Brits, Canandiens and the Aussies if the NRA is worth it!!
     
  13. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "Concerning this psychiatric issue, some states REQUIRE all people who get a divorce to go through COUNSELING, with a SHRINK."

    So what? Nobody is proposing that everyone who has seen a psychiatrist be prevented from owning a gun, only those who have been judged as a danger to others or themselves...but you already know that, don't you? Your claim that everyone who has had psychiatric counseling will be prevented from owning a gun is just more fearmongering, isn't it?

    And if you think states can't regulate guns...well the Courts disagree with you...Burton v. Sills...yep states CAN regulate guns. The Courts trump all other opinions, NRA, internet posters included.
     
  14. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "Hey, why don't you go back to the Brady site where you belong? Sarah is probably missing you. I wish you liberal anti-gun people would stay off the trapshooters website."

    Liberal? Yes. Anti-gun? No. However I can understand the court rulings and laws regarding gun ownership. Can you?

    You are entitled to your opinion as to what the 2nd guarantees..and you can tell it to the cops and the courts when they arrest you for carrying a Thompson.
     
  15. Tripod

    Tripod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,354
    Location:
    Iowa man!!
    just obey the ones we already have and we will be fine. any more will not stop the folks who don't obey anyway
     
  16. JohnBT

    JohnBT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    182
    "When the 2nd Amendment was written it meant that EVERYONE was to be able to have the same arms as the government, in order to protect ourselves from the government."

    You mean the women and the slaves could own guns too? You said everyone. Heck, they weren't even allowed to vote or in some cases own land.

    Only 20 states currently report court-ordered (adjudicated) mental health treatment to NICS. Nearly HALF of the involuntary committment reports in NICS are from Virginia. The local community service board dropped the ball on Cho and should have been following up on the court ordered treatment. They used to attend all of the committment hearings in that area, but stopped for some reason.

    John
    NRA Patron
    Member www.vcdl.org
     
  17. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,158
    What about gun ownership in Philly and Washington DC. They have the strictest gun laws, and the worse crime/murder rate in the US. Your more likely to be shot in Philly than Iraq. We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have.
     
  18. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Anyone that thinks that because one is liberal that they do not believe in the 2nd Amendment is a victim of the ignorant right-wing radio crowd.

    For you slow ones...Liberal does NOT mean democrat. Liberal does NOT mean anti-gun.

    Let me school some of you Fox(faux)News viewers what liberal ACTUALLY means.

    Liberal :1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

    Liberal :2 favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

    Liberal : favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression

    Now any of you that can talk smack about these things...well, you're just plain un-American and would be better suited in a totalitarian state such as 1938 Germany.


    Now...if you wanna replace liberal with democrat...you'll at least be right most of the time.

    Ya'll really should stop getting your definitions from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
     
  19. avidtrapshooter

    avidtrapshooter TS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    228
    we should form a malitia to protect this country from its own government that wants to control everything.
     
  20. avidtrapshooter

    avidtrapshooter TS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    228
    i can deal with things now but if they start trampling our rights to own guns whos to say we aren't going to lose the whole constitution some time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.