Trump takes executive action to ban bump stocks that turn rifles into automatic weapo

[BotanyBoy]

I trust that by now you've learned just how much of an empty gesture this was on the President's part.

Dude's a showman, never forget that.

Would you consider an "assault weapons" ban just as equally empty of a gesture on (D)'s part?

 

[Weird Harold]

Anything he does will be too little, too late.

Remind me, what gun legislation did Obama/Reid/Pelosi pass?

Well there was that Obama executive order adding mental patients to the national database for background checks, but Trump reversed that with an executive order of his own.

 

[islandman]

Would you consider an "assault weapons" ban just as equally empty of a gesture on (D)'s part?

An empty gesture is an empty gesture and especially so when you're asking the tooth fairy to "make it happen, Jeff".

 

[phrodeau]

How does Trump's response compare to Obama's so far? Here is a video comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHrvODeA8-E

 

[BotanyBoy]

An empty gesture is an empty gesture and especially so when you're asking the tooth fairy to "make it happen, Jeff".

 

[islandman]

And that's an empty gesture as well irrespective of whether you're an R, D, C, U, N or T.

 

[Que]

Well there was that Obama executive order adding mental patients to the national database for background checks, but Trump reversed that with an executive order of his own.

A valid point.

Social Security disability claimants with *any* SMI is a bridge prettty far. I would be reluctantly ok with the Obama EO if it also listed any and every mental patient and had some sort of process to be adjudicated "fit." Why just the ones on SSI?

I realize though that my idea is completely impractical no matter who you put the burden on. From a civil liberty standpoint it's just wrong to put the burden on the accused to prove that he's fit. On the other hand it would be an absolute nightmare for the government to go through an adjudicate each person that is not fit.

Part of the problem is that there's really no way to administer any of this with the size that we are. When you were talking a small town everybody knew who you were talking about when you said that boy ain't right. In larger cities how do you administer that?

Arizona CPS ( Child Protective Services) was rightly excoriated for some just horrifically bad judgement calls. They completely revamped agency trying to shut all that even change their name now to DCS ( Department of Child Services.)

I had occasion to bump into the old version, and more recently have worked with a newer version. The old case workers were obviously harried and overworked. The new ones are a little bit less burdened and it shows. It took lots and lots of money.

Just like in the past, the balance is trying to keep children in homes where they belong in the homes and helping those parents as needed to be better parents or to have the basic essentials that you need to have in a home to have a child for example a home without a crib for an infant is not safe... balanced against removing children that should never have to stay in that home.

Same challenges with trying to classify individuals with a wide array of presenting mental disorders, many of which look similar especially with comorbid conditions.

In general, there should be the ability for your local sheriff of PD to refer for evaluation, for that evaluation to include access to medical records, and for the mental healthcare professional to both issue a weapons prohibition, but to also accrue liability for getting it wrong.

If we are talking about infringing on anyones rights, lets start with those with criminal histories, then those with law enforcement contact and erratic behavior, then lets look at classifications of crazies last.

Law-abiding citizens with no conract with law-enforcement, no history of erratic behavior, and no history of mental history or treatment shouldnt even be mentioned in this discussion. The fact that they are speaks volumes about agendas.

Just as you cannot operate a motor vehicle impaired I would be 100% okay with a prohibition on purchase, possession of, or accesses to firearms when one is on any psychotropic medication. I'm fine with a person who finds them self in that situation being required by law to seek a doctor's note to get around that. That burden I feel is reasonable.

 

[Hypoxia]

Does anyone recall Western flicks where a gunman 'fans' his six-shooter for rapid fire?

 

[BobBalouski]

The Tool took a big hit from his core when he reneged on his campaign stance to pimp 680,000 illegals eligible for amnesty/eventual citizenship; it turned into an even bigger hit when he then increased that # to 1.8 million. Then he piled-on on even more national debt...

...and now he's actually going to pimp more gun control?



He's never had the RINOs, and if the House doesn't save his butt from his pimp for amnesty he'll have lost a big chunk of his core, and the more gun control he now pimps, the more "conservatives" he'll lose, too.

Maybe enough RINOS and progressives will end-up swinging around for him...

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

 

[Que]

Does anyone recall Western flicks where a gunman 'fans' his six-shooter for rapid fire?

That was because those last single-action wheel guns were the last more-than-one-shot guns on the planet besides lever-action rifles, pump-action shotguns and bolt-action sniper rifles that were not semi-automatic.

The hero would not have done that with a simple double-action revolver.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And that's an empty gesture as well irrespective of whether you're an R, D, C, U, N or T.

Oh man I'm REALLY sorry I didn't offer you a truly fulfilling response both spiritually and intellectually.

 

[coachdb18]

A valid point.

Social Security disability claimants with *any* SMI is a bridge prettty far. I would be reluctantly ok with the Obama EO if it also listed any and every mental patient and had some sort of process to be adjudicated "fit." Why just the ones on SSI?

I realize though that my idea is completely impractical no matter who you put the burden on. From a civil liberty standpoint it's just wrong to put the burden on the accused to prove that he's fit. On the other hand it would be an absolute nightmare for the government to go through an adjudicate each person that is not fit.

Part of the problem is that there's really no way to administer any of this with the size that we are. When you were talking a small town everybody knew who you were talking about when you said that boy ain't right. In larger cities how do you administer that?

Arizona CPS ( Child Protective Services) was rightly excoriated for some just horrifically bad judgement calls. They completely revamped agency trying to shut all that even change their name now to DCS ( Department of Child Services.)

I had occasion to bump into the old version, and more recently have worked with a newer version. The old case workers were obviously harried and overworked. The new ones are a little bit less burdened and it shows. It took lots and lots of money.

Just like in the past, the balance is trying to keep children in homes where they belong in the homes and helping those parents as needed to be better parents or to have the basic essentials that you need to have in a home to have a child for example a home without a crib for an infant is not safe... balanced against removing children that should never have to stay in that home.

Same challenges with trying to classify individuals with a wide array of presenting mental disorders, many of which look similar especially with comorbid conditions.

In general, there should be the ability for your local sheriff of PD to refer for evaluation, for that evaluation to include access to medical records, and for the mental healthcare professional to both issue a weapons prohibition, but to also accrue liability for getting it wrong.

If we are talking about infringing on anyones rights, lets start with those with criminal histories, then those with law enforcement contact and erratic behavior, then lets look at classifications of crazies last.

Law-abiding citizens with no conract with law-enforcement, no history of erratic behavior, and no history of mental history or treatment shouldnt even be mentioned in this discussion. The fact that they are speaks volumes about agendas.

Just as you cannot operate a motor vehicle impaired I would be 100% okay with a prohibition on purchase, possession of, or accesses to firearms when one is on any psychotropic medication. I'm fine with a person who finds them self in that situation being required by law to seek a doctor's note to get around that. That burden I feel is reasonable.

Liberals continue to push the health care debate, which is bad enough. But they've been trying to jump the shark by relating guns and 2A support to mental illness, going so far as to try for getting ones personal physician to question whether their patients have guns their homes, and then to report that to Federal authorities as a 'health care issue'. Like their tyrant Obama, who weaponized the IRS and used it that way against the Tea Party, liberals now want to use the health care system as the national bludgeon to strip the second amendment and infringe with impunity. It seems no matter what the issue, liberals want to put on a brown shirt and go full tilt Nazi. Can you imagine having to take a lawyer with you to your doctor, and your doctor having to advise you of your Miranda rights just to get a physical exam? Jesus take the wheel!!!!

 

[ChinoMoreno]

i dont get why earlier gun people were saying that banning bump stocks wasnt a big deal but now that they are banned they are saying that hey the anti gun people got a lot. how can both things be true im not a gun guy myself but i get that people dont want to lose rights.

 

[Hypoxia]

i dont get why earlier gun people were saying that banning bump stocks wasnt a big deal but now that they are banned they are saying that hey the anti gun people got a lot. how can both things be true im not a gun guy myself but i get that people dont want to lose rights.

You have the right to shoot or be shot. That's pretty basic.

 

[BobBalouski]

i dont get why earlier gun people were saying that banning bump stocks wasnt a big deal but now that they are banned they are saying that hey the anti gun people got a lot. how can both things be true im not a gun guy myself but i get that people dont want to lose rights.

If you'd actually like to "get" what the simple word "true" means, you might smart with whatever pimped your brain that "now that they are banned" isn't, at all.

 

[Weird Harold]

A valid point.

Social Security disability claimants with *any* SMI is a bridge prettty far. I would be reluctantly ok with the Obama EO if it also listed any and every mental patient and had some sort of process to be adjudicated "fit." Why just the ones on SSI?...

Because those are the mental patients the government has information on to add to the database?

Granted, it was an incomplete solution to getting mental patients into the database, but some is better than none. I would be OK with getting similar information about psychotropic prescriptions and mental health concerns through the VA and DOD medical establishments, too. Still incomplete but better than none.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

If you'd actually like to "get" what the simple word "true" means, you might smart with whatever pimped your brain that "now that they are banned" isn't, at all.

lol man wtf are you talking about ?

 

[Que]

Because those are the mental patients the government has information on to add to the database?

Granted, it was an incomplete solution to getting mental patients into the database, but some is better than none. I would be OK with getting similar information about psychotropic prescriptions and mental health concerns through the VA and DOD medical establishments, too. Still incomplete but better than none.

I don't like it from a civil liberties point of view but I think you're probably right in the sense that its what is available and practical. I could live with that.

Politically, I think it might be smart for him to eat some humble pie and either reinstate the Obama executive order or if there are some constitutional problems there (and I think there probably are) directly encouraged legislation and sign legislation to have the same effect.

He doesn't lose a lot of face there because that didn't impact this particular shooter. if the next one happens to be on SSI, he's in huge trouble.

(This guy eventually would have been probably after a route through drug dependency and various Behavioral Health outlets and would finally wind up on SSI in his mid to late 20s if not in jail by then.)

 

[coachdb18]

Because those are the mental patients the government has information on to add to the database?

Granted, it was an incomplete solution to getting mental patients into the database, but some is better than none. I would be OK with getting similar information about psychotropic prescriptions and mental health concerns through the VA and DOD medical establishments, too. Still incomplete but better than none.

Remember the statement that ALL war veterans were supposedly psychos to be 'added to the database'. Stop weaponizing the mental health system, because it just means that, when you can't actually discern who the mental patients are and are not, the reaction is to avoid the database altogether, then you've got mental patients on the street owning guns.

It's a little like the current #Metoo problem, in that there are gropers that need to be reckoned with, but when you start accusing EVERY man of being a groper, and men begin to fear even the possible prospect of working with or near women. The entire dynamic is now toxic for EVERYONE, instead of getting fixed.

 

[nicole_proper_naughty]

Seems like a distraction since Vegas was months ago. It should have happened then. If it's illegal to own a full auto, then owning something that (essentially) replicates one should be illegal too, no? I'm shocked they were sold in the first place.

 

[Que]

i dont get why earlier gun people were saying that banning bump stocks wasnt a big deal but now that they are banned they are saying that hey the anti gun people got a lot. how can both things be true im not a gun guy myself but i get that people dont want to lose rights.

The same way you were likely insisting it was a big deal after Vegas and not a big deal now that the umpopular tump did so.

But what could you know? You're new here.

 

[BobBalouski]

lol man wtf are you talking about ?

Bump stocks haven't been banned - that's what I'm talking about, dumbfuck.

 

[Que]

Remember the statement that ALL war veterans were supposedly psychos to be 'added to the database'. Stop weaponizing the mental health system, because it just means that, when you can't actually discern who the mental patients are and are not, the reaction is to avoid the database altogether, then you've got mental patients on the street owning guns.

It's a little like the current #Metoo problem, in that there are gropers that need to be reckoned with, but when you start accusing EVERY man of being a groper, and men begin to fear even the possible prospect of working with or near women. The entire dynamic is now toxic for EVERYONE, instead of getting fixed.

SOMEONE is a little touchy about being included. . .

I kid, I kid. . .

what I'd really like but I'm not going to get is tossing people into institutions like the good old days of where we violated people's civil rights.

That's just it was pretty flawed but on the other hand it takes a bit of effort to get yourself actually committed. "They" had to take notes file it away somewhere and explain why it is they thought you needed to be committed. Someone has to commit to committing you.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

man you guys are wild lol i dont know what 'you might smart with whatever pimped your brain' meant but i guess im the dumbfuck haha.

 

[Que]

Seems like a distraction since Vegas was months ago. It should have happened then. If it's illegal to own a full auto, then owning something that (essentially) replicates one should be illegal too, no? I'm shocked they were sold in the first place.

I've got no interest in whether anybody can buy one of those or not it's a dumb novelty item. It's not practical in any sense. Except for the fact that he was firing into a huge crowd and it really didn't matter where those bullets were going in a crowd that size, I would say that under ordinary circumstances the stupidity of using a bump stock would actually save lives. if the Florida Shooter had had one he would have been even less effective. Probably.

To be honest though, I wouldn't be confident about that if it was aimed at me.

the same dumb firing technique can be used to make lots of noise quickly without the aid of a bump stock and I'm not going to elaborate on that.

but you're right Trump is using this as a fig Leaf so that he can say he did something. If it was important now you're right it was important then.