The alleged conservative Senator has signed on to gun control legislation which, in part, ensures this:
The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added. There would be no due process requirement.
Many are wondering why a Republican Senator would do this.
Well, this is apparantly the reason:
Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns is pulling its ads in Pennsylvania, citing Toomey's work on a compromise bill.
So a Senator who is not up for re-election for 3 more years was steamrolled by silly ads by a left wing propagandist group.
How much more of an intellectual coward could you be?
I look forward to Senator Toomey losing in 2016.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
The alleged conservative Senator has signed on to gun control legislation which, in part, ensures this:
The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added. There would be no due process requirement.
Many are wondering why a Republican Senator would do this.
Well, this is apparantly the reason:
Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns is pulling its ads in Pennsylvania, citing Toomey's work on a compromise bill.
So a Senator who is not up for re-election for 3 more years was steamrolled by silly ads by a left wing propagandist group.
How much more of an intellectual coward could you be?
"The Manchin-Toomey proposal is a good faith but unworkable plan," Coburn said in a statement. "The proposal will impose new taxes and unreasonable burdens on law-abiding citizens."
"The agreement also prioritizes collecting records over protecting citizens. As gun control special interest groups admit, the proposal expands the government’s powers to record sales of firearms at the expense of expanding the scope of background checks," Coburn said. "This is the wrong approach. Preventing sales to dangerous persons, not collecting receipts, will save lives."
The proposal, Coburn continued, is a "government takeover" of gun shows, Coburn added.
"The Manchin-Toomey proposal is a good faith but unworkable plan," Coburn said in a statement. "The proposal will impose new taxes and unreasonable burdens on law-abiding citizens."
"The agreement also prioritizes collecting records over protecting citizens. As gun control special interest groups admit, the proposal expands the government’s powers to record sales of firearms at the expense of expanding the scope of background checks," Coburn said. "This is the wrong approach. Preventing sales to dangerous persons, not collecting receipts, will save lives."
The proposal, Coburn continued, is a "government takeover" of gun shows, Coburn added.
The alleged conservative Senator has signed on to gun control legislation which, in part, ensures this:
The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added. There would be no due process requirement.
Many are wondering why a Republican Senator would do this.
Well, this is apparantly the reason:
Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns is pulling its ads in Pennsylvania, citing Toomey's work on a compromise bill.
So a Senator who is not up for re-election for 3 more years was steamrolled by silly ads by a left wing propagandist group.
How much more of an intellectual coward could you be?
I look forward to Senator Toomey losing in 2016.
Doctors already have the power to take guns away from people. I posted about this before. I'll see if I can find the HR number. But I do remember that it had the support of the NRA and was signed into law by G Bush.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
The alleged conservative Senator has signed on to gun control legislation which, in part, ensures this:
The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added. There would be no due process requirement.
Many are wondering why a Republican Senator would do this.
Well, this is apparantly the reason:
Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns is pulling its ads in Pennsylvania, citing Toomey's work on a compromise bill.
So a Senator who is not up for re-election for 3 more years was steamrolled by silly ads by a left wing propagandist group.
How much more of an intellectual coward could you be?
I look forward to Senator Toomey losing in 2016.
Doctors already have the power to take guns away from people. I posted about this before. I'll see if I can find the HR number. But I do remember that it had the support of the NRA and was signed into law by G Bush.
Doctors already have the power to take guns away from people. I posted about this before. I'll see if I can find the HR number. But I do remember that it had the support of the NRA and was signed into law by G Bush.
HR 2640
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Doctors already have the power to take guns away from people. I posted about this before. I'll see if I can find the HR number. But I do remember that it had the support of the NRA and was signed into law by G Bush.
2640 actually seems to protect gun owners more than the previous law to me. If what 14 states is true (and certainly there is no new law in place to dissect) then the protections offered by 2640 ( certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from having firearms, etc ) could be wiped clean. That to me is why the NRA is fighting this proposed measure, and was on board with 2640.
2640 actually seems to protect gun owners more than the previous law to me. If what 14 states is true (and certainly there is no new law in place to dissect) then the protections offered by 2640 ( certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from having firearms, etc ) could be wiped clean. That to me is why the NRA is fighting this proposed measure, and was on board with 2640.
Senator Toomey is apparently doing this in response to the Newton, CT shooting (he met with some family members yesterday). Since the Newton murderer didn't purchase any firearms, how, exactly, would more background checks prevent something like that?
Oh, they wouldn't. So, Let's go to the experts:
Solutions that focus on reducing crimes by the mentally ill will make only a small dent in the nation’s rate of gun-related murders, ranging from mass killings to shootings that claim a single victim. It’s not just that the mentally ill represent a minority of the country’s population; it’s also that the overlap between mental illness and violent behavior is poor.
...
Those who suffer from mental illness are much more likely to harm themselves than other people.
Although the recent mass killings (in Aurora, Colo., Tucson, Ariz., and at Virginia Tech) were committed by young men believed to have severe mental illness, the vast majority of those with mental illness are no more likely to commit acts of violence, and are no more likely to want to inflict harm, than the general public. As the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Thomas Insell, said, those with severe mental illness, known as SMI, are more likely to be violent, particularly during a psychotic episode with paranoid delusions, but "mental illness contributes very little to the overall rate of violence in the community. Most people with SMI are not violent, and most violent acts are not committed by people with SMI."
Mental illness is the cause of fewer mass shootings than the public perceives, Appelbaum said. "If you look at the lists that are put together of those kinds of events, they are primarily family and workplace violence episodes," he said.
The idea that there is some big problem in America where "mentally ill" people illegally purchase firearms and kill people in is silly and obscene.
0
Senator Toomey is apparently doing this in response to the Newton, CT shooting (he met with some family members yesterday). Since the Newton murderer didn't purchase any firearms, how, exactly, would more background checks prevent something like that?
Oh, they wouldn't. So, Let's go to the experts:
Solutions that focus on reducing crimes by the mentally ill will make only a small dent in the nation’s rate of gun-related murders, ranging from mass killings to shootings that claim a single victim. It’s not just that the mentally ill represent a minority of the country’s population; it’s also that the overlap between mental illness and violent behavior is poor.
...
Those who suffer from mental illness are much more likely to harm themselves than other people.
Although the recent mass killings (in Aurora, Colo., Tucson, Ariz., and at Virginia Tech) were committed by young men believed to have severe mental illness, the vast majority of those with mental illness are no more likely to commit acts of violence, and are no more likely to want to inflict harm, than the general public. As the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Thomas Insell, said, those with severe mental illness, known as SMI, are more likely to be violent, particularly during a psychotic episode with paranoid delusions, but "mental illness contributes very little to the overall rate of violence in the community. Most people with SMI are not violent, and most violent acts are not committed by people with SMI."
Mental illness is the cause of fewer mass shootings than the public perceives, Appelbaum said. "If you look at the lists that are put together of those kinds of events, they are primarily family and workplace violence episodes," he said.
As we debate the steps to reducing gun violence in the society a couple points need to be understood: 1.The link between violent crime and mental illness is weak,and 2. Mental health professionals are poor at predicting anyone’s propensity for any specific behavior, including homicide.
Another complication of keeping guns away from people experiencing mental health problems is that crises come and go.Sometimes people have mental illnesses and gun access can be dangerous. Sometimes they get better.
I would remind everyone that up until 1974, being happy was a mental disorder in America. That was the scientific consensus. Today's scientific consensus is tomorrow's cause de jour.
0
More articles on mental illness and shootings:
As we debate the steps to reducing gun violence in the society a couple points need to be understood: 1.The link between violent crime and mental illness is weak,and 2. Mental health professionals are poor at predicting anyone’s propensity for any specific behavior, including homicide.
Another complication of keeping guns away from people experiencing mental health problems is that crises come and go.Sometimes people have mental illnesses and gun access can be dangerous. Sometimes they get better.
I would remind everyone that up until 1974, being happy was a mental disorder in America. That was the scientific consensus. Today's scientific consensus is tomorrow's cause de jour.
So we've established that most gun violence is just not committed by people with mental illness, we should ask what laws are currently in place on the matter?
Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d),
it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
What about state laws? Well, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws on the possession of firearms by "mentally ill" people.
For example:
Delaware prohibits the purchase, ownership, possession or control of a firearm or ammunition by any person:
Ever committed for a mental disorder to any hospital, mental institution or sanitarium, unless the person possesses a certificate from a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in Delaware stating that the person is no longer suffering from a mental disorder
So we've established that most gun violence is just not committed by people with mental illness, we should ask what laws are currently in place on the matter?
Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d),
it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
What about state laws? Well, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws on the possession of firearms by "mentally ill" people.
For example:
Delaware prohibits the purchase, ownership, possession or control of a firearm or ammunition by any person:
Ever committed for a mental disorder to any hospital, mental institution or sanitarium, unless the person possesses a certificate from a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in Delaware stating that the person is no longer suffering from a mental disorder
So as we see, "mentally ill" people illegally purchasing firearms in America to shoot people is not a common occurrence, and laws are already in place regarding the purchase and possession of firearms by mentally ill people.
So what, then, are Toomey and the Democrats hoping to accomplish here?
0
So as we see, "mentally ill" people illegally purchasing firearms in America to shoot people is not a common occurrence, and laws are already in place regarding the purchase and possession of firearms by mentally ill people.
So what, then, are Toomey and the Democrats hoping to accomplish here?
While it's difficult to say whether this new proposal would thwart the next shooter, what is pretty clear is that, according to a new Quinnipiac poll, 91 percent of Americans (and 88 percent of Americans in gun-owning households) do favor universal background checks.
Guess thats govt working for the people!
0
While it's difficult to say whether this new proposal would thwart the next shooter, what is pretty clear is that, according to a new Quinnipiac poll, 91 percent of Americans (and 88 percent of Americans in gun-owning households) do favor universal background checks.
While it's difficult to say whether this new proposal would thwart the next shooter, what is pretty clear is that, according to a new Quinnipiac poll, 91 percent of Americans (and 88 percent of Americans in gun-owning households) do favor universal background checks.
Guess thats govt working for the people!
The government isn't supposed to "work for the people" in America.
I'd also add there is simply no way gun owners support "universal background checks" by 88%.
One only need to look at the NRA's position, to observe this fact.
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
While it's difficult to say whether this new proposal would thwart the next shooter, what is pretty clear is that, according to a new Quinnipiac poll, 91 percent of Americans (and 88 percent of Americans in gun-owning households) do favor universal background checks.
Guess thats govt working for the people!
The government isn't supposed to "work for the people" in America.
I'd also add there is simply no way gun owners support "universal background checks" by 88%.
One only need to look at the NRA's position, to observe this fact.
The government isn't supposed to "work for the people" in America.
I'd also add there is simply no way gun owners support "universal background checks" by 88%.
One only need to look at the NRA's position, to observe this fact.
Separately Wednesday, Sens. Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins announced they'd reached an agreement with the NRA on gun trafficking language that will be included in the overall gun bill.
Appears the NRA is in favor of this bill.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
The government isn't supposed to "work for the people" in America.
I'd also add there is simply no way gun owners support "universal background checks" by 88%.
One only need to look at the NRA's position, to observe this fact.
Separately Wednesday, Sens. Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins announced they'd reached an agreement with the NRA on gun trafficking language that will be included in the overall gun bill.
Separately Wednesday, Sens. Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins announced they'd reached an agreement with the NRA on gun trafficking language that will be included in the overall gun bill.
Appears the NRA is in favor of this bill.
I bet!
"Language" = bill now.
You realize there is no actual bill, right?
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Separately Wednesday, Sens. Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins announced they'd reached an agreement with the NRA on gun trafficking language that will be included in the overall gun bill.
Soon after Manchin and Toomey announced their agreement, the NRA released a statement in opposition to it. "Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools," the statement said. "The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson."
========
What Collins & Leahey are doing is a different bill.
Which could be included in a bigger bill, if that is what is happening here.
0
Appears the NRA is in favor of this bill.
Not really, no.
Soon after Manchin and Toomey announced their agreement, the NRA released a statement in opposition to it. "Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools," the statement said. "The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson."
========
What Collins & Leahey are doing is a different bill.
Which could be included in a bigger bill, if that is what is happening here.
It is interesting that even though this was signed into law just a few years ago, nobody talks about it and apparently more laws are needed to solve this non-existent problem.
Per that legislation:
(3) APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION- The State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as a mental defective or those committed to mental institutions to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.
Nothing short of gun confiscation will satisfy these people.
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
HR 2640
It is interesting that even though this was signed into law just a few years ago, nobody talks about it and apparently more laws are needed to solve this non-existent problem.
Per that legislation:
(3) APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION- The State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as a mental defective or those committed to mental institutions to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.
Nothing short of gun confiscation will satisfy these people.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
