OT: GOP repealing background checks for firearms

[SleepyMcgee]

Once again Grumps is taking things out of context. One of the few "so called' conservatives who likes to take the liberal track and lie until he believes it.

Grumpy would have you believe background checks have been removed; what has happened is congress removed an Obama Era extended background check for recipients of social security with mental disorders. The problem conservatives had with this was treating someone different concerning a 2nd Amendment Right simply because they were are on social security.

Correct, Once again the liberal left 'convienently' leaves out just enough pertinent information to
skew the actually story completely out of context, just to further their frustration. Laughable really.
The real Americans see through the BS.

Ok so the REAL story here is that they are no longer restricting the mentally ill from buying guns.

You're right.

That's much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There you go again; a liberal who's points cannot stand on their own changes the truth to meet their own reality thinking that will change reality for others.

A law was passed in 1968 and still stands today stating an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution... it goes on but you can look it up yourself if you care. The legislation that was rolled back was TARGETING (you liberals hate that word unless it applies to conservatives, so full of hypocrisy) citizens on Social Security. it was the targeting of Social Security recipients that was changed. Get a life.

So the law was duplicative? It didn't stop anyone from buying guns?

Huh...

Then the NRA and the ACLU REALLY misspent their donors money.

[flightco]

Once again Grumps is taking things out of context. One of the few "so called' conservatives who likes to take the liberal track and lie until he believes it.

Grumpy would have you believe background checks have been removed; what has happened is congress removed an Obama Era extended background check for recipients of social security with mental disorders. The problem conservatives had with this was treating someone different concerning a 2nd Amendment Right simply because they were are on social security.

Correct, Once again the liberal left 'convienently' leaves out just enough pertinent information to
skew the actually story completely out of context, just to further their frustration. Laughable really.
The real Americans see through the BS.

Ok so the REAL story here is that they are no longer restricting the mentally ill from buying guns.

You're right.

That's much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There you go again; a liberal who's points cannot stand on their own changes the truth to meet their own reality thinking that will change reality for others.

A law was passed in 1968 and still stands today stating an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution... it goes on but you can look it up yourself if you care. The legislation that was rolled back was TARGETING (you liberals hate that word unless it applies to conservatives, so full of hypocrisy) citizens on Social Security. it was the targeting of Social Security recipients that was changed. Get a life.

So the law was duplicative? It didn't stop anyone from buying guns?

Huh...

Then the NRA and the ACLU REALLY misspent their donors money.

Do you have anything to back up your comments or just blowing out your ass again?

And any law can keep people from buying guns but somehow the bad guys always seem to get them. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and the highest shooting rate.

The point was not that mentally ill should not have guns, it was that it was TARGETING people on Social Security.

[SleepyMcgee]

Correct, Once again the liberal left 'convienently' leaves out just enough pertinent information to
skew the actually story completely out of context, just to further their frustration. Laughable really.
The real Americans see through the BS.

Ok so the REAL story here is that they are no longer restricting the mentally ill from buying guns.

You're right.

That's much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There you go again; a liberal who's points cannot stand on their own changes the truth to meet their own reality thinking that will change reality for others.

A law was passed in 1968 and still stands today stating an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution... it goes on but you can look it up yourself if you care. The legislation that was rolled back was TARGETING (you liberals hate that word unless it applies to conservatives, so full of hypocrisy) citizens on Social Security. it was the targeting of Social Security recipients that was changed. Get a life.

So the law was duplicative? It didn't stop anyone from buying guns?

Huh...

Then the NRA and the ACLU REALLY misspent their donors money.

Do you have anything to back up your comments or just blowing out your ass again?

Why can't you answer the question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flightco]

[.

So the law was duplicative? It didn't stop anyone from buying guns?

Huh...

Then the NRA and the ACLU REALLY misspent their donors money.[/quote]

Do you have anything to back up your comments or just blowing out your ass again?[/quote]

Why can't you answer the question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote][/quote]

If you want me to answer a question, show me there is a viable reason for asking it other than you like to blow it out your ass and waste others time with your nonsense. I have already shown you there is a law on the books from the 60s making it illegal for the mentally ill to own a firearm, this law TARGETED Social Security recipients.

I suppose if there were a law that specifically targeted Black gun ownership, or Muslim or LBGT gun ownership you would support that?

[SleepyMcgee]

[.

So the law was duplicative? It didn't stop anyone from buying guns?

Huh...

Then the NRA and the ACLU REALLY misspent their donors money.

Do you have anything to back up your comments or just blowing out your ass again?[/quote]

Why can't you answer the question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote][/quote]

If you want me to answer a question, show me there is a viable reason for asking it other than you like to blow it out your ass and waste others time with your nonsense. I have already shown you there is a law on the books from the 60s making it illegal for the mentally ill to own a firearm, this law TARGETED Social Security recipients.

I suppose if there were a law that specifically targeted Black gun ownership, or Muslim or LBGT gun ownership you would support that?[/quote]

You note that the law was duplicative by stating nobody with a mental illness can buy guns anyway.

Riddle me this, where does a background check pull up 'mental illness' data from? Is it comprehensive?

Hint: the new restriction would add more data regarding who is mentally unstable and was not duplicative. It would have kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable (including those wretched gays, Jews, blacks and Muslims you're so fond of bringing up)

But apparently that's a bad thing...even though every time there's a mass killing people blame 'a mental illness epidemic'...

Things that make you go hmmmm.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flightco]

[.

So the law was duplicative? It didn't stop anyone from buying guns?

Huh...

Then the NRA and the ACLU REALLY misspent their donors money.

Do you have anything to back up your comments or just blowing out your ass again?

Why can't you answer the question?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote][/quote]

If you want me to answer a question, show me there is a viable reason for asking it other than you like to blow it out your ass and waste others time with your nonsense. I have already shown you there is a law on the books from the 60s making it illegal for the mentally ill to own a firearm, this law TARGETED Social Security recipients.

I suppose if there were a law that specifically targeted Black gun ownership, or Muslim or LBGT gun ownership you would support that?[/quote]

You note that the law was duplicative by stating nobody with a mental illness can buy guns anyway.

Riddle me this, where does a background check pull up 'mental illness' data from? Is it comprehensive?

Hint: the new restriction would add more data regarding who is mentally unstable and was not duplicative. It would have kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable (including those wretched gays, Jews, blacks and Muslims you're so fond of bringing up)

But apparently that's a bad thing...even though every time there's a mass killing people blame 'a mental illness epidemic'...

Things that make you go hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

I am starting to realize you are just the liberal version of Mr Grumpy (maybe even the same person just playing a game) and am finding you very boring.

Pardon my lack of memory, but is mass shootings by social security recipients a common occurrence? I have nothing against LGBT (as a matter of fact, I teach a Ballroom dance class to a group from the LBGT community and even dance with the men), and you will find no comments anyplace where I have ever said anything against Jews or Blacks, so once again, you are just talking out your Ass. Now, if you want to criticize me for my concern about Muslims who refuse to adapt to the USA way of life, I will not deny it. I do not see Islam as a religion, rather a dictatorial form of government (Sharia Law) that includes a mandated government imposed religion. My problem (for the last time) is the targeting of Social Security recipients and I simply pointed out that if these other groups were targeted, you would not be so pro targeting.

As you can see from Chicago, if a person wants to obtain a firearm illegally, they will do so regardless of the laws preventing it. Can you name any mass shootings that would have been prevented by this law?

[SleepyMcgee]

[.

So the law was duplicative? It didn't stop anyone from buying guns?

Huh...

Then the NRA and the ACLU REALLY misspent their donors money.

Do you have anything to back up your comments or just blowing out your ass again?

Why can't you answer the question?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[/quote]

If you want me to answer a question, show me there is a viable reason for asking it other than you like to blow it out your ass and waste others time with your nonsense. I have already shown you there is a law on the books from the 60s making it illegal for the mentally ill to own a firearm, this law TARGETED Social Security recipients.

I suppose if there were a law that specifically targeted Black gun ownership, or Muslim or LBGT gun ownership you would support that?[/quote]

You note that the law was duplicative by stating nobody with a mental illness can buy guns anyway.

Riddle me this, where does a background check pull up 'mental illness' data from? Is it comprehensive?

Hint: the new restriction would add more data regarding who is mentally unstable and was not duplicative. It would have kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable (including those wretched gays, Jews, blacks and Muslims you're so fond of bringing up)

But apparently that's a bad thing...even though every time there's a mass killing people blame 'a mental illness epidemic'...

Things that make you go hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

I am starting to realize you are just the liberal version of Mr Grumpy (maybe even the same person just playing a game) and am finding you very boring.

Pardon my lack of memory, but is mass shootings by social security recipients a common occurrence? I have nothing against LGBT (as a matter of fact, I teach a Ballroom dance class to a group from the LBGT community and even dance with the men), and you will find no comments anyplace where I have ever said anything against Jews or Blacks, so once again, you are just talking out your Ass. Now, if you want to criticize me for my concern about Muslims who refuse to adapt to the USA way of life, I will not deny it. I do not see Islam as a religion, rather a dictatorial form of government (Sharia Law) that includes a mandated government imposed religion. My problem (for the last time) is the targeting of Social Security recipients and I simply pointed out that if these other groups were targeted, you would not be so pro targeting.

As you can see from Chicago, if a person wants to obtain a firearm illegally, they will do so regardless of the laws preventing it. Can you name any mass shootings that would have been prevented by this law?[/quote]

Finding meaningful ways of gathering as much data on mentally ill folks in order to facilitate more comprehensive background checks is simply common sense.

Virtually every American will use social security so yeah, not really a narrow swath of folks.

It's cool if you are good with hobbling the data contained within background checks because of 'feelings'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SleepyMcgee]

Omg you have a gay friend? You really are a compassionate conservative...now, when do we get to talk about how many toddlers kill people with guns every year vs the number of refugees from a certain 7 countries?

Lemme guess...you even have a Muslim friend?!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flightco]

Omg you have a gay friend? You really are a compassionate conservative...now, when do we get to talk about how many toddlers kill people with guns every year vs the number of refugees from a certain 7 countries?

Lemme guess...you even have a Muslim friend?!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Toddlers killing people with guns is a travesty and the gun owner should be held fully accountable to the same degree they would be if they had pulled the trigger.
Why are you dissing my gay friends or dissing me for having them, what kind of person are you really?
I don't have any Muslim friends, I do have acquaintances that are great Americans and are not pushing Sharia Law, but not close enough to call them friends, what is your point?

You are a very confused person.

[SleepyMcgee]

Omg you have a gay friend? You really are a compassionate conservative...now, when do we get to talk about how many toddlers kill people with guns every year vs the number of refugees from a certain 7 countries?

Lemme guess...you even have a Muslim friend?!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Toddlers killing people with guns is a travesty and the gun owner should be held fully accountable to the same degree they would be if they had pulled the trigger.
Why are you dissing my gay friends or dissing me for having them, what kind of person are you really?
I don't have any Muslim friends, I do have acquaintances that are great Americans and are not pushing Sharia Law, but not close enough to call them friends, what is your point?

You are a very confused person.

I assure you I'm neither dissing your gay friends or the one that's confused.

Tell me again for pulling more background data from virtually all Americans is bad?

Anyway, I suggest reading some news that challenges your world view just a touch. You seem reasonably intelligent and it's a shame to see how trapped fake news has gotten you.

Best of luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flightco]

Omg you have a gay friend? You really are a compassionate conservative...now, when do we get to talk about how many toddlers kill people with guns every year vs the number of refugees from a certain 7 countries?

Lemme guess...you even have a Muslim friend?!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Toddlers killing people with guns is a travesty and the gun owner should be held fully accountable to the same degree they would be if they had pulled the trigger.
Why are you dissing my gay friends or dissing me for having them, what kind of person are you really?
I don't have any Muslim friends, I do have acquaintances that are great Americans and are not pushing Sharia Law, but not close enough to call them friends, what is your point?

You are a very confused person.

I assure you I'm neither dissing your gay friends or the one that's confused.

Tell me again for pulling more background data from virtually all Americans is bad?

Anyway, I suggest reading some news that challenges your world view just a touch. You seem reasonably intelligent and it's a shame to see how trapped fake news has gotten you.

Best of luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"I assure you I'm neither dissing your gay friends" I said them or me for having them as friends, so, yeah you were.

You have no idea what news I watch other than most conservatives do watch FNC but I also watch several others. Which fake news are you talking about, Time? NYT? CNN? MSNBC? I watch or read them all

And how does targeting Social Security recipients pull more data from "virtually all Americans"

[flightco]

Omg you have a gay friend? You really are a compassionate conservative...now, when do we get to talk about how many toddlers kill people with guns every year vs the number of refugees from a certain 7 countries?

Lemme guess...you even have a Muslim friend?!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Toddlers killing people with guns is a travesty and the gun owner should be held fully accountable to the same degree they would be if they had pulled the trigger.
Why are you dissing my gay friends or dissing me for having them, what kind of person are you really?
I don't have any Muslim friends, I do have acquaintances that are great Americans and are not pushing Sharia Law, but not close enough to call them friends, what is your point?

You are a very confused person.

I assure you I'm neither dissing your gay friends or the one that's confused.

Tell me again for pulling more background data from virtually all Americans is bad?

Anyway, I suggest reading some news that challenges your world view just a touch. You seem reasonably intelligent and it's a shame to see how trapped fake news has gotten you.

Best of luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am now going to follow the lead of most others here and put you back on the FOE list, you are really too much.

[SleepyMcgee]

Omg you have a gay friend? You really are a compassionate conservative...now, when do we get to talk about how many toddlers kill people with guns every year vs the number of refugees from a certain 7 countries?

Lemme guess...you even have a Muslim friend?!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Toddlers killing people with guns is a travesty and the gun owner should be held fully accountable to the same degree they would be if they had pulled the trigger.
Why are you dissing my gay friends or dissing me for having them, what kind of person are you really?
I don't have any Muslim friends, I do have acquaintances that are great Americans and are not pushing Sharia Law, but not close enough to call them friends, what is your point?

You are a very confused person.

I assure you I'm neither dissing your gay friends or the one that's confused.

Tell me again for pulling more background data from virtually all Americans is bad?

Anyway, I suggest reading some news that challenges your world view just a touch. You seem reasonably intelligent and it's a shame to see how trapped fake news has gotten you.

Best of luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"I assure you I'm neither dissing your gay friends" I said them or me for having them as friends, so, yeah you were.

You have no idea what news I watch other than most conservatives do watch FNC but I also watch several others. Which fake news are you talking about, Time? NYT? CNN? MSNBC? I watch or read them all

And how does targeting Social Security recipients pull more data from "virtually all Americans"

I was laughing at you for pulling the old 'I have a INSERT MINORITY HERE as a friend!!' line.

Virtually all Americans end up using social security. Black, white, gay, Muslim. Tell us again how it unfairly targets Americans?

You still haven't answered why you're against adding data to a background check that would help ensure people with mental illnesses couldn't buy guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SleepyMcgee]

Omg you have a gay friend? You really are a compassionate conservative...now, when do we get to talk about how many toddlers kill people with guns every year vs the number of refugees from a certain 7 countries?

Lemme guess...you even have a Muslim friend?!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Toddlers killing people with guns is a travesty and the gun owner should be held fully accountable to the same degree they would be if they had pulled the trigger.
Why are you dissing my gay friends or dissing me for having them, what kind of person are you really?
I don't have any Muslim friends, I do have acquaintances that are great Americans and are not pushing Sharia Law, but not close enough to call them friends, what is your point?

You are a very confused person.

I assure you I'm neither dissing your gay friends or the one that's confused.

Tell me again for pulling more background data from virtually all Americans is bad?

Anyway, I suggest reading some news that challenges your world view just a touch. You seem reasonably intelligent and it's a shame to see how trapped fake news has gotten you.

Best of luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am now going to follow the lead of most others here and put you back on the FOE list, you are really too much.

Symptoms of being allergic to facts include: cognitive dissonance, anger and actively seeking out only those that agree with them.

'Foe' lists are LITERALLY what's wrong with our country. Snowflakes need to have their biases stroked not challenged apparently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrGrumpy]

I will educate all of you on "mental illness and the Second Amendment." Here is how it really is, not how you think it is or how you wished it was. Currently you can be mentally ill and buy firearms. You can be taking high doses of anti-depressants or a mood stabilizer or even anti-psychotics and going strictly by the federal FBI NICS background check checklist, you can buy firearm as long as you do not have the following in your background:

1) been adjudicated as a "mental defective." This means a court or other federal agency such as the Veterans Administration or Social Security Administration have determined thru a formal adjudication, that you meet the standards to be a "mental defective." Usually that means you have an extremely low IQ, are mentally retarded, are seriously demented, you have some severe form of mental illness that causes you to lack capacity to such a degree that you meet the legal standards for "mental defective." That term, "mental defective" is a legal term, not a psychiatric diagnosis. There is no such thing as "mental defective in the psychiatry diagnosis manual. Its purely a legal adjudication thing. Usually someone who has been adjudicated a "mental defective" is under custodial care somehow, such as they have a guardian ad litem to manage their affairs or they are in some form of long term housing such a state mental institution, a prison for the criminally insane, a group home or other very very severe circumstance

"Have you ever been adjudicated a mental defective?" is one of the current questions on the FBI NICS background check form. You answer either yes or not. If you check "yes," the gun store sales people cannot go any further with the sale under the law.

Also, no psychiatrist can "adjudicate" you or anybody else as a "mental defective." Again, this is a courtroom or federal agency action. Normally its adversarial, like you are accused by the government as being incompetent to the degree you meet "mental defective" standards. And you are allowed due process to mount a defense and so on to fight these accusations by the government.

2) you have been "committed to a mental institution." Specifically, that means INVOLUNTARY CIVIL COMMITMENT. Any form of voluntary commitment does not count. If you voluntarily drove yourself to the psych hospital, checked yourself in voluntarily and filled out the voluntary commitment paperwork, you are not supposed to check that box off. If you read the case law and ATF interpretations of this, it refers to ONLY INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT. One recent change under the obama administration is the ATF did change the interpretation to include any outpatient involuntary mental health counseling or substance abuse assessment and treatment....such as if you get a DUI and the the Judge ORDERS you to substance abuse assessment and treatment afterwards, that counts as a technical form of involuntarily civil commitment. On the other hand, if you realize you have a problem with booze and you voluntarily check yourself into the psych ward for alcohol treatment, that does not count.

3) addicted to or abuser of drugs, illegal or prescription. If you are addicted to or an abuser of drugs, illegal or legal prescribed controlled substances (narcotic pain killers or Ritalin say), then technically you are not supposed to check off the "NO" box on the NICS background check

I have an extensive mental illness history and I have passed NICS multiple times with absolutely no problems, no delays, nothing. I own multiple firearms, deer hunt, target shoot once in a while and own semi-automatic rifles. But I have never been adjudicated as a mental defective, never have been involuntarily committed and I am not addicted to or abused drugs.

What I was referring to originally is a current repeal of an obama executive order from 2016 that added ways a person can become added to the FBI NICS database as a prohibited person. Starting recently, if you apply for Social Security Disability and the main reason is some serious mental illness that has become basically not treatable (not really responsive to medications or ECT) AND the Social Security Administration decides you are so far gone you cannot many your money and are assigned a third party to manage your money, the SSA decides you are a "mental defective" and enters you into the FBI NICS database.

The complaint with this move by the former obama administration is it eliminates proper due process of the law. The Social Security Administration can do this to a person without them being physically present with their attorney and is decided by a Social Security Administration bureaucrat and not by a proper Judge with a real trial, a real defense and real due process of law. That has been the complaint to the obama administration executive order and not just GOP have complained about the change, some democrats have complained about it.

This country is changing. In my opinion, its changing back to more the way it used to be decades ago. For those that dont like that, I dont know what to say to you. However, I approve of the changes the Trump administration is bringing and will bring much more of in the future. With that, I am leaving the forum for a long time because I dont want to upset more of you who cannot handle foul language or derisive political rhetoric. To those I angered I apologize, however I do not apologize for my political beliefs.

Goodbye