Gun owner paranoia---

[Utilitarian]

It depends on the regulations employed. Most conservatives are fine with psychological background checks. What people object to are arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, arbitrary limits on semiauto rifles, or red flag laws that are vaguely worded and easily abused.

What do you mean by a psychological background check, because this conservative is not behind that.

Well, for example, having a background check that prohibits paranoid schizophrenics from having guns. There are extreme mental illnesses that make it dangerous for a person to have a gun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, for example, having a background check that prohibits paranoid schizophrenics from having guns. There are extreme mental illnesses that make it dangerous for a person to have a gun.

Okay, so we have such a law. The next person that needs help for something like that won't seek it for fear of losing that right.

In the present sense, the gun bill the left are pushing requires a federal gun license, and to get one you have to see a shrink and get his or her permission to own a gun. Now, knowing Democrats as well as I do, you know they are going to select leftist anti-gun psychologists to make that determination.

 

[Utilitarian]

Well, for example, having a background check that prohibits paranoid schizophrenics from having guns. There are extreme mental illnesses that make it dangerous for a person to have a gun.

Okay, so we have such a law. The next person that needs help for something like that won't seek it for fear of losing that right.

In the present sense, the gun bill the left are pushing requires a federal gun license, and to get one you have to see a shrink and get his or her permission to own a gun. Now, knowing Democrats as well as I do, you know they are going to select leftist anti-gun psychologists to make that determination.

Any psychological background check will have hazards, no doubt. And I agree that some probably would avoid help given that situation.

As far as the check itself goes, however, it would require reforming HIPAA law to allow for the check to access personal information. The diagnosis of mental illness would not be connected to the background check itself, because, as you said, there is the hazard of political bias. Diagnosis of something like schizophrenia would still be something that would be determined by a person's psychologist -- someone they trust, not a potential political activist type.

All that aside, I disagree with a lot of proposals by Democrats on this issue.

 

[dudmuck]

Well, for example, having a background check that prohibits paranoid schizophrenics from having guns. There are extreme mental illnesses that make it dangerous for a person to have a gun.

Okay, so we have such a law. The next person that needs help for something like that won't seek it for fear of losing that right.

In the present sense, the gun bill the left are pushing requires a federal gun license, and to get one you have to see a shrink and get his or her permission to own a gun. Now, knowing Democrats as well as I do, you know they are going to select leftist anti-gun psychologists to make that determination.

background check means checking if somebody has history of mental illness.
If somebody has mental illness, it'll already be in their history records.

same energy:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Any psychological background check will have hazards, no doubt. And I agree that some probably would avoid help given that situation.

As far as the check itself goes, however, it would require reforming HIPAA law to allow for the check to access personal information. The diagnosis of mental illness would not be connected to the background check itself, because, as you said, there is the hazard of political bias. Diagnosis of something like schizophrenia would still be something that would be determined by a person's psychologist -- someone they trust, not a potential political activist type.

All that aside, I disagree with a lot of proposals by Democrats on this issue.

As the late Rush Limbaugh used to say, I know liberals like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body. That being said, I think back to when the left was pushing for gays to be out of the closet. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, they forced their marriage down our throats, and even are able to adopt children.

I remember at a time where everybody smoked. The left asked that it be restricted in movie theaters. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, you can't smoke a cigarette in most public places, and in blue states, not even outside in a park or on the beech.

What I'm saying here is that Democrats never stop at point A. Oh, they say that's all they want at the time, but after they reach point A, they proceed to point B, then C, then D...........

Once we agree to psychological background checks or exams, we'll be opening up a new Pandora's Box.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

background check means checking if somebody has history of mental illness.
If somebody has mental illness, it'll already be in their history records.

Again I ask: what about people that have mental problems in the future if it's passed? They will avoid getting treatment for their mental problems in fear of losing their right to own a firearm. They may become more dangerous than if we let it alone.

 

[Utilitarian]

Any psychological background check will have hazards, no doubt. And I agree that some probably would avoid help given that situation.

As far as the check itself goes, however, it would require reforming HIPAA law to allow for the check to access personal information. The diagnosis of mental illness would not be connected to the background check itself, because, as you said, there is the hazard of political bias. Diagnosis of something like schizophrenia would still be something that would be determined by a person's psychologist -- someone they trust, not a potential political activist type.

All that aside, I disagree with a lot of proposals by Democrats on this issue.

As the late Rush Limbaugh used to say, I know liberals like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body. That being said, I think back to when the left was pushing for gays to be out of the closet. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, they forced their marriage down our throats, and even are able to adopt children.

I remember at a time where everybody smoked. The left asked that it be restricted in movie theaters. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, you can't smoke a cigarette in most public places, and in blue states, not even outside in a park or on the beech.

What I'm saying here is that Democrats never stop at point A. Oh, they say that's all they want at the time, but after they reach point A, they proceed to point B, then C, then D...........

Once we agree to psychological background checks or exams, we'll be opening up a new Pandora's Box.

On most things, I agree. I don't see any major hazards with a psychological background check (other than the one you mentioned about people not seeking help) if the criteria is properly devised.

So, the main concern I would have with the criteria is to not make it too broad. Plenty of minor mental illness issues shouldn't affect your ability to own a gun. Even someone with a minor degree of depression should be allowed to have a gun, as long as they haven't tried to commit suicide.

The main mental illnesses that a check should focus on are the ones involving suicidal tendencies or violent tendencies. If the criteria was limited enough to only include extreme cases, then abuse of the check would be unlikely.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

So what are "sane" gun laws in your opinion? It seems every time I ask an anti-gun leftist, they all seem to have a different answer. Then I ask what will it solve besides disarming law abiding people, and they get real quiet.

Well, some fairly sane laws in DC prevented an absolute disaster on Jan 6th. There are places, times and circumstances in which firearms are inappropriate.

Surely, the US Military is a good judge of what I address. Do they allow carry at all times?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

On most things, I agree. I don't see any major hazards with a psychological background check (other than the one you mentioned about people not seeking help) if the criteria is properly devised.

So, the main concern I would have with the criteria is to not make it too broad. Plenty of minor mental illness issues shouldn't affect your ability to own a gun. Even someone with a minor degree of depression should be allowed to have a gun, as long as they haven't tried to commit suicide.

The main mental illnesses that a check should focus on are the ones involving suicidal tendencies or violent tendencies. If the criteria was limited enough to only include extreme cases, then abuse of the check would be unlikely.

Still, we get back to the point of increment strategy. Let's face it, the left wants all law abiding citizens totally disarmed. That's their long term game plan. Psychological checks is just one step of many in reaching that goal of theirs. Now if Democrats had any integrity, any ability to keep their word, that may be a different story. But we have a clear history they won't. If we don't allow them to take step one, then they can't reach step two, and trust me, there will be a step two.

 

[Auld Phart]

Well, for example, having a background check that prohibits paranoid schizophrenics from having guns. There are extreme mental illnesses that make it dangerous for a person to have a gun.

Okay, so we have such a law. The next person that needs help for something like that won't seek it for fear of losing that right.

In the present sense, the gun bill the left are pushing requires a federal gun license, and to get one you have to see a shrink and get his or her permission to own a gun. Now, knowing Democrats as well as I do, you know they are going to select leftist anti-gun psychologists to make that determination.

background check means checking if somebody has history of mental illness.
If somebody has mental illness, it'll already be in their history records.

same energy:

background check means checking if somebody has history of mental illness.
If somebody has mental illness, it'll already be in their history records.

And if they've taken meds normally used to treat mental illness?

Like Wellbutrin?
" Bupropion, sold under the brand names Wellbutrin and Zyban among others, is a medication primarily used to treat major depressive disorder and to support smoking cessation.[8] It is an effective antidepressant on its own, but it is also used as an add-on medication in cases of incomplete response to first-line antidepressants.[8][9] Bupropion is taken in tablet form and is available only by prescription in industrialized countries.[8] "

I took it to assist me in stopping smoking.

But, with it on my record, I could have been denied the ability to legally buy a firearm.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, some fairly sane laws in DC prevented an absolute disaster on Jan 6th. There are places, times and circumstances in which firearms are inappropriate.

Surely, the US Military is a good judge of what I address. Do they allow carry at all times?

No they don't, and that's why the Ft Hood mass murder happened. They changed the regulations from them being allowed to be armed on base.

You have zero evidence that DC laws had anything to do with it. Like what do you think, it was okay to bust windows, chase down people in the hallways, but they wouldn't have taken any arms because of regulations?

 

[Utilitarian]

On most things, I agree. I don't see any major hazards with a psychological background check (other than the one you mentioned about people not seeking help) if the criteria is properly devised.

So, the main concern I would have with the criteria is to not make it too broad. Plenty of minor mental illness issues shouldn't affect your ability to own a gun. Even someone with a minor degree of depression should be allowed to have a gun, as long as they haven't tried to commit suicide.

The main mental illnesses that a check should focus on are the ones involving suicidal tendencies or violent tendencies. If the criteria was limited enough to only include extreme cases, then abuse of the check would be unlikely.

Still, we get back to the point of increment strategy. Let's face it, the left wants all law abiding citizens totally disarmed. That's their long term game plan. Psychological checks is just one step of many in reaching that goal of theirs. Now if Democrats had any integrity, any ability to keep their word, that may be a different story. But we have a clear history they won't. If we don't allow them to take step one, then they can't reach step two, and trust me, there will be a step two.

There's an interesting nuance to this. A lot of actual leftists (like Antifa) are pro-gun. They support an unrestricted 2nd Amendment just as much as most of the right. The people pushing gun control the hardest are typically center left elitists. Bloomberg is a good example.

Elitists in general want to disarm the public, because it makes it easier for them to abuse the masses. We've seen how this works in a lot of the world, particularly in Latin America.

So, I agree that a lot of gun control policies have that creeping effect. It's why I'm against things like gun registries. Registries were typically the first step before disarmament and confiscation in countries like Australia and the UK. I believe Canada has a registry as well, and they just banned all semiauto rifles.

So, I can definitely see where you're coming from. I don't feel as wary about a psychological background check with the proper criteria, but yeah, there is the possibility that it would be made too broad in scope.

 

[Auld Phart]

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

So what are "sane" gun laws in your opinion? It seems every time I ask an anti-gun leftist, they all seem to have a different answer. Then I ask what will it solve besides disarming law abiding people, and they get real quiet.

Well, some fairly sane laws in DC prevented an absolute disaster on Jan 6th. There are places, times and circumstances in which firearms are inappropriate.

Surely, the US Military is a good judge of what I address. Do they allow carry at all times?

Surely, the US Military is a good judge of what I address. Do they allow carry at all times?

nope.

and it got 13 people killed, and 30 wounded, because they couldn't defend themselves.

" On November 5, 2009, a terrorist mass shooting took place at Fort Hood, near Killeen, Texas.[1] Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.[2][3] It was the deadliest mass shooting on an American military base.[4]"

2009 Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There's an interesting nuance to this. A lot of actual leftists (like Antifa) are pro-gun. They support an unrestricted 2nd Amendment just as much as most of the right. The people pushing gun control the hardest are typically center left elitists. Bloomberg is a good example.

Elitists in general want to disarm the public, because it makes it easier for them to abuse the masses. We've seen how this works in a lot of the world, particularly in Latin America.

You are close, but missing something: politics.

Both parties want to get more members to join their party, or expand the tent as they like to say. The two largest groups for Democrats are government dependents and victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

The Democrats are not stupid, they only act that way. Even they know if they could stop firearms purchases and ownership, the criminals would never give their guns up. Eventually they would create a society where only the criminals and police have the guns. Which as we know would give criminals a huge advantage over us law abiding citizens.

Then we are faced with a new problem: how do we stop big crime? Well, the same way we addressed big tobacco, big pharma, big business, and that is with big government.

Democrats don't mind us having guns, what bothers them is we can take care of ourselves with them. If most Americans could take care of themselves, then who needs Democrats around?

The fact of the matter is that we Americans use our firearms for self-defense or to stop a crime between 44,000 times a year to 4 million, depending on who's figures you subscribe to. The CDC marked it less than the middle as over 1 million times a year.

 

[Utilitarian]

You are close, but missing something: politics.

Both parties want to get more members to join their party, or expand the tent as they like to say. The two largest groups for Democrats are government dependents and victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

The Democrats are not stupid, they only act that way. Even they know if they could stop firearms purchases and ownership, the criminals would never give their guns up. Eventually they would create a society where only the criminals and police have the guns. Which as we know would give criminals a huge advantage over us law abiding citizens.

Then we are faced with a new problem: how do we stop big crime? Well, the same way we addressed big tobacco, big pharma, big business, and that is with big government.

Democrats don't mind us having guns, what bothers them is we can take care of ourselves with them. If most Americans could take care of themselves, then who needs Democrats around?

The fact of the matter is that we Americans use our firearms for self-defense or to stop a crime between 44,000 times a year to 4 million, depending on who's figures you subscribe to. The CDC marked it less than the middle as over 1 million times a year.

I agree for the most part. Although I'm not a fan of most establishment Republicans either.

Trump's populism was a welcome change over neoconservatism, but it looks like the neocons might be taking over the party again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree for the most part. Although I'm not a fan of most establishment Republicans either.

Trump's populism was a welcome change over neoconservatism, but it looks like the neocons might be taking over the party again.

Donald Trump was somebody we wanted for a very long time: polices towards businesses, lower taxes, great border security, not letting our trading partners walk all over us, but the RNC never gave us such a candidate before. Until the China flu, our country was never better. We had over a million more jobs than Americans to work them which has never happened in the 60 years I've been alive. Wages increased and we reached a new high in median household income. Several new stock market highs, and people generally with more confidence in our future than ever before. Lowest unemployment rate for women and ever minority group since records were kept.

Today I drove past my local gas station. Gasoline is up nearly 60 cents since Biden was elected. It's only going to get worse from here. If Trump were still in charge, it would still be the same price as before the election. Americans need to learn from this grave mistake of allowing Biden to run our country.

 

[Utilitarian]

Donald Trump was somebody we wanted for a very long time: polices towards businesses, lower taxes, great border security, not letting our trading partners walk all over us, but the RNC never gave us such a candidate before. Until the China flu, our country was never better. We had over a million more jobs than Americans to work them which has never happened in the 60 years I've been alive. Wages increased and we reached a new high in median household income. Several new stock market highs, and people generally with more confidence in our future than ever before. Lowest unemployment rate for women and ever minority group since records were kept.

Today I drove past my local gas station. Gasoline is up nearly 60 cents since Biden was elected. It's only going to get worse from here. If Trump were still in charge, it would still be the same price as before the election. Americans need to learn from this grave mistake of allowing Biden to run our country.

I think Trump still had some flaws, and the price of gas is affected by many things outside of the feds, but I would say Trump was probably the best president of my lifetime. Considering his competition from Carter onward, that's not a high bar, but he showed that we needed some nationalism to counter the globalism infecting the West. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can ever really expel this disease, but he at least slowed the decline.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think Trump still had some flaws, and the price of gas is affected by many things outside of the feds, but I would say Trump was probably the best president of my lifetime. Considering his competition from Carter onward, that's not a high bar, but he showed that we needed some nationalism to counter the globalism infecting the West. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can ever really expel this disease, but he at least slowed the decline.

It also taught us a lot of things, the first being we don't need a professional politician to lead the country. We are way better off with plain business people.

As a person who spent three years trading commodities, I want to inform you that the price of all fuel is controlled by that market. When traders see problems such as shutting down the Keystone, stopping all new drilling on public lands, plus the things he and Whorris both said about fossil fuels, commodity traders buy long contracts; long meaning they expect the price to increase based on available news.

If you don't have any experience in commodities, think of it this way: You have a barrel of crude oil. You put it on e-bay. People start bidding on it expecting to buy and resell it for a profit. As more people put a bid on your barrel of oil, the higher the price goes. That's what's happening since Biden was elected.

While I never got into energy trades, if I were in it today, I'd be buying long oil or gasoline contracts solely based on Biden's actions and view on energy. That's why the price increased by 1/3.

 

[Utilitarian]

I think Trump still had some flaws, and the price of gas is affected by many things outside of the feds, but I would say Trump was probably the best president of my lifetime. Considering his competition from Carter onward, that's not a high bar, but he showed that we needed some nationalism to counter the globalism infecting the West. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can ever really expel this disease, but he at least slowed the decline.

It also taught us a lot of things, the first being we don't need a professional politician to lead the country. We are way better off with plain business people.

As a person who spent three years trading commodities, I want to inform you that the price of all fuel is controlled by that market. When traders see problems such as shutting down the Keystone, stopping all new drilling on public lands, plus the things he and Whorris both said about fossil fuels, commodity traders buy long contracts; long meaning they expect the price to increase based on available news.

If you don't have any experience in commodities, think of it this way: You have a barrel of crude oil. You put it on e-bay. People start bidding on it expecting to buy and resell it for a profit. As more people put a bid on your barrel of oil, the higher the price goes. That's what's happening since Biden was elected.

While I never got into energy trades, if I were in it today, I'd be buying long oil or gasoline contracts solely based on Biden's actions and view on energy. That's why the price increased by 1/3.

It is true that Biden's policy on Keystone has an effect, but typically, the price at the pump is also affected by refining capacity and world demand. One reason gas went down in price over the last year or so had to do with less driving going on during COVID. There was also less consumption of oil overall in the world for much of 2020.

That being said, it is true that the price of oil does have a downstream effect on the price at the pump, but it usually has a delay.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

WillHaftawaite wrote to OldBlue:

Every time you post, you make that argument.

you, like other idiots, make the claim that ONLY militia have the right to bear arms, by ignoring everything after the word militia.

Yes, and every time you misrepresent me I will point it out.

See, you did it again (your second sentence), claimed that I made an argument that I had not. If you can't paste a quote of me stating as you claim, you should quit embarrassing yourself.

Oh, and just to demonstrate that there are no hard feelings, I'll be glad to give you Grammar Lessons so that you can read whole sentences.