"Mentally ill" and No Fly List

[the_human_being]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Idiocy? No. Just letting unskilled and low skilled people into the country by the thousands, which places a huge burden on US and our system, is what is idiocy. Get a clue.

I love how you say stuff like this, when you fail to realize who is putting the 'burden' on you by inviting these people in.

The reason why you have such a 'burden" is because rich people don't want to pay you a far wage. But they will totally get stupid tools like you upset about your bibles and your guns.

You could end the "illegal" problem in ten minutes. Go after the rich people who hire them.

The rich people don't let them into the country--your leader does.

 

[Contumacious]

We need to put to rest this ridiculous idea that the government CARES about people's well-being.

We have a growing number of homeless every year, the government doesn't care. The government seems to actually have joy in the fact people who aren't in the system are rotting on the street as a punishment. Our government has actually worked against people who have come up with ideas and efforts to alleviate the homelessness.

If our government cared about national safety, step #1 would be to seal the border. We've all kinds of criminals walk into this country, run mafias and kill people here, the government never cared about the safety of citizens enough to seal the border.



There is one reason, and one reason only, why politicians want to ban gun ownership by declaring people "mentally ill" or placing them on the No Fly List, and that is because bureaucrats would have the power to remove rights simply by placing people in a category.

In the United States of America, it is illegal for the government to deprive people of their rights without a criminal conviction by a jury made up of citizens.

If you allow the government to remove gun rights from people by declaring them mentally ill, or placing them on a No Fly List, then you may as well heat your house this Christmas by burning the U.S. Constitution while the government writes their new Socialist manifesto.

BINGO.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Mental-Illness-Foundations/dp/0061771228&tag=ff0d01-20
The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We need to put to rest this ridiculous idea that the government CARES about people's well-being.

We have a growing number of homeless every year, the government doesn't care. The government seems to actually have joy in the fact people who aren't in the system are rotting on the street as a punishment. Our government has actually worked against people who have come up with ideas and efforts to alleviate the homelessness.

If our government cared about national safety, step #1 would be to seal the border. We've all kinds of criminals walk into this country, run mafias and kill people here, the government never cared about the safety of citizens enough to seal the border.



There is one reason, and one reason only, why politicians want to ban gun ownership by declaring people "mentally ill" or placing them on the No Fly List, and that is because bureaucrats would have the power to remove rights simply by placing people in a category.

In the United States of America, it is illegal for the government to deprive people of their rights without a criminal conviction by a jury made up of citizens.

If you allow the government to remove gun rights from people by declaring them mentally ill, or placing them on a No Fly List, then you may as well heat your house this Christmas by burning the U.S. Constitution while the government writes their new Socialist manifesto.

Agreed. If it's one thing I've learned about liberals in life, it's that they never stop at point X.

Point X is fine when they are trying to achieve it. But once they get to that point, it's only a matter of months or years before they advance to the next point. They are no longer happy with just point X.

If liberals want to forbid people on the no-fly list to have a firearm, what are they doing free in our country in the first place? If they are suspected of doing something wrong, shouldn't they be convicted so they have their day in court, of deported if they are not a natural born citizen?

Next question is, how many people on the no-fly list have ever legally purchased a firearm and committed a crime with it? To my knowledge, nobody.

That being said, if government wants to stop people on list X from owning a firearm, and nobody on that list has ever committed a crime with a firearm, then what is their real motive?

That last question will probably keep some liberals up tonight.

 

[Wolfstrike]

in the state of California , if you lose your temper, or show anger in front of any hospital worker, police, ...fireman, you can be held against your will for a mental evaluation. You automatically lose your gun rights for 5 years. You have to go to a hearing and a judge may reinstate your rights, if he/she feels like it.

A few years ago, California attorney general Kamala Harris was the first official that actually sent law enforcement to people's houses to collect guns. Some people handed over guns, other people acted like they weren't home or told law enforcement to go screw themselves.

We already have a definition for "mentally ill" , it's what ever the state feels like

 

[washamericom]

Good to see more people waking up. Big Brother is not your friend. He just wants you to STFU and do what you're told.

that's why the founding fathers and mothers wanted amendment #2, strategically placed right behind amendment #1

 

[Wildman]

Yes the government has made it almost impossible for the mentally ill to get into the system for help.

what are you talking about, there are way too many mentally ill libercrat scum getting Gvmt. assistance.

 

[washamericom]

Trumps packs a heater, in NYC too.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because of wimps like yourself. That's right, lawn darts is NOT a right. I cannot even believe that people like you exist. I think you must either work for the government and you're a poser, or you are from another country and are being poser.

Again, there are no "rights', there's just what the rest of society thinks is reasonable. There used to be a "right" to own slaves. There used to be a 'right' to beat your wife if she got out of hand. (If you ever wonder where the term 'rule of thumb' comes form, the stick you beat your wife with couldn't be thicker than your thumb.) Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' needs to look up Japanese-Americans, 1942. The fact that people like you want to ban Muslims despite what hte First Amendment says about freedom of religion shows that there really are no "rights".

There's just what society thinks is reasonable. and the rest of society that either doesn't own guns or does but kind of thinks you gun fetishist are nuts are going to get a little tired of you no matter how much you scream about "rights".

So instead of talking about "rights", talk about what the value of unrestricted gun ownership is vs. the damage that such a high level of gun proliferation causes us. Well, we know the costs. 33,000 deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 crimes a year committed with guns. That's what it costs when you let any crazy person who wants a gun have one.

And what are the benefits? These supposed DGU's you gun nuts keep talking about, but never happen in the real world?

The founders knew about people like Joe.

the founders were a bunch of slave-raping assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share for a war THEY instigated.

The Liberals like to cherry pick what the forefathers wanted. By and large, 2015 have no use for the forefathers.

I have no use for them at all. We should do things that make sense in the HERE AND NOW. Because I'm sure that when you have a cold, you don't go to the Hospital for a good bleeding like George Washington did in 1799 when his doctor bled him to death.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when most of the population was engaged in agriculture and attacks by wild animals and natives were still a thing, but they didn't have organized armies and police departments. So I would even say that in 1787, a second amendment to allow for a readily available militia might not have been even an entirely bad idea. Particularly when a Musket took over a minute to reload and one guy with musket just wasn't that much of a threat. Muskets were only really dangerous when you had a lot of guys with them well trained in using them in formation.

Today we have single machine guns that can lay down more firepower than a company of minutemen. The idea that a guy like Adam Lanza or James "Joker" Holmes should have the right to buy these weapons and a 100 round magazine for them is just plain old crazy.

So to review, James Holmes couldn't buy a box of lawn darts because someone might put an eye out, but he can buy an AR-15.

 

[JoeB131]

The rich people don't let them into the country--your leader does.

Obama has deported more undocumented immigrants than Bush ever did.

If the rich weren't paying them, they wouldn't come here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The rich people don't let them into the country--your leader does.

Obama has deported more undocumented immigrants than Bush ever did.

If the rich weren't paying them, they wouldn't come here.

If we had a law that stated anybody found here to be illegal was subject to a minimum five years in prison, they wouldn't come here either:

High deportation figures are misleading

High deportation figures are misleading

Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
By JULIA PRESTONAPRIL 16, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/u...in-last-five-years.html?ref=juliapreston&_r=1

 

[JoeB131]

If we had a law that stated anybody found here to be illegal was subject to a minimum five years in prison, they wouldn't come here either:

GUy, we already lock up 2 million people and have another 7 million on probation and parole. The right wing notion that locking people up solves any problems is just plain old silly.

 

[KGB]

We need to put to rest this ridiculous idea that the government CARES about people's well-being.

We have a growing number of homeless every year, the government doesn't care. The government seems to actually have joy in the fact people who aren't in the system are rotting on the street as a punishment. Our government has actually worked against people who have come up with ideas and efforts to alleviate the homelessness.

If our government cared about national safety, step #1 would be to seal the border. We've all kinds of criminals walk into this country, run mafias and kill people here, the government never cared about the safety of citizens enough to seal the border.



There is one reason, and one reason only, why politicians want to ban gun ownership by declaring people "mentally ill" or placing them on the No Fly List, and that is because bureaucrats would have the power to remove rights simply by placing people in a category.

In the United States of America, it is illegal for the government to deprive people of their rights without a criminal conviction by a jury made up of citizens.

If you allow the government to remove gun rights from people by declaring them mentally ill, or placing them on a No Fly List, then you may as well heat your house this Christmas by burning the U.S. Constitution while the government writes their new Socialist manifesto.

Ignorant nonsense and hyperbole.

And the notion of 'sealing the border' is idiocy.

Otherwise, the thread premise fails, as anyone denied a firearm because he's on a terrorist watch list has the same right to appeal the decision as anyone else denied pursuant to a background check – no due process rights are 'violated,' and no gun rights 'removed.'

Please educate us (with sources) how this appeal process works. Even the ACLU states it is Constitutionally-inadequate...

What To Do If You Think You're on a No-Fly List

 

[Eaglewings]

Yes the government has made it almost impossible for the mentally ill to get into the system for help.

what are you talking about, there are way too many mentally ill libercrat scum getting Gvmt. assistance.

I get it that many do not understand how bad the mental health is unless if you work or live with it. Not sure if you are near a city, but next time that you see homeless people talking to themselves at every corner realize that they probably are self medicating and many have fought for your country who slipped through the cracks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If we had a law that stated anybody found here to be illegal was subject to a minimum five years in prison, they wouldn't come here either:

GUy, we already lock up 2 million people and have another 7 million on probation and parole. The right wing notion that locking people up solves any problems is just plain old silly.

Not at all. In Arizona, they created their own procedures to determine illegals in their state. The police were allowed to question their status when confronted. The result was half the schools became empty, companies reported that a third of their crew didn't show up for work. The illegals fled that state faster than Obama could say Hope and Change.

Of course DumBama took it to court and had Arizona stop their procedures. Then all the illegals came back.

The only deterrent to crime is a strong and harsh enough penalty.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

We need to put to rest this ridiculous idea that the government CARES about people's well-being.

We have a growing number of homeless every year, the government doesn't care. The government seems to actually have joy in the fact people who aren't in the system are rotting on the street as a punishment. Our government has actually worked against people who have come up with ideas and efforts to alleviate the homelessness.

If our government cared about national safety, step #1 would be to seal the border. We've all kinds of criminals walk into this country, run mafias and kill people here, the government never cared about the safety of citizens enough to seal the border.



There is one reason, and one reason only, why politicians want to ban gun ownership by declaring people "mentally ill" or placing them on the No Fly List, and that is because bureaucrats would have the power to remove rights simply by placing people in a category.

In the United States of America, it is illegal for the government to deprive people of their rights without a criminal conviction by a jury made up of citizens.

If you allow the government to remove gun rights from people by declaring them mentally ill, or placing them on a No Fly List, then you may as well heat your house this Christmas by burning the U.S. Constitution while the government writes their new Socialist manifesto.

Ignorant nonsense and hyperbole.

And the notion of 'sealing the border' is idiocy.

Otherwise, the thread premise fails, as anyone denied a firearm because he's on a terrorist watch list has the same right to appeal the decision as anyone else denied pursuant to a background check – no due process rights are 'violated,' and no gun rights 'removed.'

To support the government right to use a list that once had Ted Kennedy on it is mind boggling to say the least.

The No-Fly list is a government list controlled by a select few, and is a list with so many damn flaws that it should not be used to deny anyone their Constitutional Rights.

It is a abusive list, and writing someone can fight the system if they were wrongly placed on there has never dealt with government bureaucracy in their life or believe that the government never make a mistake when it is living proof what not to do most of the damn time!

So it is a no on using the No-Fly list because as stated so many times it is a faulty system that would deny citizens of their right to bear arms because someone in the government believe you might be a threat because of your damn name!

 

[JoeB131]

Not at all. In Arizona, they created their own procedures to determine illegals in their state. The police were allowed to question their status when confronted. The result was half the schools became empty, companies reported that a third of their crew didn't show up for work. The illegals fled that state faster than Obama could say Hope and Change.

But Arizona also got boycotted by major corporations and lost a lot of money due to their bigotry, so they really didn't do themselves any favors.

Most of the Arizona laws got struck down by SCOTUS, BTW, so I don't think it had the effect you say it did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. In Arizona, they created their own procedures to determine illegals in their state. The police were allowed to question their status when confronted. The result was half the schools became empty, companies reported that a third of their crew didn't show up for work. The illegals fled that state faster than Obama could say Hope and Change.

But Arizona also got boycotted by major corporations and lost a lot of money due to their bigotry, so they really didn't do themselves any favors.

Most of the Arizona laws got struck down by SCOTUS, BTW, so I don't think it had the effect you say it did.

Sure it did between the time the law passed and the SC struck it down thanks to DumBama. That begs the question: if DumBama is trying to keep illegals out, why did he take action against Arizona in the first place? Could it be that he really wants these illegals here? Naaaah.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure it did between the time the law passed and the SC struck it down thanks to DumBama. That begs the question: if DumBama is trying to keep illegals out, why did he take action against Arizona in the first place? Could it be that he really wants these illegals here? Naaaah.

The reason he struck this law down was it was effectively a "Driving While Brown" law that allowed law enforcement to pull people over because they looked Hispanic, whether they be citizens, resident aliens or undocumented workers.

Yes, at the time it passed, a lot of Hispanics kept a low profile, kind of like the Jews did after Kristalnacht.