Psych exams for gun purchases

No, the rantings and the self mutilation and the violence at home and at school and the friends who knew he was mutilating animals…

What violence? What mutilating?

The only place I've read about any of that is here on USMB, in the rantings of various posters. Do you have anything at all to support the statements you're making?

That combination of warning signs should have led to the authorities stepping in…

You're assuming their crystal ball was properly calibrated...

He isn’t the first to show these warning signs…..and he isn’t the first to have them ignored by the school and police

Again, you're going to need to provide something to support your claims...
 
We know Trump and his cult has been weaponizing mental health against Americans.

November 6 2017
On Sunday morning, a man opened fire on a congregation at a Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. According to the most recent count, the gunman killed at least 26 people. The attack, which is the 378th mass shooting in 2017, was met online with a mixture of sadness and cynicism.

President Trump, who is currently traveling in Asia, explained why he thinks gun control is definitely not the problem when he answered questions about the shooting on Monday morning:





February 15 2018
President Donald Trump offered some solemn remarks Thursday addressing the mass shooting at a Florida high school which left at least 17 dead. Trump laid the blame on the mental health of the shooter and declined to mention the issues of gun violence or gun control.

“We are committed to working with state and local leaders to help secure our schools and tackle the difficult issue of mental health,” said Trump. “Later this month, I will be meeting with the nation’s governors and attorney generals, where making our schools and our children safer will be our top priority.”

August 5 2019
Last week, Donald Trump responded to the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, by saying that “mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.”


During his speech at the NRA convention in Houston, former President Donald Trump said the U.S. needs to “drastically change” its approach to mental health and called for more school security. Trump’s comments come in the wake of a shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 students and two teachers were killed.
Do perfectly sane, rational people shoot up schools and work places? Cite your source.
 
But the orange retard, granted them the right to own them.

August 5 2019
President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by insisting Monday that “mental illness pulls the trigger not the gun,” but shortly after taking office he quietly rolled back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.

Trump did so without any fanfare. In fact, the news that Trump had signed the bill was at the bottom of a White House email that alerted the media to other legislation signed by the president.

"It has been the NRA’s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment," it said.

But two years ago, the NRA insisted the Obama rule infringed on Second Amendment rights to buy guns, even though the regulation specifically targeted people who were diagnosed with mental illness.

The NRA “applauded” Trump’s action at the time and then-executive director Chris Cox said the move “marks a new era for law-abiding gun owners, as we now have a president who respects and supports our arms.”
The rule that was rolled back stripped people never adjudicated as mentally defective of their 2nd Amendment rights without any due process or even appeal.

There are a lot of people who for various reasons can't handle their own finances that are perfectly rational and sane.

Rolling that rule back played absolutely no role in this guy's ability to legally purchase a firearm.
 
The rule that was rolled back stripped people never adjudicated as mentally defective of their 2nd Amendment rights without any due process or even appeal.
WTF?
They applied to Social Security for a mental issue, went to court in front of a Social Security judge, it was granted.

How much "due process" do you fucking need?
"Appeal"?
What?
There are a lot of people who for various reasons can't handle their own finances that are perfectly rational and sane.
Sure, but they applied for SSDI for MENTAL issues, NOT because they couldn't balance a checkbook.
Rolling that rule back played absolutely no role in this guy's ability to legally purchase a firearm.
It wasn't even that.
It was entering that person into the National Crime Database.
 
It's pretty hard to get a vehicle into a classroom.
Then they didn't do that.
Didn't grab a pool cue.
Didn't grab a chain.
Didn't grab a tree branch.
Didn't grab a molotov cocktail.
Didn't grab a fire extinguisher.
Didn't grab a beer bottle and beak it, into shards.
Didn't grab a baseball bat.

 
Moron, the family should have sought help…..the school should have sought help….the police should have pressed for an involuntary commitment which they have in Texas…

The gun store had no part in the mistakes of all those others and had his name popped in the background check, they would have refused the purchase

Wow, he should have gotten help, but all that money went to give tax cuts to billionaires... Those Dressage Horsies aren't going buy themselves.


Like I said, let victims of gun violence sue the gun stores and manufactuerers, and you would be AMAZED how fast the gun industry creates an effective background check that's going to look at everything.
 
Then they didn't do that.
Didn't grab a pool cue.
Didn't grab a chain.
Didn't grab a tree branch.
Didn't grab a molotov cocktail.
Didn't grab a fire extinguisher.
Didn't grab a beer bottle and beak it, into shards.
Didn't grab a baseball bat.


You made the asinine statement, deflecting won't change that fact.
 
Wow, he should have gotten help, but all that money went to give tax cuts to billionaires... Those Dressage Horsies aren't going buy themselves.


Like I said, let victims of gun violence sue the gun stores and manufactuerers, and you would be AMAZED how fast the gun industry creates an effective background check that's going to look at everything.
Are you smoking the Crystal Draino again?

Sue them for how a criminal chooses to use their product? You won't be able to buy a car in the US anymore if that becomes the rule.
 
Provision four limits the ability to determine rates or eligibility for health insurance based on gun ownership. Now why is that even in there? Title I of the ACA states that insurance will be guaranteed issue so no one can be turned down. Even if they own enough guns to hunt every squirrel in the United States, they will qualify for health insurance. Just so the gun owners have the correct information, rates are based on only four factors – age, location, number of family members, and smoking status. Wait – guns smoke, so maybe they thought that was meant for gun owners.

 
Nope. Because the NRA weakened the background system to just being an incomplete database.
You are of course lying. The background check we have today was in fact the brain child of the NRA.

The problem is there's no follow up on those who fail a background check.

In the age of swatting and other types of false reports the kind of system you propose would make most people ineligible because anyone can make any claim they want they felt might disqualify you.

We have a right to equal protection and equal treatment under law so whatever restrictions you want to put on the right to keep and bear can also be put on voting rights, the right to free speech and expression as well.

Be very careful what you wish for.
 
Can't really apply it to the 21% of the population who own guns, but that's fine, as most mass shooters buy their guns within days of their rampage, so let's actually start there, with new gun owners.
Your numbers are more than just a bit off.

1654050448386.png



1654050540884.png



Considering how many Americans would be reticent to answer yes you're probably off by at least 2/3's.

Such a scheme as you propose would be a clear violation of our rights as well placing preconditions on one's right to to keep and bear.
 

Forum List

Back
Top