Is this supposed to be a real line of reasoning?

That’s just sad.

(02-17-2018 03:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Is this supposed to be a real line of reasoning?

That’s just sad.

(02-17-2018 01:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Who cares if Kim Jung Un gets nukes. Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people.



So of course you don’t let someone who is mentally deranged get a weapon of mass destruction.

Right?????

That’s common sense????

True?

Of course.

Can you provide any links to people who want the mentally deranged to get weapons of any kind?

Hey Mach....you ever going to get around to answering the bolded part?

(02-17-2018 01:16 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Who cares if Kim Jung Un gets nukes. Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people.



So of course you don’t let someone who is mentally deranged get a weapon of mass destruction.

Right?????

That’s common sense????

True?

Do you suppose there are laws on the books in this country that prohibit the "mentally deranged" from purchasing a gun?? Along with some other groups like for instance - felons.

How is that prohibition working? About the same as people possessing illegal drugs?

It is true that the mentally cannot purchase but it is equally true that there is no real method of noting that a person has a mental illness that precludes them from owning firearms other than noting when a person has been involuntarily committed in a judicial proceeding. A person committed because they signed the paperwork and agreed to be there doesn't show up. The person who signed a power of attorney to their spouse or parents and gets committed based of the decision of the person holding the power of attorney doesn't get picked up. The person in out-patient treatment for hearing voices doesn't get picked up be the database either. The person who was being treated out-patient and one day makes the decision to stop going to therapy and stop taking their medication doesn't go into the database either.

If a person is receiving social security, SSI or VA benefits and is determined to be incompetent to manage their own funds they used to go into the database but Congress passed a law repealing that and the president signed it.

(02-17-2018 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If a person is receiving social security, SSI or VA benefits and is determined to be incompetent to manage their own funds they used to go into the database but Congress passed a law repealing that and the president signed it.

As they should have considering it denied American citizens due process before stripping them of their rights.

Besides, it was a bad policy. My great uncle quit school in the 6th grade and because of dyslexia could barely read, write, and do only the most basic math. His wife and then daughter handled his financial affairs. He was as lucid and mentally strong at 97 years old as anyone. He died after getting tboned by a drunk driver. Why should he have had his rights denied based on some BS arbitrary regulation?

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Who cares if Kim Jung Un gets nukes. Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people.
So of course you don’t let someone who is mentally deranged get a weapon of mass destruction.
Right?????
That’s common sense????
True?

Crazy people kill people. Kim Jung Un is crazy. Nikolas Cruz is crazy. Dylan Kliebold was crazy.

Don’t let crazy people have guns or nukes. That doesn’t mean sane people can’t. Or that they shouldn’t.

(02-17-2018 06:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If a person is receiving social security, SSI or VA benefits and is determined to be incompetent to manage their own funds they used to go into the database but Congress passed a law repealing that and the president signed it.

As they should have considering it denied American citizens due process before stripping them of their rights.

Besides, it was a bad policy. My great uncle quit school in the 6th grade and because of dyslexia could barely read, write, and do only the most basic math. His wife and then daughter handled his financial affairs. He was as lucid and mentally strong at 97 years old as anyone. He died after getting tboned by a drunk driver. Why should he have had his rights denied based on some BS arbitrary regulation?

Then AMEND it.

Yes I know it is crazy but the law isn't binary. You can amend such things to address problems.

Know of a guy who had multiple inpatient admissions for suicidal ideation. He was on disability but made a little bit selling guns, just not enough to disqualify him from disability. Held a valid sales permit. One day he took a pistol out of inventory and is no longer collecting disability but his kids will draw on his social security for another couple years until they reach 18.

(02-17-2018 08:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If a person is receiving social security, SSI or VA benefits and is determined to be incompetent to manage their own funds they used to go into the database but Congress passed a law repealing that and the president signed it.

As they should have considering it denied American citizens due process before stripping them of their rights.

Besides, it was a bad policy. My great uncle quit school in the 6th grade and because of dyslexia could barely read, write, and do only the most basic math. His wife and then daughter handled his financial affairs. He was as lucid and mentally strong at 97 years old as anyone. He died after getting tboned by a drunk driver. Why should he have had his rights denied based on some BS arbitrary regulation?

Then AMEND it.

Yes I know it is crazy but the law isn't binary. You can amend such things to address problems.

It wasn't a law, it was yet another one of Obama's overreaching EO's or regulations.

And the law doesn't need amending, The law that has been in place since 1968 works when people actually follow through with it. It would have worked in the Florida case as well.

When it comes to a citizen's basic rights being denied I defer to Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

(02-17-2018 08:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If a person is receiving social security, SSI or VA benefits and is determined to be incompetent to manage their own funds they used to go into the database but Congress passed a law repealing that and the president signed it.

As they should have considering it denied American citizens due process before stripping them of their rights.

Besides, it was a bad policy. My great uncle quit school in the 6th grade and because of dyslexia could barely read, write, and do only the most basic math. His wife and then daughter handled his financial affairs. He was as lucid and mentally strong at 97 years old as anyone. He died after getting tboned by a drunk driver. Why should he have had his rights denied based on some BS arbitrary regulation?

Then AMEND it.

Yes I know it is crazy but the law isn't binary. You can amend such things to address problems.

It wasn't a law, it was yet another one of Obama's overreaching EO's or regulations.

And the law doesn't need amending, The law that has been in place since 1968 works when people actually follow through with it. It would have worked in the Florida case as well.

When it comes to a citizen's basic rights being denied I defer to Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Did you know that one of the ways to get rid regulations you don't like is to pass a law that supersedes it? Congress also has the right to overturn a regulation and send it back with guidance directing it do certain things. They instead used an older law that permanently prohibits any similar regulation from being adopted.

Replied before your edit and just saw this:

Quote:Know of a guy who had multiple inpatient admissions for suicidal ideation. He was on disability but made a little bit selling guns, just not enough to disqualify him from disability. Held a valid sales permit. One day he took a pistol out of inventory and is no longer collecting disability but his kids will draw on his social security for another couple years until they reach 18.

Sad story but your problem is not with the regulation that was repealed but with the mental health professionals who did not follow through with the procedures set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Had they done so the guy wouldn't have been able to legally posses any forearms.

So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

(02-17-2018 09:12 PM)Tulanefan32 Wrote:  So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

Ummm Trump was evaluated and passed. I get it, when you don't get the results you want you ignore the facts.

Sleep tight sweet pea.

(02-17-2018 08:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If a person is receiving social security, SSI or VA benefits and is determined to be incompetent to manage their own funds they used to go into the database but Congress passed a law repealing that and the president signed it.

As they should have considering it denied American citizens due process before stripping them of their rights.

Besides, it was a bad policy. My great uncle quit school in the 6th grade and because of dyslexia could barely read, write, and do only the most basic math. His wife and then daughter handled his financial affairs. He was as lucid and mentally strong at 97 years old as anyone. He died after getting tboned by a drunk driver. Why should he have had his rights denied based on some BS arbitrary regulation?

Then AMEND it.

Yes I know it is crazy but the law isn't binary. You can amend such things to address problems.

It wasn't a law, it was yet another one of Obama's overreaching EO's or regulations.

And the law doesn't need amending, The law that has been in place since 1968 works when people actually follow through with it. It would have worked in the Florida case as well.

When it comes to a citizen's basic rights being denied I defer to Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Did you know that one of the ways to get rid regulations you don't like is to pass a law that supersedes it? Congress also has the right to overturn a regulation and send it back with guidance directing it do certain things. They instead used an older law that permanently prohibits any similar regulation from being adopted.

As they should. There is a law in place that accomplishes the goal they desire and most importantly protects the rights of American citizens. Even well intentioned regulations can be bad, and the one in question was horrible and set an even worse precedent that rights could be taken away via regulation.

(02-17-2018 09:16 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 09:12 PM)Tulanefan32 Wrote:  So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

Ummm Trump was evaluated and passed. I get it, when you don't get the results you want you ignore the facts.

Sleep tight sweet pea.

Hey gdunn, can't you tell this is not a real welcher Tulane poster. I would think everyone could see this is a conservative troll attempting to make the left look as foolish as they actual are.

(02-17-2018 09:12 PM)Tulanefan32 Wrote:  So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

Why is it that everything you post is blatant trolling? That's the real question.....

(02-17-2018 09:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 09:16 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 09:12 PM)Tulanefan32 Wrote:  So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

Ummm Trump was evaluated and passed. I get it, when you don't get the results you want you ignore the facts.

Sleep tight sweet pea.

Hey gdunn, can't you tell this is not a real welcher Tulane poster. I would think everyone could see this is a conservative troll attempting to make the left look as foolish as they actual are.

Hide yo trolling. They jailin everyone

(02-17-2018 09:42 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 09:12 PM)Tulanefan32 Wrote:  So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

Why is it that everything you post is blatant trolling? That's the real question.....

Tulane is mentally unstable with T.D.S. Rather obvious.

(02-17-2018 09:12 PM)Tulanefan32 Wrote:  So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

Ummm, maybe because KJU has shown repeated signs of mental instability whereas Trump has not?

(02-17-2018 11:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 09:12 PM)Tulanefan32 Wrote:  So why is Kim Jong Un considered “mentally unstable” but Trump is not? That’s the real question here.

Ummm, maybe because KJU has shown repeated signs of mental instability whereas Trump has not?

Trump has not? Now I know you are delusional. Trump has been mentally unstable since taking office from day one. If you deny that then you have your political party blinders on.

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Who cares if Kim Jung Un gets nukes. Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people.



So of course you don’t let someone who is mentally deranged get a weapon of mass destruction.

Right?????

That’s common sense????

True?

He has nukes now. how stupid are you?