Wait, are we now seriously discussing whether or not someone deemed mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?

(02-22-2013 11:07 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:03 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So you be the dumb and predictable one for trying to stir $h1+ up about Obama. What a joke.

Kinda like those who mindlessly defend him.

Joke, indeed.

There is middle ground between defending Obama and flying off the handle every time I read a conservative website.

Also of note, this is not an "Obama thing", that is a provision of the Brady Bill which was enacted in 1993. Please, for the good of the nation and my sanity, get some reading comprehension skills and don't just read headlines.

(02-22-2013 11:05 AM)jh Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 10:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.

Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.

Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?

As far as I know, we don't put adults in facilities unless they themselves sign off on it or they have committed a crime, in which case a judge does have that leeway. We are not and should not be a society that just locks people up because someone thinks they are nuts. That is pretty much exactly how Hitler and Stalin were able to consolidate power. If you are willing to compromise freedom in the name of security, you get neither.

Civil commitment is allowed in this country. As its name implies this is a civil procedure unrelated to any previous violation of criminal law. Perhaps its most common use is with people deemed to be sex predators, who are civilly committed not because of their past crimes (it happens after they would have been released from prison) but because the danger they will commit future crimes. It is also used for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/l...-standards

It appears the Brady Bill prohibits a certain class of mental ill people to be prohibited from owning firearms. The letters seem to be telling the veterans that if they are deemed incomptent (to the extent that a fiduciary need be appointed to handle their VA benefits) they will fall into this category. It also gives them the opportunity to present additional evidence and request a hearing. You can (barely) read a full copy of one of the letters here:
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarmi...ammunition

I have no idea how many veterans are getting these letters and I have no idea how good the evidence they based their preliminary determination is. Given it's a government operation I suspect it's rife with errors, including veterans who are in no way incompetant receiveing letters, but it will take a little more to convince me it's a nefarious government plot.

I do know one thing... if I came back from combat and was disturbed by what happened there, I wouldn't bother seeking help for this very reason. If what you say about civil commitment is true, that is blatently Unamerican and Unconstitutional.

(02-22-2013 11:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:05 AM)jh Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 10:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.

Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?

As far as I know, we don't put adults in facilities unless they themselves sign off on it or they have committed a crime, in which case a judge does have that leeway. We are not and should not be a society that just locks people up because someone thinks they are nuts. That is pretty much exactly how Hitler and Stalin were able to consolidate power. If you are willing to compromise freedom in the name of security, you get neither.

Civil commitment is allowed in this country. As its name implies this is a civil procedure unrelated to any previous violation of criminal law. Perhaps its most common use is with people deemed to be sex predators, who are civilly committed not because of their past crimes (it happens after they would have been released from prison) but because the danger they will commit future crimes. It is also used for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/l...-standards

It appears the Brady Bill prohibits a certain class of mental ill people to be prohibited from owning firearms. The letters seem to be telling the veterans that if they are deemed incomptent (to the extent that a fiduciary need be appointed to handle their VA benefits) they will fall into this category. It also gives them the opportunity to present additional evidence and request a hearing. You can (barely) read a full copy of one of the letters here:
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarmi...ammunition

I have no idea how many veterans are getting these letters and I have no idea how good the evidence they based their preliminary determination is. Given it's a government operation I suspect it's rife with errors, including veterans who are in no way incompetant receiveing letters, but it will take a little more to convince me it's a nefarious government plot.

I do know one thing... if I came back from combat and was disturbed by what happened there, I wouldn't bother seeking help for this very reason. If what you say about civil commitment is true, that is blatently Unamerican and Unconstitutional.

No it's not. There is due process involved. Before you can be committed to a mental institution against your will, a hearing before a judge is required. This stuff has been going on for a hundred years. Why all of a sudden are we ready to storm the castle gates about it? What is it about Obama that sets you people off so bad?

(02-22-2013 11:10 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Also of note, this is not an "Obama thing", that is a provision of the Brady Bill which was enacted in 1993. Please, for the good of the nation and my sanity, get some reading comprehension skills and don't just read headlines.

Depends.
If it was being enforced loosely under the previous administrations and Obama has since told the VA to tighten it up to include anyone at all who has even a hint of PTSD, then yes, it most certainly IS an Obama problem.

(02-22-2013 09:56 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.

Provide something of substance or f.ck off idiot. If you could possibly support this you are beneath scum.

You first.

(02-22-2013 11:16 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:10 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Also of note, this is not an "Obama thing", that is a provision of the Brady Bill which was enacted in 1993. Please, for the good of the nation and my sanity, get some reading comprehension skills and don't just read headlines.

Depends.
If it was being enforced loosely under the previous administrations and Obama has since told the VA to tighten it up to include anyone at all who has even a hint of PTSD, then yes, it most certainly IS an Obama problem.

Do you have any evidence of that? Do you think that with all the sht that comes across his desk, Obama would have time to meddle with the operations of the VA at that level? For the government to be so incompetent in your eyes, they sure do have a TON of control over their operations.

(02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.

Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.

True. THey still allow Rebel to have guns and he is insane.

(02-22-2013 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.

Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.

Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?

No. THe Republicans closed them all due to the need for budget cuts.

(02-22-2013 10:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:55 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Liberals have no problem with an overbearing, high-taxing, abusive central government.

In the American Revolution, they would have been the tories.

Liberals are generally unhappy with life and society in general. That is why they constantly want to change society.

You denigrating my service again, Robert?

(02-22-2013 11:18 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:16 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:10 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Also of note, this is not an "Obama thing", that is a provision of the Brady Bill which was enacted in 1993. Please, for the good of the nation and my sanity, get some reading comprehension skills and don't just read headlines.

Depends.
If it was being enforced loosely under the previous administrations and Obama has since told the VA to tighten it up to include anyone at all who has even a hint of PTSD, then yes, it most certainly IS an Obama problem.

Do you have any evidence of that? Do you think that with all the sht that comes across his desk, Obama would have time to meddle with the operations of the VA at that level? For the government to be so incompetent in your eyes, they sure do have a TON of control over their operations.

I've never called Obama incompetent. I think his followers are incompetent.

I Think Obama is corrupt and motivated and will push through any and all gun control any which way he can.

DHS buying up 1.6 billion bullets so manufacturers run out? Check. Seeking what he can get away with legislatively? Check.

Going back door through the VA by banning many ex vets from owning guns if they have any symptoms of PTSD? Check.

He's not incompetent. He's immoral, corrupt and possibly a narcissistic sociopath but no, he's not dumb, he knows exactly what he is doing.

(02-22-2013 10:48 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:50 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.

And if it's true?

I expect this kind of stuff from RRM but you are smarter than this. Some guy creates a story on his website from his basement and everybody gets upset. Typical conservotainment. It will probably get picked up by Drudge, then Beck and Rush will devote an hour on the radio to it. Fox & Friends will use it as their opening story Monday morning. By Wednesday, Ted Cruz will give a speech about it on the Senate floor. I'm enjoying this train wreck.

Sadly, Smauggy is starting to but into this stupidity. Sad really. :(

40 years old, pulling down minimum wage.

That's got to be some kind of record.

(02-22-2013 11:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Wait, are we now seriously discussing whether or not someone deemed mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?

Well....if they're allowed to have kids then shouldn't they be responsible enough to use a gun properly? Why do you hate the mentally impaired?

(02-22-2013 11:15 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:05 AM)jh Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 10:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?

As far as I know, we don't put adults in facilities unless they themselves sign off on it or they have committed a crime, in which case a judge does have that leeway. We are not and should not be a society that just locks people up because someone thinks they are nuts. That is pretty much exactly how Hitler and Stalin were able to consolidate power. If you are willing to compromise freedom in the name of security, you get neither.

Civil commitment is allowed in this country. As its name implies this is a civil procedure unrelated to any previous violation of criminal law. Perhaps its most common use is with people deemed to be sex predators, who are civilly committed not because of their past crimes (it happens after they would have been released from prison) but because the danger they will commit future crimes. It is also used for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/l...-standards

It appears the Brady Bill prohibits a certain class of mental ill people to be prohibited from owning firearms. The letters seem to be telling the veterans that if they are deemed incomptent (to the extent that a fiduciary need be appointed to handle their VA benefits) they will fall into this category. It also gives them the opportunity to present additional evidence and request a hearing. You can (barely) read a full copy of one of the letters here:
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarmi...ammunition

I have no idea how many veterans are getting these letters and I have no idea how good the evidence they based their preliminary determination is. Given it's a government operation I suspect it's rife with errors, including veterans who are in no way incompetant receiveing letters, but it will take a little more to convince me it's a nefarious government plot.

I do know one thing... if I came back from combat and was disturbed by what happened there, I wouldn't bother seeking help for this very reason. If what you say about civil commitment is true, that is blatently Unamerican and Unconstitutional.

No it's not. There is due process involved. Before you can be committed to a mental institution against your will, a hearing before a judge is required. This stuff has been going on for a hundred years. Why all of a sudden are we ready to storm the castle gates about it? What is it about Obama that sets you people off so bad?

Going in front of a judge for doing nothing wrong is not due process. A crime needs to be committed (it is a crime to make threats or conspire so an actual act of violence would not need to take place). This argument has nothing to do with Obama, I never brought him up. It is a general argument against cracking down on gun rights for mental illness (which is actually the argument many conservatives are making). My position is that freedom is the most important value to protect and the sometimes, no matter what you do, ban, or legislate, sh*t happens. I also believe in Satan and believe that, even if you lock up all the open deviants, evil will find its way into seemingly normal functioning staples of society... like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy for instance... and that sh*t is still going to happen.

(02-22-2013 11:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I do know one thing... if I came back from combat and was disturbed by what happened there, I wouldn't bother seeking help for this very reason. If what you say about civil commitment is true, that is blatently Unamerican and Unconstitutional.

Some samples from recent supreme court decisions.

Quote:Civil commitment proceedings can ensure that individuals who present a danger to themselves or others receive proper treatment without unfairly treating them as criminals.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-5966.ZD.html
It's in the dissent, but the reason for Kennedy's dissent isn't because of a disagreement about civil commitment.

Quote:Federal law allows a district court to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date he would otherwise be released.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZS.html

(02-22-2013 11:30 AM)jh Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I do know one thing... if I came back from combat and was disturbed by what happened there, I wouldn't bother seeking help for this very reason. If what you say about civil commitment is true, that is blatently Unamerican and Unconstitutional.

Some samples from recent supreme court decisions.

Quote:Civil commitment proceedings can ensure that individuals who present a danger to themselves or others receive proper treatment without unfairly treating them as criminals.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-5966.ZD.html
It's in the dissent, but the reason for Kennedy's dissent isn't because of a disagreement about civil commitment.

Quote:Federal law allows a district court to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date he would otherwise be released.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZS.html

That wouldn't be the first SCOTUS decision I disagree with.

(02-22-2013 11:25 AM)Rebel Wrote:  You denigrating my service again, Robert?

Nope. I just say/said your service to the country has had a very negative effect on you psychologically.