SkinsHokieFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Well, it already takes 18-24 months to vet refugees, but gun owners? No vetting needed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Wait so we are reverting back to no background check ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 45 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said: Wait so we are reverting back to no background check ? I'm reading it that this extra information cannot be used as part of a background check. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Hersh said: So the house voted to roll back a rule that said if you have a mental disorder so severe you cannot work and need someone to handle your benefits, that it would show up in background checks when trying to buy a gun. How is that regulation a bad thing? I mean, should we not want some safeguards in place? Open to all answers because I generally have no problems with someone owning a gun, but isn't this kind of sensible? Let me preface by saying that I am not attempting to advocate for or against this. How many people might elect not to seek the help they need because they know it will prevent them from buying a gun? Or how about the idea of confidentiality of medical records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Just now, PokerPacker said: Let me preface by saying that I am not attempting to advocate for or against this. How many people might elect not to seek the help they need because they know it will prevent them from buying a gun? Or how about the idea of confidentiality of medical records? Are these individuals already self reporting they can't handle their own affairs? I wouldn't think so but I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 As the resident gun nut here I guess it falls to me to defend this so here I go...... I got nothing. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Hersh said: So the house voted to roll back a rule that said if you have a mental disorder so severe you cannot work and need someone to handle your benefits, that it would show up in background checks when trying to buy a gun. How is that regulation a bad thing? I mean, should we not want some safeguards in place? Open to all answers because I generally have no problems with someone owning a gun, but isn't this kind of sensible? Should your disorder prevent you from having the ability to defend yourself?...serious question. Next you are gonna want notification if they are visibly impaired. I'd need better clarification on the mental disorder since some are acceptable public dangers and others not. aqdd a example could be severe agoraphobia. Why deny them a gun? Edited February 3, 2017 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Well it said it would show up on a background check, not be a disqualifier. And if you are more pro gun than me, you should probably reevaluate your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I have no reason to be against keeping track of mental disabilities. which ones, for how long, and if there are exceptions is where it gets tricky, but i'm not against the general idea that a line should be drawn there. i think here if you've been treated for anything you have to report it on the background check yourself, so if you don't you're lieing and illegally purchasing a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, twa said: Should your disorder prevent you from having the ability to defend yourself?...serious question. Next you are gonna want notification if they are visibly impaired. I'd need better clarification on the mental disorder since some are acceptable public dangers and others not. aqdd a example could be severe agoraphobia. Why deny them a gun? I don't know enough about that disorder, but I read this as not just having some disorder but not being able to manage one's own affairs per their disability benefits. I'm open to an examination of which disorders are on there and why. In general I certainly believe in a person's right to own a gun for self-defense. Here is wait makes this worse for me: appeals process was built in. It would seem more constructive to me that the NRA have lawyers work pro-bono helping people appeal that really would like to be able to buy a gun. Quote People entered into the system would be able to apply for relief from the SSA, but not until after their names were sent to the FBI. They would also be able to appeal in court. House Republicans turned to the Congressional Review Act to overturn the regulation. The law allows lawmakers to roll back rules they disapprove of. Critically for Republicans, the resolutions cannot be filibustered in the Senate. The NRA has raised concerns about a similar gun rule from the Department of Veterans Affairs. But that rule was issued so long ago, it is no longer eligible for repeal under the Congressional Review Act. Edited February 3, 2017 by Hersh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 severe agoraphobia can easily prevent you from managing your affairs(since they require leaving your comfort zone), yet allow relatively normal life when isolated . there are other similar disorders as well that need not exclude gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, twa said: severe agoraphobia can easily prevent you from managing your affairs(since they require leaving your comfort zone), yet allow relatively normal life when isolated . I feel like TWA might be giving us a glimpse into a side of himself that he's never shared before. Go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: severe agoraphobia can easily prevent you from managing your affairs(since they require leaving your comfort zone), yet allow relatively normal life when isolated . there are other similar disorders as well that need not exclude gun ownership. I would agree that there are disorders that need not exclude gun ownership. I think having an appeal process in there was necessary. What we don't know here is what specifically was meant or what is the definition of not being able to handle one's own affairs. It may seem self-explanatory but it's government so ya never know. If we had a dump **** in streams is bad thread, I'd be posting in there tonight as well. (I'm trying not to rant about that one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: I feel like TWA might be giving us a glimpse into a side of himself that he's never shared before. Go on... While I do have a few mental issues they are minor and managed well.(hush Jumbo) Definitely have vision ones.....It was fun outshooting folk while legally blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 57 minutes ago, twa said: It was fun outshooting folk while legally blind. You just won by default. Anyway, now that we all know your horrible secret.... Spoiler BOO!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Me and open spaces get along just fine,ya might say I prefer them. Winning matters when shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 We demonstrated that it's possible for people to reasonably talk about guns and examining policy. I'm proud of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said: As the resident gun nut here I guess it falls to me to defend this so here I go...... I got nothing. As the resident nut I got ya covered 3 hours ago, Hersh said: I would agree that there are disorders that need not exclude gun ownership. I think having an appeal process in there was necessary. What we don't know here is what specifically was meant or what is the definition of not being able to handle one's own affairs. I feel about needing appeals like liberals feel about the immigration ban. there are many things that make having someone else manage your affairs preferable w/o actually being incompetent or a danger to society. and no Sacks, no one needs to manage my affairs ,ya stalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I expect more of this sort of pushback to businesses banning guns. http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/florida/bills-aims-to-hold-businesses-who-ban-guns-responsible-for-customer-safety/396284288 Bills aims to hold businesses banning guns responsible for customers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 8 hours ago, twa said: I expect more of this sort of pushback to businesses banning guns. http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/florida/bills-aims-to-hold-businesses-who-ban-guns-responsible-for-customer-safety/396284288 Bills aims to hold businesses banning guns responsible for customers Proposed amendment: ". . . hold businesses banning or allowing guns responsible . . . " Then I could go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I would rather just hold the gun owner responsible for what they do with their weapon. Expecting a business to be responsible for allowing someone to exercise their rights is laughable. I like this proposal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I would rather just hold the gun owner responsible for what they do with their weapon. Expecting a business to be responsible for allowing someone to exercise their rights is laughable. I like this proposal. Your statements contradict each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Larry said: Your statements contradict each other. How? You added that businesses should be held responsible for allowing guns also. The proposed Bill does not suggest that. I said I would rather the gun owner be held responsible instead of businesses. I would like businesses to be held responsible IF they ban guns. Clear now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, Larry said: Proposed amendment: ". . . hold businesses banning or allowing guns responsible . . . " Then I could go for it. But when guns are allowed by law it is the business infringing/discriminating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Just now, TheGreatBuzz said: How? You added that businesses should be held responsible for allowing guns also. The proposed Bill does not suggest that. I said I would rather the gun owner be held responsible instead of businesses. I would like businesses to be held responsible IF they ban guns. Clear now? No, repeating contradictory statements do not cause them to not be contradictory. Either you want the person who pulls the trigger to be (solely) responsible, or you don't. Your position is "I want the business to be responsible if they choose the option that my group doesn't want them to pick. (But, if they pick the option I want, then they're not responsible for the results of their decision.)". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts