Guns & background checks
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Allowing your citizens to be armed is a common fascist tactic hail Hitler
I'm not sure how I feel about these two EOs that got rolled back today.
With respect to the gun rule, from what I understand it requires the SSA to forward information on those that are not mentally incapable of handling their own affairs to the NICS database. It sounds like to me it would prevent a person who is incapable of managing their own business affairs to purchase a gun. Should you be trusted to handle a firearm if you can't be trusted to handle your social security checks? I guess I'd be interested in seeing some example cases. On one hand you can't claim that mental health is the real issue with respect to gun violence but then do nothing to prevent those with mental issues from buying guns. On the other hand I'm not sure what types of "mental issues" are going to be considered disqualifying. That could be a broad brush and I think the burden needs to be on the state to take a constitutional right away, not on the individual to get it back after it has been taken without due process.
On the coal one it says it prevents coal mining companies from dumping mining debris into streams. What are they dumping into streams? What am I missing here because it seems obvious they shouldn't be dumping anything into streams.
With respect to the gun rule, from what I understand it requires the SSA to forward information on those that are not mentally incapable of handling their own affairs to the NICS database. It sounds like to me it would prevent a person who is incapable of managing their own business affairs to purchase a gun. Should you be trusted to handle a firearm if you can't be trusted to handle your social security checks? I guess I'd be interested in seeing some example cases. On one hand you can't claim that mental health is the real issue with respect to gun violence but then do nothing to prevent those with mental issues from buying guns. On the other hand I'm not sure what types of "mental issues" are going to be considered disqualifying. That could be a broad brush and I think the burden needs to be on the state to take a constitutional right away, not on the individual to get it back after it has been taken without due process.
On the coal one it says it prevents coal mining companies from dumping mining debris into streams. What are they dumping into streams? What am I missing here because it seems obvious they shouldn't be dumping anything into streams.
Streams were a dumping ground for coal until 2016, and we are going to roll right back to it.
This seems extreme but what do I know. Do you have any peer reviewed evidence?
Ps my father in law wrote software that created models for water movement/displacement and was a consultant for coal companies being sued over water quality.
Lets discuss
I always get your avatar mixed up with cowpoke. My bad.
I was bluffing anyway he really did all that but I never absorbed many of the details.
I was bluffing anyway he really did all that but I never absorbed many of the details.
And who determines this? I find it interesting that every year when I have my physical at the VA, they always ask whether I've been depressed or stressed out since the last exam. I've wondered if they are seeking an affirmative answer and, if so, they would use that to add my name to the no-gun buy list.
Every time I take my kid for a check up the paperwork asks if there are any guns in the house. It then says if you feel you need guns in the house they need to be locked up and the billets locked in another room of the house.
Brady Act requires "adjudication" as a mental defective or "commitment" to a mental institution.
Both those require hearing, opportunity to appear, and a determination by a fact finder with jurisdiction.
The problem with all SS recipients with a designated alternate payee being placed in NICS is a good chunk of them have a designated payee by request or agreement. Some with alternate payees aren't because of mental incompetency.
IMO, the only ones that should go into NICS are those specifically ordered by the admin law judge to have a alternate payee after hearing on their mental competency. Those do exist, and in those cases, both due process and "adjudication" requirements are met.
My favorite poster because of this ^^^. Despite the fact that he wears ugly ass orange and does personal business on the taxpayer's dimes and nickels and pennies and Susan B Anthony dollars and 1879 Silver Dollars worth an eagle's nest plus 12 in combat hit power.
I wasn't kidding about the janitor stuff.
Get to work. Even thought the corporation has seen lean times during the Obama administration, I still have a Ghetto, Inc executive washroom that ain't gonna clean itself.
Holy shiitake slave driver! I'm on it sir!I wasn't kidding about the janitor stuff.
Get to work. Even thought the corporation has seen lean times during the Obama administration, I still have a Ghetto, Inc executive washroom that ain't gonna clean itself.
(Mumbling to myself as I walk away) I just said holy shiitake to the CEO. I bet he thinks I'm an idiot. I should have said holy shit. I wonder if smearing "OU" on the wall in shit and blaming it on popped collars guy would get him beat up?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Not sure why we seem so comfortable in creating exceptions out of thin air on this stuff.
For that matter, I'm even more surprised that so many conservatives here keep writing in a tone that the 2nd as if it's something the government bestows upon us as a gift.
Not sure why we seem so comfortable in creating exceptions out of thin air on this stuff.
For that matter, I'm even more surprised that so many conservatives here keep writing in a tone that the 2nd as if it's something the government bestows upon us as a gift.
Well, I could quote you the language from Scalia that says the 2nd Amendment isn't a right to carry any weapon anywhere at any time and is subject to reasonable regulation....including regulation of concealed carry, felons, mental incompetents etc.
That is....if you'd like.
Just as a mental exercise....If it's Natural Law, why should I care what Scalia writes?
As a mental exercise...if it's natural law, you probably shouldn't.
If it's constitutional law we're talking about, you probably should.
I don't remember reading about god given/nature given right to possess firearms I guess.
Isn't the right to defend/protect oneself a natural right that supersedes any Constitution or law regardless of what weapon one uses?
By carrying any weapon, any where, at any time?
I'd say no.
The right to defend your self against aggression is a natural right that does not extend to regardless of what one weapon likes to carry in public in anticipation of the possibility of that you may one day need to defend yourself.
We're getting into John Locke, nasty brutish and short vs a social compact territory philosophically at this point.
Similar threads
