Kanye West is breaking the simulation
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
How soon before Mueller indicts Hillary and Podesta for that child sex ring in the pizza parlor?
I'm all for the mentally ill not having guns. How are you going to adjudicate their removal?
He can’t come up with a metric he can pass.
This made me lol and hahahahaha
For one, reversing the Republican clusterfvck we discussed before...
https://oklahomastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/twitter-flips-the-script—victims-to-trump.70027/
So it’s funny that Republicans made it easier for the mentally ill to obtain guns. “Lol hahahahaha”
Got it. Thumbs up. Brilliant stuff
I'll bet your talking points are fun on dates.
Wow, I went through that entire thread. The only thing you discussed was the rescinding of an Obama executive order that wasn't an executive order at all. You totally failed in every aspect of that thread and now present it as proof that you actually proposed a rational solution?
The only person in that thread who actually proposed any real solutions was JD.
Joke. Now, lay out exactly how you would propose to remove the mentally ill's right to bear arms. I'm all ears. It is a simple question.
1. Increased funding for mental health care.
2. Better more extensive background checks...will cost money. Will also likely necessitate a longer waiting period.
3. Maybe change the Brady Act on mental health from adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to something like:
“Currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder. For purposes of this paragraph, "currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder" means the person has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as being afflicted with a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, psychological orientation, or memory that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life“ as a disqualifier.
Maybe even an “in the past X number of years” time period.
4. Either a monetary stick (decrease of funding to states under Omnibus Crime Act funding) or carrot (increased funding under same) for reaching benchmark arrest/conviction information and mental health record reporting to NICS by the states.
5. Increased funding for school security measures....seems like a nice infrastructure program I could get behind.
Would all be on the table for me. This has become a public safety/public health issue as important as the opiates crisis to me. I don’t know if either side has the political will to actually dedicate real resources to improving the crisis.
Things that I’m not particularly interested in pursuing:
1. Arming teachers or authorizing carry in the classroom by teachers.
2. Particular weapon bans for certain semi-automatics. I understand the attraction to and fear of scary looking “assault rifles”, but functionally they are no different than other semi-auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Discussion of banning things like bump stocks or cranks would be worthy of discussion.
Thing that I’m on the fence on:
1. Required training and qualification licensing for general public carry (with particular policy based exceptions including, but not necessarily limited, to possession on property owned by the possessor and possibly others.
P.S. not cut and pasted from anywhere else. I feel like a nine year old defending that I did this “all by myself”...but I did.
We all need to agree that no regulation is going to eliminate the problem, but the focus should be on decreasing the carnage.
Just my opinion....Fire/criticize away. Call me a snowflake lib...statist...Nazi...whatever. I’m thick skinned (relatively).
So you don’t think we should reverse it lol. Got it. Team Trump all the way for ya...heard haha.
I made no judgement what so ever regarding the rule reversal. Is your only proposal to re-enact that administrative rule? Nothing else?
Dude, it is an easy question. Just answer it.
How exactly do you would propose to remove the mentally ill's right to bear arms? Lay out a case.
I went and looked up the actual rule. Is this the entirety of your proposed solution?
SUMMARY: We propose to implement provisions of the NIAA that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under the proposed rule, we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We propose to provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibitions imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also propose to establish a program 2 that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. The proposed rule would allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA.
SUMMARY: We propose to implement provisions of the NIAA that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under the proposed rule, we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We propose to provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibitions imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also propose to establish a program 2 that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. The proposed rule would allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA.
You realize that rule ONLY covers people receiving social security disability benefits?
The only thing he knows is what the lefty talking heads feed him. It's this way with every. single. topic. But I do love watching you kick him around the yard.
Yeah, but damn I'm not even trying to 'kick him around'. I just try to get him to give a post of actual substance and he continually refuses.
He continually claims that we don't engage him in actual dialog but, when given a real chance to do so - he won't provide anything of substance.
So, this being a Republican initiative, making it easier for those adjudicated mentally ill...you’re gonna argue “lefty talking points”?
Got it lol.
Carry on.
I’m arguing this being a Republican initiative...are you going to admit it doesn’t look good and should be a start to fixing the issues?
Team Trump no matter what?
I hadn't given it much thought. But as I read it I'd like a clarification from someone who would know better than me what the adjudication process would look like.
Are they saying that anyone who is receiving Social Security disability pay based on a mental illness would by default be added to the list that precludes them from purchasing a new firearm? Or, would it put them on a list to the AG that would then go about adjudicating them?
Basically are they presumed... well, guilty or innocent (even though that isn't the right wording.)
I would propose that it is the responsibility of the government to individually prove that each and every one was a threat to themselves or others before removing their rights instead of denying their rights en mass and then requiring them to petition for their return.
I readily admit that I may be misreading the language of the rule.
Try to actually argue your view and you might get some interest. Typing "Republicans!" isn't an actual argument.
Nope. Them reversing their decision is a start to fixing the problem.
What’s funny is when gun control becomes the news/narrative, the conservative mantra always falls back to “Dems wanna take all our guns away” BS. Always. It’s just automatic defense mechanism (not saying you in particular, but you know what I’m saying).
So who’s throwing around the blame, and who’s trying to fix the problems?
They have already had womans’ beef. Apparently Bey doesn’t care much for Kim....but Jay-Z said they’re are still bros even when they argue during his interview with Letterman on Dave’s Netflix show.
Okay. I can understand that point.
Let's say for argument's sake that the decision is reinstated. It's a good start to fixing the problem...
What else is needed to continue to fix the problem of the mentally ill having the right to bear arms?
I’d first punish the father of the Waffle House kid for letting him have guns back. Set an example that hopefully deters such future occurrences. I’d punish law enforcement agencies/members who fail to sufficiently heed warning signs, like Cruz.
Okay, what else?
What specific punishments would you impose that would act as an effective deterrent? Under what law would you press charges, get a conviction, and then sentence them?
