It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Report: Shooting at Fort Hood; Multiple Injuries UPDATE2: Four dead, 16 injured...
page: 34share:
nancyliedersdeaddog
...are they going to make everyone who tries to buy a gun go sit down with a government shrink until that shrink clears them to own a weapon, are they going to get rid of doctor patient confidentiality, or are they going to make all shrinks tell the government who has been in their offices? Maybe I'm missing something and someone can tell me what gun control fans are proposing.
You basically got it right. There is something called the "Blair-Holt Firearms Control Act" that has been floating around Congress for several years now, and that basically mandates the very things you mentioned. I suspect it will soon be revived, perhaps under a new name.
reply to post by starviego
I don't think its really going to be as bad as you might think;
Its going to be "you need a note from a mental-health professional", so you go and see a psychiatrist or something, get a note that basically says "this guy is reasonably sane/mentally stable", it will probably be an additional burden, and won't be a perfect solution, however it will likely filter out those with serious mental problems, that might not be so visible to you or me.
I don't think its really going to be as bad as you might think;
Its going to be "you need a note from a mental-health professional", so you go and see a psychiatrist or something, get a note that basically says "this guy is reasonably sane/mentally stable", it will probably be an additional burden, and won't be a perfect solution, however it will likely filter out those with serious mental problems, that might not be so visible to you or me.
NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by starviego
I don't think its really going to be as bad as you might think;
Its going to be "you need a note from a mental-health professional", so you go and see a psychiatrist or something, get a note that basically says "this guy is reasonably sane/mentally stable", it will probably be an additional burden, and won't be a perfect solution, however it will likely filter out those with serious mental problems, that might not be so visible to you or me.
Except said shrink will most definitely have a quota to fill, if he wants to be on the list of approved medical practitioners. And guess who get to pay the fee for said shrink? What is their going rate? I lot more than you're making. And then of course you'll have to 're-up' your certificate every five years, then every two years, then every year. And those quotas will shave a little bit off each time. Oh yeah.
Anyway psychiatry has more to with witch doctors, not medical practice. And they don't have any crystal ball as to who is going to go Postal. So put away your naivete and smell the tyranny comin' down.
reply to post by Mirthful Me
lol... you got me there.. no mention of judicial review in the constitution..
You might want to take this information to a lawyer, as it could be really important for your case.
I think progressives and conservatives will both pick and choose from the federalist papers. when it suits their needs/supports their interpretations of things.
in addition:
when you assert that "X" means "Y" you're asserting your interpretation of "X"..
lol... you got me there.. no mention of judicial review in the constitution..
You might want to take this information to a lawyer, as it could be really important for your case.
I think progressives and conservatives will both pick and choose from the federalist papers. when it suits their needs/supports their interpretations of things.
in addition:
when you assert that "X" means "Y" you're asserting your interpretation of "X"..
reply to post by starviego
Where did you get the idea of therapists, or psychologists having "quotas".
Do you not have insurance? (don't want to start a healthcare debate, not in this thread anyway)
I never said its going to be perfect, you're right, psychologists don't have crystal ball on who and who isn't going to go postal. However if you encounter someone who has a history of violent outbursts, or anger issues, or some form of severe depression, I think it might be a good sign that it would not be a good idea to "take a chance" without studying the individual further.
Where did you get the idea of therapists, or psychologists having "quotas".
Do you not have insurance? (don't want to start a healthcare debate, not in this thread anyway)
I never said its going to be perfect, you're right, psychologists don't have crystal ball on who and who isn't going to go postal. However if you encounter someone who has a history of violent outbursts, or anger issues, or some form of severe depression, I think it might be a good sign that it would not be a good idea to "take a chance" without studying the individual further.
NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by starviego
I don't think its really going to be as bad as you might think;
Its going to be "you need a note from a mental-health professional", so you go and see a psychiatrist or something, get a note that basically says "this guy is reasonably sane/mentally stable", it will probably be an additional burden, and won't be a perfect solution, however it will likely filter out those with serious mental problems, that might not be so visible to you or me.
So are the government going to keep a list of people who are mentally ill and have tried to purchase a gun? If not how are they going to stop mentally ill people from going to other doctors until the pass the test. Is there going to be a list of government accepted doctors or will any psychiatrist do and who will pay the cost of the appointment?
Edit: Would you be expanding something like stop and frisk all over America to cut down gun crime, what about expanding the NSA to target gun owners, and allowing cops to search personal property without a warrant or probable cause? I mean think about all the crimianls who hurt people the cops could get off the streets.
edit on 7-4-2014 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)
NonsensicalUserName
Where did you get the idea of therapists, or psychologists having "quotas".
Traffic cops.
NonsensicalUserName.... someone who has a history of violent outbursts, or anger issues, or some form of severe depression, I think it might be a good sign that it would not be a good idea to "take a chance" without studying the individual further.
Gosh, who has ever been violent, been angry, or been depressed? Not Me! But yeah, we really do need to check everybody else out. You know how dangerous our Constitutional rights can be!
reply to post by starviego
>comparing doctors to traffic cops.
I think that's kinda weird.
Moving on, I said a history of angry/violent outbursts or severe depression. Not just feeling depressed or getting angry sometimes.
Quite clearly though I don't think you know what those things mean since you think that Psychiatrists will behave like traffic cops.
Traffic Cops have quotas to increase revenue for the local government,
Psychiatrists don't work for the federal government, they're just certified by ABPN, I think a lot of them either work at, or own their own smaller practices.
>comparing doctors to traffic cops.
I think that's kinda weird.
Moving on, I said a history of angry/violent outbursts or severe depression. Not just feeling depressed or getting angry sometimes.
Quite clearly though I don't think you know what those things mean since you think that Psychiatrists will behave like traffic cops.
Traffic Cops have quotas to increase revenue for the local government,
Psychiatrists don't work for the federal government, they're just certified by ABPN, I think a lot of them either work at, or own their own smaller practices.
nancyliedersdeaddog
So are the government going to keep a list of people who are mentally ill and have tried to purchase a gun? If not how are they going to stop mentally ill people from going to other doctors until the pass the test. Is there going to be a list of government accepted doctors or will any psychiatrist do and who will pay the cost of the appointment?
the would-be gun owner would pay the cost.
I couldn't help but think there would actually be some good things in keeping medical information centralized in some sense. but that's an arguement for a different day.
If there is a shooting however, it will allow us to find the psychologist responsible for clearing the criminal/maniac and getting his certification revoked.
edit on 8-4-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)
In the simplest terms, there is not a "test" for a right...
It's been tried, used to suppress suffrage, but any means testing of the populace for any constitutionally guaranteed right is by definition unconstitutional. I'm surprised it's even being discussed, but then again... I blame the teachers... If they actually taught U.S. history, civics and government, we wouldn't have ridiculous conversations like this.
As for any doctor, or healthcare "professional" being the gatekeeper for gun ownership... That in itself is... Insane...
It's been tried, used to suppress suffrage, but any means testing of the populace for any constitutionally guaranteed right is by definition unconstitutional. I'm surprised it's even being discussed, but then again... I blame the teachers... If they actually taught U.S. history, civics and government, we wouldn't have ridiculous conversations like this.
As for any doctor, or healthcare "professional" being the gatekeeper for gun ownership... That in itself is... Insane...
edit on 4/8/2014 by
Mirthful Me because: (no reason given)
NonsensicalUserName
.... you think that Psychiatrists will behave like traffic cops.
I think gub'mint pogues will act like gub'mint pogues, and do what they are told to do in order to keep that money in-coming. That's whether they are employed directly or indirectly via gub'mint mandates.
So do you really want some bureaucrat telling you when you are allowed to exercise your civil rights?
----------------------
Curious how even the alleged perp has joined the mockingbird chorus pushing the new politically correct agenda. An ALLEGED post from his facebook page:
wtkr.com...
“It is stupid to me that anyone can have easy access to a powerful weapon without being mentally evaluated. This makes the government indirect accomplice.”
/
edit on 8-4-2014 by starviego because: (no reason given)
I don't have the ability to start threads yet and I fear this may be somewhat off topic, but my brother stationed at camp lejeune has just told me
about a shooting that occurred on base today. I can't find any info online.
Oops, accidental double post
edit on 8-4-2014 by pond470 because: double post
NonsensicalUserName
nancyliedersdeaddog
So are the government going to keep a list of people who are mentally ill and have tried to purchase a gun? If not how are they going to stop mentally ill people from going to other doctors until the pass the test. Is there going to be a list of government accepted doctors or will any psychiatrist do and who will pay the cost of the appointment?
the would-be gun owner would pay the cost.
I couldn't help but think there would actually be some good things in keeping medical information centralized in some sense. but that's an arguement for a different day.
If there is a shooting however, it will allow us to find the psychologist responsible for clearing the criminal/maniac and getting his certification revoked.
edit on 8-4-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)
Idk about anyone else but I'm shocked someone from a conspiracy website is wanting the government to have even more control. If psychologist have to worry about loosing their job if one of their patients shoots someone then they aren't going to aprove very many people due to fear of losing their job. What about people who don't have the hundreds even thousands of dollars it would take to be aproved to own a gun since I highly doubt a psychologist can properly clear a patient to own a gun in the first few vists especially if the Doctors job is on the line? How's the government going to stop some Psychologist from milking people out of money by making them keep coming back (spend more money) when they should of cleared them? How are you going to stop the government from keeping records of every legal gun owner?
I do hope you also answer a few my questions from my last post- Would you be expanding something like stop and frisk all over America to cut down gun crime, what about expanding the NSA to target gun owners, and allowing cops to search personal property without a warrant or probable cause? I mean think about all the crimianls who hurt people the cops could get off the streets.
edit on 9-4-2014 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by pond470
There was a shooting at the Guard Gate that they are ruling right now as accidental but the person who fired the shot is still in custody.
There was a shooting at the Guard Gate that they are ruling right now as accidental but the person who fired the shot is still in custody.
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
okay; wow; slippery slope much... but in any case; You make some good points on the issues of psychological clearances though and I'll give you that, perhaps I was being too far-fetched in notions of public policy.
lets start over,
Compromise is the key; Universal background checks seem to be a good compromise, in the sense that they're not outright banning guns, nor imposing tolitarian restrictions on guns (your milage may vary on that opinion), rather they're simply re-enforcing already existing legislation with some simple measures to make sure that the information on background checks is complete.
okay; wow; slippery slope much... but in any case; You make some good points on the issues of psychological clearances though and I'll give you that, perhaps I was being too far-fetched in notions of public policy.
lets start over,
Compromise is the key; Universal background checks seem to be a good compromise, in the sense that they're not outright banning guns, nor imposing tolitarian restrictions on guns (your milage may vary on that opinion), rather they're simply re-enforcing already existing legislation with some simple measures to make sure that the information on background checks is complete.
NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
okay; wow; slippery slope much... but in any case; You make some good points on the issues of psychological clearances though and I'll give you that, perhaps I was being too far-fetched in notions of public policy.
lets start over,
Compromise is the key; Universal background checks seem to be a good compromise, in the sense that they're not outright banning guns, nor imposing tolitarian restrictions on guns (your milage may vary on that opinion), rather they're simply re-enforcing already existing legislation with some simple measures to make sure that the information on background checks is complete.
Well what you are advocating for could lead to a slippery slope/open up more problems and if you want to crack down hard on people with mental illines who kill a very small amount of people every year with guns I could only guess you would also want to crack down even harder on crimianls/gangs/ect who are the ones responsible for killing the majortity of people each year. So are you for or not for expanding stop and frisk, letting cops search personal property without warrents, ect so they can go after serious criminals and gangs? See the thing is about universal background checks is they aren't that effective, almost every single mass shooter has got their guns legally with a background check. These mass shooters don't use the gun show loophole to buy their guns and neither do the vast majority of criminals. According to the ATF the vast majority of criminals get their guns by illegal straw purchases over 70% ,then some get them illegally from a people on the street, next corrupt gun dealers, and then last from stealing them. So universal background checks wouldn't stop the vast majority of bad guys getting their guns plus the courts rarely even prosecute people who have tried to purchase a weapon legally when they are banned from doing so.
edit on 9-4-2014 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
So you're one of those people who welcome the police state because you think it makes you safer.
Wow, I thought you folks were a myth.
So you're one of those people who welcome the police state because you think it makes you safer.
Wow, I thought you folks were a myth.
Hmmmmmmm
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
So you're one of those people who welcome the police state because you think it makes you safer.
Wow, I thought you folks were a myth.
What are you talking about? I think you might want to re-read all my comments since they have all been against more government control. I never said I supported those things I only asked if he supported those things. If he supported more government control to crack down on mentally ill people who kill a small number of people with guns each year then I would love to know what he would propose to crack down on criminals.