Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Self-certification is the law

Nice rant, but you aren't answering his question. Are YOU ok with self-certification?

No - the question is, why is he NOT ok with self-certification?

We're discussing self-certification of sanity here.
The answer to your question is self evident.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

You still dodge and weave.

You wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

Apparently this is NOT what you meant. You don't care if they ARE under treatment, you only care about what they CLAIM to be.

Your recent statements show that what you really meant was:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal or a convicted felon and claims that he or she is not under psychiatric treatment."

Is that more accurate?

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you deal with large numbers of people on a daily basis, your bullshit meter really get honed. Typically the best way to deal with bullshit is to confront it directly. So feel free to attack me personally instead of defining what an "assault weapon" is and how our currently restrictions aren't restrictive enough. Also please show and explain how the previous bill decreased any crimes involving a weapon. Please also show how when the bill sunsetted, how crime dramatically jumped with the previously banned weapons.

Have you wondered why someone who has to deal with criminals with guns on a daily basis is so adamantly opposed to a new "assault weapon" ban?

Why would I want to do that? I agree with you that there should not be a ban. As a matter of fact, there should be absolutely no restriction on any weapons one can purchase in the USA.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

You still dodge and weave.

You wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

Apparently this is NOT what you meant. You don't care if they ARE under treatment, you only care about what they CLAIM to be.

Your recent statements show that what you really meant was:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal or a convicted felon and claims that he or she is not under psychiatric treatment."

Is that more accurate?

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"?

STRAWMAN ALERT.

I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You still dodge and weave.

You wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

Apparently this is NOT what you meant. You don't care if they ARE under treatment, you only care about what they CLAIM to be.

Your recent statements show that what you really meant was:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal or a convicted felon and claims that he or she is not under psychiatric treatment."

Is that more accurate?

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"?

STRAWMAN ALERT.

I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

No... I'm asking YOU.

You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You still dodge and weave.

You wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

Apparently this is NOT what you meant. You don't care if they ARE under treatment, you only care about what they CLAIM to be.

Your recent statements show that what you really meant was:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal or a convicted felon and claims that he or she is not under psychiatric treatment."

Is that more accurate?

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"?

STRAWMAN ALERT.

I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

No... I'm asking YOU.

You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want.

I would prefer not to arm someone who is under psychiatric treatment.

mnealtx's comments show that he only cares that they CLAIM not to be under psychiatric treatment.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"?

STRAWMAN ALERT.
I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

No... I'm asking YOU.

You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Mr. Cho managed to buy his guns quite legally.

No, he did not - he LIED on the form. Unfortunately, the state did not flag the NICS database, so he did not trigger an alert.

OMG, people LIE on the form? Oh the humanity. Say it ain't so.

I don't suppose it occurred to you that this might be a little problem with self-certification? No, I don't suppose it did.

Now I have to go to work.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[AggieDave 6]

Well Mr. Pasker, enjoy your work. When you come back, try answering the questions I posed to you.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I'm sure he'll do that right after mnealtx answer the question he asked him.

Why is it you are not accusing mnealtx of being a troll?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You still dodge and weave.

You wrote:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

Apparently this is NOT what you meant. You don't care if they ARE under treatment, you only care about what they CLAIM to be.

Your recent statements show that what you really meant was:

"I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal or a convicted felon and claims that he or she is not under psychiatric treatment."

Is that more accurate?

Yes, I forgot to mention the 'convicted felon' part - now, are you done quibbling?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Why is it you are not accusing mnealtx of being a troll?

His previous posts on here, for one, where he has stated his opinion in this matter.

Is there no one who will define what an "assault weapon" is besides a weapon with full capacity magazines that "looks scary?"

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"?

STRAWMAN ALERT.
I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment."

No... I'm asking YOU.

You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want.

I would prefer not to arm someone who is under psychiatric treatment.

mnealtx's comments show that he only cares that they CLAIM not to be under psychiatric treatment.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mr. Cho managed to buy his guns quite legally.

No, he did not - he LIED on the form. Unfortunately, the state did not flag the NICS database, so he did not trigger an alert.

OMG, people LIE on the form? Oh the humanity. Say it ain't so.

I don't suppose it occurred to you that this might be a little problem with self-certification? No, I don't suppose it did.

Now I have to go to work.

I didn't say that - I said the current situation is the law.

How would YOU solve what you percieve to be such a great problem?

Before you trot out some bullshit about psych evals, recognize this -

1. It is a violation of HIPPA law.

2. You throw the door WIDE open to the same sort of scrutiny given to other rights, such as speech or voting.

Now, you may proceed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want.

I would prefer not to arm someone who is under psychiatric treatment.

mnealtx's comments show that he only cares that they CLAIM not to be under psychiatric treatment.

So.. how do you PROVE that someone isn't under psychiatric treatment? I understand your desire, but don't get to the practical application of your statement.

Do you wish to have all psych records open to public review?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing.

Unworthy.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing.

Unworthy.

So was your "joke".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[StreetScooby 5]

While I've been an advocate of the NRA for a long time, I never actually joined. Felt there really wasn't a need on my part. Well, that changed last night. Can't wait to get my hat.

We are all engines of karma

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

If you deal with large numbers of people on a daily basis, your bullshit meter really get honed. Typically the best way to deal with bullshit is to confront it directly. So feel free to attack me personally instead of defining what an "assault weapon" is and how our currently restrictions aren't restrictive enough. Also please show and explain how the previous bill decreased any crimes involving a weapon. Please also show how when the bill sunsetted, how crime dramatically jumped with the previously banned weapons.

Have you wondered why someone who has to deal with criminals with guns on a daily basis is so adamantly opposed to a new "assault weapon" ban?

According to CA law the weapon shown in the first video IS NOT an assault weapon. While the weapon shown in the 2nd video is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChVEri7uOg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ9sFBU6Dx4&feature=related

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

While I've been an advocate of the NRA for a long time, I never actually joined. Felt there really wasn't a need on my part. Well, that changed last night. Can't wait to get my hat.

I actually prefer GOA or JPFO.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I actually prefer GOA or JPFO.

Which is what?

We are all engines of karma

[quade 4]

Quote

According to CA law the weapon shown in the first video IS NOT an assault weapon. While the weapon shown in the 2nd video is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChVEri7uOg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ9sFBU6Dx4&feature=related

Awesome! You sound like just the person to write the correct definition then. What should that be?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeheelbillie 3]

Quote

Ok, freeheelbillie... NOW you can have your conniption.

Clicky

Quote

By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.

As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Stupid idea, of course - it will have no impact on criminal activities. I'm wondering what the OTHER "just a few gun-related changes" will be?

LOL

Like I have said before loosing your rights will be a slow and gradual process. Shit like this along with the Fairness Doc, will leave this country a shell of its former self. Sad really, really sad.

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

According to CA law the weapon shown in the first video IS NOT an assault weapon. While the weapon shown in the 2nd video is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChVEri7uOg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ9sFBU6Dx4&feature=related

Awesome! You sound like just the person to write the correct definition then. What should that be?

You know I really enjoyed these games when it was with Kallend. I feel like I was one of the few here who really got what he was doing. One thing I learned from him is if he was avoiding the main point of my entire post...he either agreed with me, could not dispute my logic, or saw it for the trap that it probably was.

My original post was to illustrate the ridiculousness of trying define "assault weapons" for the sake of a ban. I'm sure you agree.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I actually prefer GOA or JPFO.

Figured it out
Yes, I can see why you would prefer these.
How effective are they as organizations?

We are all engines of karma