See post #13.

 

Uh, post 13 is about a state law. I repeat my question.

Uh, post 13 is about a state law. I repeat my question.

The state law is a prefect example of what many fear will happen on a grander scale with federal law. It's a legitimate concern.

The state law is a prefect example of what many fear will happen on a grander scale with federal law. It's a legitimate concern.

 

Then read the proposed legislation. If it mirrors the state law, fight it. If it is a reasonable proposal, support it. Paranoia is not a legislative strategy.

Then read the proposed legislation. If it mirrors the state law, fight it. If it is a reasonable proposal, support it. Paranoia is not a legislative strategy.

How about you answer a couple of questions if you can. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? Call it paranoia if you will, but even you has to know that the government is anything but honest about it's intentions at times.

How about you answer a couple of questions if you can. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? Call it paranoia if you will, but even you has to know that the government is anything but honest about it's intentions at times.

 

I don't know much about the state law, but my understanding is that there is nothing in the proposed federal law along those lines. I have not read the proposed federal law, but my understanding is that mental health exclusions require that the individual be adjudicated as mentally ill. That seems reasonable to me. We do have a much different opinion of the government. I think that in general, the government is well intentioned. That doesn't excuse the times when some government employees or elected officials are incompetent, lazy, bureaucratic or overreaching. They should be called on it when it happens, but I don't think that those instances are sufficient to distrust all government action. I feel the same way about business. Most business are looking to provide a reasonable product or service at a reasonable profit. When they lie, cheat or otherwise abuse the public they deserve to be called on it, but that doesn't tar all business.

Sheila Jackson: Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked - that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws." and the clincher, “Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation.”

Sheila Jackson:Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked - that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws." and the clincher, “Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation.”

Ah yes......Sheila Jackson Lee. She is a perfect reminder of "common sense". Don't worry, someone will injure themselves while attempting to bend and shape the excuse to defend her moronic wisdom.

How about you answer a couple of questions if you can. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? Call it paranoia if you will, but even you has to know that the government is anything but honest about it's intentions at times.

 

Here is a personal example that happened to me a while back. Well, withoutout going into details, long story short: I was having trouble sleeping (not unusual), also having weird reoccuring dream of having a heart attack that would wake me up some nights(very unusual). Go to Dr becasue I'm just not getting enough sleep, he prescribes me Trazadone. I had never heard of it. He tells me it's an old anti-depressant that is many times today prescribed as a sleeping pill, supposedly non-addictive, will make you sleepy and few negitive side effects. I google it, and what he tells me is correct.

 

So, would my guns be taken away because I was prescribed this medication if that legislation existed? Believe me, I don't want a "crazy" person to have a gun, but this sceniro worries me a little and I bet I'm not the only one with a story like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/opinion/sunday/dowd-chris-murphys-gun-control-crucible.html?hp&_r=1&

 

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT): "You’re not going to disenfranchise the N.R.A. overnight."

Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem | CNS News

Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem | CNS News

 

The other 96% are buying as much ammo as they can....

I don't know much about the state law, but my understanding is that there is nothing in the proposed federal law along those lines. I have not read the proposed federal law, but my understanding is that mental health exclusions require that the individual be adjudicated as mentally ill. That seems reasonable to me. We do have a much different opinion of the government. I think that in general, the government is well intentioned. That doesn't excuse the times when some government employees or elected officials are incompetent, lazy, bureaucratic or overreaching. They should be called on it when it happens, but I don't think that those instances are sufficient to distrust all government action. I feel the same way about business. Most business are looking to provide a reasonable product or service at a reasonable profit. When they lie, cheat or otherwise abuse the public they deserve to be called on it, but that doesn't tar all business.

The way I'm hearing it, it's like most of today's legislation, too many 'potholes'.

 

Yeah, we do have a much different opinion of the government, they've been caught in too many lies and stole from us too much. I woke up a long time ago, I trust no politician on either side once they reach a certain level. They're all corrupt and generally all have an agenda and I'm not talking about anything that's good for we the people.

Remember the Cornhusker kickback....

 

Manchin, Toomey Float Gun Checks Exemption for Undecided Senators' States

 

"To stop the momentum shift before it is too late, Manchin and Toomey are "considering the possibility of adding language to the bill that would exempt select far-flung communities in Alaska and North Dakota from some background check requirements." They hope this would win the votes of Sens. Mark Begich (D-AK) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), as well Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). "

 

Emphasis added.

 

So if its such great legislation why exempt anyone from it at all?

 

'Will you vote for this bill if it does not apply to you?" "Well, since you put it that way - sure!".

 

Is this simply insane or almost criminal or what?

Senate rejects gun amendment compromise: Senate rejects gun amendment compromise

Senate rejects gun amendment compromise: Senate rejects gun amendment compromise

 

O is not happy. Had to get on TV.

 

Vein about to pop as he talks.