Mental Health and mass shootings

[gounion]

Weather delay. And you run away more than either Glenn or I combined.

So bottomline, I asked a couple of questions related to gun policy. On topic in my opinion. I did so in response to a post by another poster. So you responded to my post with another set of questions you demand I answer. I’m not interested in your question but will answer if you bother to respond to mine. I have watched you run away from questions before. It’s best to get paid in advance when dealing with you. So answer or run. It’s your call. Your free will.

Why can’t you answer a simple question about mental health and gun control? Why are you so fucking scared?

[JoeMemphis]

Why can’t you answer a simple question about mental health and gun control? Why are you so fucking scared?

Read my previous post. You run more than anyone on the board. Best to get paid in advance when dealing with a serial liar and a serial runner such as you. Do I need to type in caps or use smaller words with fewer syllables?

[gounion]

Read my previous post. You run more than anyone on the board. Best to get paid in advance when dealing with a serial liar and a serial runner such as you. Do I need to type in caps or use smaller words with fewer syllables?

You have to go to google to find words with more than two syllables.

And you can make that accusation all you want, but it doesn't make it true. You are proving right here and now that you're a coward that runs away. All you're doing is projecting.

[Glennfs]

You have to go to google to find words with more than two syllables.

And you can make that accusation all you want, but it doesn't make it true. You are proving right here and now that you're a coward that runs away. All you're doing is projecting.

So why haven't you commented on Bob Menendez

[gounion]

So why haven't you commented on Bob Menendez

What does that have to do with mental health and mass shootings? Why are you deflecting? What are you scared of?

[JoeMemphis]

What does that have to do with mental health and mass shootings? Why are you deflecting? What are you scared of?

Maybe that was an example of you running away. What were you scared of?

[gounion]

Maybe that was an example of you running away. What were you scared of?

Nope. Not at all. I'm not scared of ANYTHING from the two of you. You, however, ARE scared shitless. Both of you.

[JoeMemphis]

Nope. Not at all. I'm not scared of ANYTHING from the two of you. You, however, ARE scared shitless. Both of you.

And yet you still run.

[gounion]

And yet you still run.

Not running at all. Guess you don't have the ability to look at other threads. Not surprised.

[Number6]

Here’s a couple of questions for Number6. If we are not able or willing to enforce laws already on the books, why do you think passing yet another law will do any good?

It depends upon what the law is and does. Laws are passed to discourage certain behaviors like being drunk in public, driving under the influence, embezzlement, murder, etc..

It has become fashionable these days for state and local governments to simply ignore Federal laws they find unpopular, inconvenient or “immoral”. The same will happen with any Federal Law that “goes to far” as it applies to firearms. How do you propose we put the whole concept of “sanctuary” cities and states back in the bottle?

If you want to discuss sanctuary cities then please start another threads. This thread is about mental health and how it relates to gun violence.

Or are we just supposed to believe that simply passing more gun laws is the only answer to this problem without question? Because that seems to be the only answer the “left” predominately wants to offer. Are we to believe or is it your assertion that merely passing more gun laws “solves” this problem? I don’t see it. I don’t see that that proposal is well reasoned or well thought out. No one is addressing how you will enforce such laws in the current environment. So far it’s all wishful thinking.

What I have said in the past is the federal government should ban assault and assault-style weapons and set aside billions dollars to buy back these weapons. If, after the buy-back program ends, you are caught with an assault or assault-style weapon, which would by then be illegal, then it would be confiscated and you'd receive a fin and/or jail time.

[gounion]

I will point out that the right isn't interested in enforcing the gun laws on the books - they want to REPEAL the gun laws on the books. They simply don't want any gun laws at all.

Even for the mentally ill. That's a fact.

[Number6]

So why haven't you commented on Bob Menendez

And why haven't you commented on why the Benghazi investigation wasn't a dog and pony show on the E. Jean Carroll thread from Friday?


https://www.radiofreeliberal.com/viewto ... 643#p59643

[JoeMemphis]

It depends upon what the law is and does. Laws are passed to discourage certain behaviors like being drunk in public, driving under the influence, embezzlement, murder, etc..


If you want to discuss sanctuary cities then please start another threads. This thread is about mental health and how it relates to gun violence.


What I have said in the past is the federal government should ban assault and assault-style weapons and set aside billions dollars to buy back these weapons. If, after the buy-back program ends, you are caught with an assault or assault-style weapon, which would by then be illegal, then it would be confiscated and you'd receive a fin and/or jail time.

The laws you mention for drunk driving etc are state and local laws enforced by state and local law enforcement. Much different from federal laws that aren’t popular with some state and local governments. You don’t see sanctuary cities from state and local laws.

The ability to enforce gun laws is essential to the effectiveness of gun laws. And the ability to enforce federal laws that may not be popular in local and state governments is certainly pertinent to a discussion on gun laws. If you can’t enforce gun laws, then you aren’t going to solve the problem you seek to solve.

You may well buy back some weapons spending billions. Will that solve the problem. It’s questionable. The people who want such weapons are going to sell them back. Fines for possession get back to cooperation of state and local LE. We are back to the discussion on how we have weakened the ability to enforce Federal laws by use of “sanctuary” cities and states. So yeah. It’s part of the discussion whether we like it or not. Picking and choosing which laws to enforce will jump up and bite you in the ass every time.

[gounion]

The laws you mention for drunk driving etc are state and local laws enforced by state and local law enforcement. Much different from federal laws that aren’t popular with some state and local governments. You don’t see sanctuary cities from state and local laws.

The ability to enforce gun laws is essential to the effectiveness of gun laws. And the ability to enforce federal laws that may not be popular in local and state governments is certainly pertinent to a discussion on gun laws. If you can’t enforce gun laws, then you aren’t going to solve the problem you seek to solve.

You may well buy back some weapons spending billions. Will that solve the problem. It’s questionable. The people who want such weapons are going to sell them back. Fines for possession get back to cooperation of state and local LE. We are back to the discussion on how we have weakened the ability to enforce Federal laws by use of “sanctuary” cities and states. So yeah. It’s part of the discussion whether we like it or not. Picking and choosing which laws to enforce will jump up and bite you in the ass every time.

Again, mental illness and gun laws. #6 asked you too. Why are you running away?

[JoeMemphis]

Again, mental illness and gun laws. #6 asked you too. Why are you running away?

What’s the question? Mental health? Yeah it’s a problem. It’s part of the problem. Is there a question in your mind or 6’s mind that mental illness is a factor in some of these crimes?

[bradman]

Here’s a couple of questions for Number6. If we are not able or willing to enforce laws already on the books, why do you think passing yet another law will do any good?

It has become fashionable these days for state and local governments to simply ignore Federal laws they find unpopular, inconvenient or “immoral”. The same will happen with any Federal Law that “goes to far” as it applies to firearms. How do you propose we put the whole concept of “sanctuary” cities and states back in the bottle?

Or are we just supposed to believe that simply passing more gun laws is the only answer to this problem without question? Because that seems to be the only answer the “left” predominately wants to offer. Are we to believe or is it your assertion that merely passing more gun laws “solves” this problem? I don’t see it. I don’t see that that proposal is well reasoned or well thought out. No one is addressing how you will enforce such laws in the current environment. So far it’s all wishful thinking.

[bold]i'm thinking the “immoral” thing was in reference to drag queens in that thread. Which is a bit different than the "morals" of gun laws.

Don't want sanctuary cities that protect those that are different from you? Quit redefining laws that would assault the liberty of their very existence.

[JoeMemphis]

[bold]i'm thinking the “immoral” thing was in reference to drag queens in that thread. Which is a bit different than the "morals" of gun laws.

Don't want sanctuary cities that protect those that are different from you? Quit redefining laws that would assault the liberty of their very existence.

Immoral was a term used by another member of this board as a justification for ignoring certain existing federal law. It had nothing to do with queens. But the point is that what one citizen considers immoral may differ from another. So at what point is that a good excuse for a state or local government to ignore federal law? And if you allow such things to happen on a regular basis, how can you expect to enforce any federal law that may be “unpopular” in some states. Not everybody shares the same definition of what is or is not “moral”. I cringe when I hear politicians talk about our “shared” values. Like they know what those are and can speak for everybody in the country. There’s the law. What we can expect is for that law to be enforced whether the state or city or federal government agrees with that law.

It may be past the point of no return. Not a lot of respect for the rule of law anymore. At any level.

[gounion]

What’s the question? Mental health? Yeah it’s a problem. It’s part of the problem. Is there a question in your mind or 6’s mind that mental illness is a factor in some of these crimes?

Then why does the GOP pass laws making it EASIER for mentally ill people to get guns legally?

Please explain.

[JoeMemphis]

Then why does the GOP pass laws making it EASIER for mentally ill people to get guns legally?

Please explain.

Which laws? Constitutional carry? I am on record opposing such laws. I am also on the record supporting tougher laws concerning concealed carry permits. I am also on the record for stricter laws on assault weapon purchases. I am also on the record supporting strengthening background checks on purchases.

So I can’t answer for what the GOP does. Ask someone in the GOP. I don’t speak for the GOP nor do I claim to speak for the GOP. I can tell you what I personally have supported. I have posted on the issues several times.

[gounion]

Which laws? Constitutional carry? I am on record opposing such laws. I am also on the record supporting tougher laws concerning concealed carry permits. I am also on the record for stricter laws on assault weapon purchases. I am also on the record supporting strengthening background checks on purchases.

So I can’t answer for what the GOP does. Ask someone in the GOP. I don’t speak for the GOP nor do I claim to speak for the GOP. I can tell you what I personally have supported. I have posted on the issues several times.

You vote for the people that vote for these laws. The FIRST thing that Trump and the GOP House and Senate did when he took office. Here:

In the wake of this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Trump was quick to point to mental illness as a cause, echoing a Republican talking point that emerged in interviews and social media posts on Sunday.

“Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” said Trump in a speech Monday morning from the White House. He said the country “must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”

But in his first full month in office, Trump signed a bill rolling back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. The rule would have used Social Security records to add about 75,000 names to the database used in background checks of gun buyers (from licensed firearms dealers). People receiving supplemental-income support for mental disability and those found unfit to handle their own financial affairs would have been precluded from purchasing firearms. While the rule went on the books just before Trump took office in January 2017, compliance was not mandatory until December 2017.

The resolution revoking the rule passed both houses of Congress in February 2017, almost entirely along party lines, with virtually all Republicans voting in favor of it. In a departure from his usual fanfare in signing legislation, Trump did not hold a photo op or press availability when he signed H.J. Res 40 on the final day of February.

You SAY "you're on record" for this or that, yet you continue to vote for the exact opposite. You also say you're in favor of gay rights, but cheer everything that's being done against gays in Florida, Tennessee and other states.

The people YOU vote for aren't interested in the gun control laws you say you "are on the record" being in favor of. They are for repealing ALL gun laws everywhere. They want to do away with any background checks. They want to let everyone carry all the guns they want at any time. They are against anyone being prosecuted for breaking the law.

That's just the facts.

[JoeMemphis]

You vote for the people that vote for these laws. The FIRST thing that Trump and the GOP House and Senate did when he took office. Here:



You SAY "you're on record" for this or that, yet you continue to vote for the exact opposite. You also say you're in favor of gay rights, but cheer everything that's being done against gays in Florida, Tennessee and other states.

The people YOU vote for aren't interested in the gun control laws you say you "are on the record" being in favor of. They are for repealing ALL gun laws everywhere. They want to do away with any background checks. They want to let everyone carry all the guns they want at any time. They are against anyone being prosecuted for breaking the law.

That's just the facts.

Nah. Not really. In the US we don’t get to vote on individual issues. It’s called representative democracy. You must have slept through those classes. So it’s not that simple except to idiots like you. But we’ve had this conversation before. You didn’t get it then and you certainly haven’t gotten any smarter or wiser.

[gounion]

Nah. Not really. In the US we don’t get to vote on individual issues. It’s called representative democracy. You must have slept through those classes. So it’s not that simple except to idiots like you. But we’ve had this conversation before. You didn’t get it then and you certainly haven’t gotten any smarter or wiser.

Yet you never stand against them when they go against what you say are your views. You always defend them. If they attack gays, you're right with them. If they attack abortion rights, you're right with them. If they repeal gun laws on the books, you're right with them. If they attack law-abiding corporations and attempt to take their property, you're right with them. You tell us that business doesn't like uncertainty, but you're right with them to shut down our economy. You say you're against corruption in Medicare billing, but you will vote for the man who headed up the greatest theft of Medicare money in US history.

It certainly makes one wonder if you have any principles at all.

[JoeMemphis]

Yet you never stand against them when they go against what you say are your views. You always defend them. If they attack gays, you're right with them. If they attack abortion rights, you're right with them. If they repeal gun laws on the books, you're right with them. If they attack law-abiding corporations and attempt to take their property, you're right with them. You tell us that business doesn't like uncertainty, but you're right with them to shut down our economy. You say you're against corruption in Medicare billing, but you will vote for the man who headed up the greatest theft of Medicare money in US history.

It certainly makes one wonder if you have any principles at all.

That’s all a bunch of bullshit talking points you spew every time you don’t have anything better to say. I have clearly stated numerous time where I am on these issues. I don’t vote like you because of other policy considerations and you have nothing more than tired overused talking points. You don’t understand individuals who don’t tow the party line line you. You don’t understand people who think for themselves. You do as you are told. You think as you are told to think and you vote as you are told. You are their useful idiot.

[bradman]

Immoral was a term used by another member of this board as a justification for ignoring certain existing federal law. It had nothing to do with queens. But the point is that what one citizen considers immoral may differ from another. So at what point is that a good excuse for a state or local government to ignore federal law? And if you allow such things to happen on a regular basis, how can you expect to enforce any federal law that may be “unpopular” in some states. Not everybody shares the same definition of what is or is not “moral”. I cringe when I hear politicians talk about our “shared” values. Like they know what those are and can speak for everybody in the country. There’s the law. What we can expect is for that law to be enforced whether the state or city or federal government agrees with that law.

It may be past the point of no return. Not a lot of respect for the rule of law anymore. At any level.

[bold] And there's the rub. Through out history, and even today, there are unjust laws.

Just ask the liberal elements of the Magna Carta. Up until then even the monied interests had no rights past what the king allowed.

Even today, some laws are morally decrepit and should be changed. To think that the SC has the last word on the matter ignores history.

(who's winning?)

[gounion]

That’s all a bunch of bullshit talking points you spew every time you don’t have anything better to say. I have clearly stated numerous time where I am on these issues. I don’t vote like you because of other policy considerations and you have nothing more than tired overused talking points. You don’t understand individuals who don’t tow the party line line you. You don’t understand people who think for themselves. You do as you are told. You think as you are told to think and you vote as you are told. You are their useful idiot.

Oh, bullshit.

But here's the important point: It seems that on almost every issue where you have "stated numerous times where I am on these issues", the people you vote for are completely and totally on the other side. That's another FACT.