Right to bear Arms is under attack by...

Right to bear Arms is under attack by a manipulating forces in our media

Posted in the Jackson-Heights Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#1 Jan 30, 2013
Parading giffords in front of a committee and claiming"all americans are counting on you". What a show our manipulating media is spinning away...special interest groups rule the day...divide and conquer...the gay agenda is being pushed on Disney channell..despicable,,as are the low morals,values and subversive tactics innuendos being watched by our children.,,
It all comes down to our dept. of defense who was suppose to protect us from events such as 9-11 and who happened to gain greatly by the event itself
There are no jobs for our college graduates though plenty of heroin to be had...just like Vietnam when we had the last scourge of widespread opiates plague a generation...is it déjà vu all over again..
Now let's focus on disarming Americans and prop up the police state ...let's focus on the back end of the issues instead of the pharmaceutical companies that caused much death and mayhem based on their lies that these medications were no addictive...Rudy Guiliani protects purdue pharmaceuticals executives from going to jail and kept the machine rolling despite his proclamation of a war against drugs...who is the strong arm of our pharmaceuticals?.,
then take a look at insurance mandated health care that has turned away from mental health...all the shootings have a common thread ..a sociopath/schizophrenic/asperg ers syndrome person who had access to firearms and plenty of television...
politicians and their back door politics who now have armed law enforcement protecting their best interest and vice versus....only in America........
Obskeptic

Madison Heights, MI

#2 Jan 30, 2013
I don't know what to think.
&bp ctr=1359589894
This raises some interesting issues.
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#3 Jan 30, 2013
What I think is the shooter acted alone,and should never have been offered training or permitted to own or have access to weapons due to his mental illness..
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#4 Jan 31, 2013
Taking away the constitutional rights of millions of law abiding American citizens will do nothing to stop crime.
Obskeptic

Wixom, MI

#5 Jan 31, 2013
Plotts wrote:
What I think is the shooter acted alone,and should never have been offered training or permitted to own or have access to weapons due to his mental illness..
Why did the Coroner that examined the bodies say it was the long rifle that inflicted the damage, but the long rifle was never used in the crime? Why was there a facebook page for the slain teacher about her death before the shooting had even occurred? Why was there only two ambulances and why were they parked almost a half mile from the school, even after the seen had been secured? What came of the second individual that the police caught in the woods running away from the school? Why did the school nurse say that Adam Lanzas mother was a teacher there when she was not? Why did they tell us there were only two guns found in the school when other reports said there were four? Why are we outlawing long rifles in response to a crime that was perpetrated with handguns? Why are we unable to enforce the myriad of existing gun laws, which includes an assault weapons ban in CT that existed before the shooting. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet there have been more murders there just this year in that town then soldiers lost to fighting in Afghanistan.
Obskeptic

Wixom, MI

#6 Jan 31, 2013
The only sensible solution to the issue of safety for our children in our schools is to have the principle of every school take secret ballots of the staff for volunteers to train and arm themselves. There should be no more then say three or four teachers or other staff that are accepted for this, and it should be kept confidential. They should be required to take all necessary training by law enforcement for their special permit. Reality has shown us time and again, that when seconds count to save lives in these cases, the police are always minutes away. I can assure you that these kooks that are perpetrating these live versions of the sick games the computer industry sells our kids will be thinking twice about schools if they know there will likely be armed response to their madness. They'll take it to the mall, or some other gathering place, where I hope they meet their fate by a good guy with a gun as well.
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#7 Jan 31, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did the Coroner that examined the bodies say it was the long rifle that inflicted the damage, but the long rifle was never used in the crime? Why was there a facebook page for the slain teacher about her death before the shooting had even occurred? Why was there only two ambulances and why were they parked almost a half mile from the school, even after the seen had been secured? What came of the second individual that the police caught in the woods running away from the school? Why did the school nurse say that Adam Lanzas mother was a teacher there when she was not? Why did they tell us there were only two guns found in the school when other reports said there were four? Why are we outlawing long rifles in response to a crime that was perpetrated with handguns? Why are we unable to enforce the myriad of existing gun laws, which includes an assault weapons ban in CT that existed before the shooting. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet there have been more murders there just this year in that town then soldiers lost to fighting in Afghanistan.
where are you getting this info ?..the cause is lack of proper mental health treatment in the insurance mandated and driven health care system ...if that's what you want o call it...recieve the laws that protect society at a cost to the insurance carriers..
We do seem to have one catastrophe after another,,with the politicians and media pushing their agenda in he guise of making everyone safe..while certain entities are reaping the rewards.....
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#8 Jan 31, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
The only sensible solution to the issue of safety for our children in our schools is to have the principle of every school take secret ballots of the staff for volunteers to train and arm themselves. There should be no more then say three or four teachers or other staff that are accepted for this, and it should be kept confidential. They should be required to take all necessary training by law enforcement for their special permit. Reality has shown us time and again, that when seconds count to save lives in these cases, the police are always minutes away. I can assure you that these kooks that are perpetrating these live versions of the sick games the computer industry sells our kids will be thinking twice about schools if they know there will likely be armed response to their madness. They'll take it to the mall, or some other gathering place, where I hope they meet their fate by a good guy with a gun as well.
the only sensible solution is to provide hospitalization treatments and cpl unstable individuals.....though it is not cost effective for our insurance driven health care system..
Obskeptic

Wixom, MI

#9 Feb 1, 2013
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> the only sensible solution is to provide hospitalization treatments and cpl unstable individuals.....though it is not cost effective for our insurance driven health care system..
Of course you know that is the way we used to do it, but the ACLU, supported by democrats, sued successfully back in the eighties and the majority of States shut down their mental health programs and institutions and released those that were in treatment. That caused homelessness to skyrocket, which the left immediately seized on and blamed Ronald reagan for.
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#10 Feb 1, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you know that is the way we used to do it, but the ACLU, supported by democrats, sued successfully back in the eighties and the majority of States shut down their mental health programs and institutions and released those that were in treatment. That caused homelessness to skyrocket, which the left immediately seized on and blamed Ronald reagan for.
that saved our insurance companies a lot of money,,,who are the politicians protecting..lobbyists providing money to ipoliticians who then vote based on what's best for them and not the people....the federal gov't and Medicaid stopped providing the states resources to keep the hospitals open....rep or dem the steal from different pockets while making back door deals that suit them all...divide and conquer...
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#11 Feb 1, 2013
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> where are you getting this info ?..the cause is lack of proper mental health treatment in the insurance mandated and driven health care system ...if that's what you want o call it...recieve the laws that protect society at a cost to the insurance carriers..
We do seem to have one catastrophe after another,,with the politicians and media pushing their agenda in he guise of making everyone safe..while certain entities are reaping the rewards.....
Indeed. Let's stay focused on the real problem, please.

The real issue is a lack of:
- a national registry of mentally disqualified persons
- integration of this registry into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), ensuring mentally and emotionally deranged & dangerous persons also pop on instant background checks, and can be denied purchases of firearms
- mandatory turnover of records documenting mentally and emotionally deranged & dangerous persons that are currently suppressed by some 25 of the 50 States to federal authorities for inclusion in the NICS database
- Mandatory reporting nation-wide by mental health providers of mentally or emotionally disturbed persons who could present a danger to themselves or others to Law Enforcement, for inclusion in the NICS database
- tough criminal sanctions on mental health providers who fail promptly to report mentally or emotionally disturbed persons who could present a danger to themselves or others

Whether or not these deranged and unstable persons "get treatment" is completely beside the main point - a total red herring that should be disregarded.

Get ALL these people on a "Prohibited from Buying or Possessing Firearms" list immediately - just like the "Do Not Fly" list. This is the first security imperative.

Stay focused, people.

Plenty of time AFTER that's accomplished to wring hands and worry about "getting them treatment" (and who's going to pay for it ...)
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#12 Feb 1, 2013
Meanwhile, signs of intelligent life on the planet:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Newt...

Wayne LaPierre vindicated ...
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#13 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. Let's stay focused on the real problem, please.
The real issue is a lack of:
- a national registry of mentally disqualified persons
- integration of this registry into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), ensuring mentally and emotionally deranged & dangerous persons also pop on instant background checks, and can be denied purchases of firearms
- mandatory turnover of records documenting mentally and emotionally deranged & dangerous persons that are currently suppressed by some 25 of the 50 States to federal authorities for inclusion in the NICS database
- Mandatory reporting nation-wide by mental health providers of mentally or emotionally disturbed persons who could present a danger to themselves or others to Law Enforcement, for inclusion in the NICS database
- tough criminal sanctions on mental health providers who fail promptly to report mentally or emotionally disturbed persons who could present a danger to themselves or others
Whether or not these deranged and unstable persons "get treatment" is completely beside the main point - a total red herring that should be disregarded.
Get ALL these people on a "Prohibited from Buying or Possessing Firearms" list immediately - just like the "Do Not Fly" list. This is the first security imperative.
Stay focused, people.
Plenty of time AFTER that's accomplished to wring hands and worry about "getting them treatment" (and who's going to pay for it ...)
yea right...look at what our federal NTSB does with the list and the no profiling laws...harassing old ladies in wheel chairs and those with figures that entice the workers..while those that should be searched use the no profiling laws to claim discrimination.
A list for our federal government to add who ever they like
while 99 percent of the psychiatric population are not a threat
the federal gov't has no problem printing money propping up our banks who prop up the stock market...why not throw a couple shekels to mental health..?.provided by our insurance driven health care system
What happens with pt confidentiality laws?our federal gov't enacted..that the states now use to funnel certain prison populations to hide their history of violence.?i guess there is a need to fine tune ones ability to see into the future and to predict the behavior for the physicians who provide the insurance care given today:)
Your an extremist who is looking to take liberties away,..wringing your hands in delight at all the chaos going on since9-11. Who has and continues to gain from all of this?.:)
the federal government should work for the people not the entities that gain behind back doors and slipped in laws with other packages...Make names like the Patriot Act and provide big pharmaceuticals a way to run amok with our government officials and law enforcement gaining monetarily....go back to the LGBT thread and push the extremism there it's all the same crap....that's right let's react instead of being pro active in your decisions and providing mental health services that drain money for our insurance driven health care and Medicaid ..
Our federal government is printing plenty of money propping up the banks who then prop up our stock market..why not throw a couple shekels into health care? It time our government backs up it's constituents and not big business and our defense dept....maybe the federal government should concern itself with all the heroin in the streets and why are we in Afganastan anyways? while blaming the Mexican border ,with this horse and pony show...let's keep focus to the threats our own government is creating.....let's continue reacting to all the chaos instead of being pro-active in preventing it...stay focus people
The federal government and the moles it employs want to create a police state,while taking away the liberties of the people ,,by allowing events to occure...who has benefitted from9-11 and all the subsequent chaos.?
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#14 Feb 1, 2013
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> yea right...look at what our federal NTSB does with the list
Umm .. that would be the TSA, amigo.
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> A list for our federal government to add who ever they like
No - a list of people disqualified from buying or possessing firearms by reason of mental or emotional disturbance that makes them dangerous people who should be kept well away from deadly weapons.

That's already the law - I'm just calling for effective enforcement of it.
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> while 99 percent of the psychiatric population are not a threat
Not a threat? Simple - then they're not on the list.
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> (off-topic anti-federal gov't rant trimmed) why not throw a couple shekels to mental health..?
Whatev - I have no dog in that fight - it's off-topic.

The subject is how we keep firearms out of the hands of deranged nut-jobs; let's see if we can remain focused on that, shall we?
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> (further off-topic ranting over healthcare, insurance, etc. trimmed) What happens with pt confidentiality laws?our federal gov't enacted..that the states now use to funnel certain prison populations to hide their history of violence.?
There is no Constitutional Right to privacy or patient confidentiality; there is a Constitutional Right for private law-abiding individuals to keep & bear arms for defense. If making America safer comes down to a trade-off between patient's privacy rights and Americans' 2A Rights, obviously our @A Rights must take precedence.

As for "states ... funnel(ing) certain prison populations to hide their history of violence,' I have no idea what you're referring to, but obviously any convicted felon or mentally disturbed person should be in the NICS database, if we really intend to make America safer from gun violence.
Plotts wrote:
<quoted text> (awesome fugue-state off-topic anti-fed gov't rant about physicians, insurance, pharma, 9-11, LGBT, Patriot Act, police states, monetary policy, drug abuse, Afghanistan, Mexico, etc. and a couple of gratuitous ad homs thrown in for good measure trimmed)
Wow. I am completely unable to respond to that.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#15 Feb 1, 2013
*2A Rights
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#16 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy I'm all for gun rights ,I'm against the registry that you want to provide for our federal government...As it will be used as a tool for those they consider they want on your list...NTSB national transportation safety board....tsa transportation safety agency
And I'm all for keeping dangerous people away from weapons...though should it be done at a state or federal level ,while the definition of a dangerous person needs further looking into..
The states required to downsize their federally funded psychiatric centers,,many pt's released had known violent history's ,tendencies..and came back to those that made decisions to let them out.when incidents occurred after their releas..pt confidentiality was put into effect,it gave the ability so as to hide that information.and protect those signing off on releasing these pt's into the community...the state were then able to use this law to funnel potentially dangerous inmates into the psychiatric centers garnering pt confidentiality and then a release into he communities...
Pt's that exhibited dangerous behavior to themselves or others(both are a threat) were never charged legally for that behavior in the 70s,80s ...there is no paperwork trail....
Nobody wants delusional/ schizophrenics running amok though they dismantled the agency that was there to diagnose the issue.and prevent it from happening..it is not something a physician can diagnose in a day,meeting with the pt..
I agree ,the aurora psychiatrist should have acted on having that gunman cpl, and committed despite the extra paperwork and the discouragement from the insurance carrier..
So you put a list together of people who are not allowed to purchase/own guns..what stops them from borrowing/stealing or buying on the black market?

I'm down with the flu and have a debate going on re: a different issue..my apologies for interconnecting that argument...
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#17 Feb 1, 2013
Plotts wrote:
Teddy I'm all for gun rights ,I'm against the registry that you want to provide for our federal government...As it will be used as a tool for those they consider they want on your list...NTSB national transportation safety board....tsa transportation safety agency
And I'm all for keeping dangerous people away from weapons...though should it be done at a state or federal level ,while the definition of a dangerous person needs further looking into..
The states required to downsize their federally funded psychiatric centers,,many pt's released had known violent history's ,tendencies..and came back to those that made decisions to let them out.when incidents occurred after their releas..pt confidentiality was put into effect,it gave the ability so as to hide that information.and protect those signing off on releasing these pt's into the community...the state were then able to use this law to funnel potentially dangerous inmates into the psychiatric centers garnering pt confidentiality and then a release into he communities...
Pt's that exhibited dangerous behavior to themselves or others(both are a threat) were never charged legally for that behavior in the 70s,80s ...there is no paperwork trail....
Nobody wants delusional/ schizophrenics running amok though they dismantled the agency that was there to diagnose the issue.and prevent it from happening..it is not something a physician can diagnose in a day,meeting with the pt..
I agree ,the aurora psychiatrist should have acted on having that gunman cpl, and committed despite the extra paperwork and the discouragement from the insurance carrier..
So you put a list together of people who are not allowed to purchase/own guns..what stops them from borrowing/stealing or buying on the black market?
I'm down with the flu and have a debate going on re: a different issue..my apologies for interconnecting that argument...
I'm no big fan of the federal gov't and its insatiably intrusive meddling do-gooder organs, either.

However, as long as we have the whole nation being whipped into a frenzy by the infotainment media to "do something" about the latest horrific act by a crazed madman, let's at least do something useful instead of the typically pointless and stupid grandstanding bullsh!t like banning barrel shrouds, pistol grips, and "high capacity clips" our incompetent amateur POTUS and useless and corrupt excuse for a Congress are posturing over.

NTSB has nothing to do with what we're talking about here - and TSA = Transportation Security Agency, a part of that silly cow Napolitano's DHS circus.

The definition of a dangerous mental case not permitted to buy firearms (“adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution”) already exists in law. We just need to enforce it effectively. I'd prefer to see this definition widened to include anyone a competent mental health professional considers a danger, but I'll take what we can get.

This can only be done at the federal level, because it's there that the tool (NICS) for performing backgroiund checks resides. Get the nut-jobs into the NICS database, and we'll have an easy and instant improvement that will save lives.

It doesn't matter whther these maniacs are running around loose on the street or doped up on thorazine in some nice padded cell at the Rubber Ranch - the important thing is to get their foreheads tatooed with a sign saying "THIS PERSON IS NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH FIREARMS" (figuratively speaking, of course).

I don't see how insurance companies have anything to do with getting this done.

Sorry to hear about your flu - I'm just getting over a case myself. Hope you feel better.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#18 Feb 1, 2013
Plotts wrote:
Teddy I'm all for gun rights ,I'm against the registry that you want to provide for our federal government...As it will be used as a tool for those they consider they want on your list...NTSB national transportation safety board....tsa transportation safety agency
And I'm all for keeping dangerous people away from weapons...though should it be done at a state or federal level ,while the definition of a dangerous person needs further looking into..
The states required to downsize their federally funded psychiatric centers,,many pt's released had known violent history's ,tendencies..and came back to those that made decisions to let them out.when incidents occurred after their releas..pt confidentiality was put into effect,it gave the ability so as to hide that information.and protect those signing off on releasing these pt's into the community...the state were then able to use this law to funnel potentially dangerous inmates into the psychiatric centers garnering pt confidentiality and then a release into he communities...
Pt's that exhibited dangerous behavior to themselves or others(both are a threat) were never charged legally for that behavior in the 70s,80s ...there is no paperwork trail....
Nobody wants delusional/ schizophrenics running amok though they dismantled the agency that was there to diagnose the issue.and prevent it from happening..it is not something a physician can diagnose in a day,meeting with the pt..
I agree ,the aurora psychiatrist should have acted on having that gunman cpl, and committed despite the extra paperwork and the discouragement from the insurance carrier..
So you put a list together of people who are not allowed to purchase/own guns..what stops them from borrowing/stealing or buying on the black market?
I'm down with the flu and have a debate going on re: a different issue..my apologies for interconnecting that argument...
I'm no big fan of the federal gov't and its insatiably intrusive meddling do-gooder organs, either.

However, as long as we have the whole nation being whipped into a frenzy by the infotainment media to "do something" about the latest horrific act by a crazed madman, let's at least do something useful instead of the typically pointless and stupid grandstanding bullsh!t like banning barrel shrouds, pistol grips, and "high capacity clips" our incompetent amateur POTUS and useless and corrupt excuse for a Congress are posturing over.

NTSB has nothing to do with what we're talking about here - and TSA = Transportation Security Agency, a part of that silly cow Napolitano's DHS circus.

The definition of a dangerous mental case not permitted to buy firearms (“adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution”) already exists in law. We just need to enforce it effectively. I'd prefer to see this definition widened to include anyone a competent mental health professional considers a danger, but I'll take what we can get.

This can only be done at the federal level, because it's there that the tool (NICS) for performing backgroiund checks resides. Get the nut-jobs into the NICS database, and we'll have an easy and instant improvement that will save lives.

It doesn't matter whether these maniacs are running around loose on the street or doped up on thorazine in some nice padded cell at the Rubber Ranch - the important thing is to get their foreheads tatooed with a sign saying "THIS PERSON IS NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH FIREARMS" (figuratively speaking, of course).

I don't see how insurance companies have anything to do with getting this done.

Sorry to hear about your flu - I'm just getting over a case myself. Hope you feel better.
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#19 Feb 2, 2013
The insurance carriers dictate to the physician on how to treat their pt's in said insurance plan....we went from a consumer based health care system to a insurance driven health care system....
Insurance carriers, are by law responsible for diagnosed permenent health care issues...
As an example I offer an simplyfied explanation as told me by a General practioner physician....
You have ten pt's presenting with the same upper respiratory infection...I will give 5 of them the antibiotics needed,3 I'll offer alternative medicines and 2 will get nothing but advice,,if I gave all ten the antibiotics needed...the insurance carrier will withhold the reimbursement and eventually drive me out of insurance carriers network ...
This is an example of how physicians are handcuffed by those that pay the bills..the insurance carrier......
It comes down to the diagnosis,now what do you think is going on in the mental health system....?they treat with pills though frown on providing the diagnosis needed and proper treatment specific to their diagnosis..hence the aurora shooting....
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#20 Feb 2, 2013
Please look up "political abuse of psychiatry"in the wikipedea

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 14 min Forrest 10,544
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 14 min Forrest 12,176
How did Ben Carson overcome racism and poorness? 25 min Question 1
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 26 min Paul Yanks 36,420
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 31 min IBdaMann 54,341
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 33 min Paul Yanks 319,390
Time to go? 36 min TORI 2,543
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages