NRA chief says group accepts background checks

[TXARGUY]

43 times more likely....

40% of gun sales do not background check.

70% of NRA members are in favor.


THis is all phony make believe stats.

I've been an NRA member for over 20 years. No one contacted me to get my opinion.

 

[Mic]

I sure dont fit into that 70%

 

[RetArmySgt]

First off I wrote - "maybe this will actually help", I did not type that it would put an end to it. Second, I did not see anything in the article posted that had to do with FTF transfers, (I'm assuming you're referencing private sales?) When purchasing through a dealer we do BG checks anyway. Third, how does it harm you, me or anyone else purchasing a firearm to have any mental illness issues flagged upon a BG check? If you have a clean record then no problem, no different than how it's set up now. I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make with your comment on drugs in relation to a BG check for a firearm, those are two separate subjects each with their own set of issues.

But who is going to decide what "mental issue" will be a disqualification. Being seen for depression? Having to take sleeping pills for insomnia? Thinking the government is out to take our guns? There was even a study done recently that says gun ownership and belief in the 2A is a Mental disorder. What is going to be the mental dis qualifier.

 

[M. Sage]

Agreeing with tighter background checks is far from caving. Background checks are already a reality and more comprehensive checks that potentially eliminate some of the nuts from buying a gun are very popular with the public. The NRA standing there and saying "anybody and their pet monkey should be able to buy a gun" would simply undermine their position... and we need them to be politically strong in these times. It sounds like good political posturing if you ask me. Like it or not, that's all part of it.

Until the goal posts get moved later.

No, we can't support increased background checks. This is the time to dig our heels in and demand NO changes.

 

[M. Sage]

First off I wrote - "maybe this will actually help", I did not type that it would put an end to it. Second, I did not see anything in the article posted that had to do with FTF transfers, (I'm assuming you're referencing private sales?) When purchasing through a dealer we do BG checks anyway. Third, how does it harm you, me or anyone else purchasing a firearm to have any mental illness issues flagged upon a BG check? If you have a clean record then no problem, no different than how it's set up now. I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make with your comment on drugs in relation to a BG check for a firearm, those are two separate subjects each with their own set of issues.

Speaking broadly, it's that diagnoses of mental health issues, and classification of them, do not use scientific method. Not even a little bit. Neither does the treatment, but that's a different matter. The DSM is politicized, and contains non-illnesses that allow drug makers to make more dough. Yeah, it sounds a bit tin foil, but do your homework and it's true.

Speaking personally - I was misdiagnosed by a worthless quack and medicated (with Ritalyn, and anybody who gives that shit to their kid deserves a beating) when I was in middle school. Being from a poor-ish and rural area, the quack worked (IIRC) for the County Dept. of Health. Possibly state. Either way, he was a .gov doc, so I'm sure my records are still there somewhere.

 

[TheDan]

I don't really understand why everyone focuses on mass shootings anyways. How many people died in mass shootings last year? ~35? There are street thugs out there that have more murders to their name than these "mass shooters", yet we focus on how 3 crazy people out of the 311,591,917 Americans managed to their hands on a gun? That's nuts...

 

[Shooter McGavin]

Speaking broadly, it's that diagnoses of mental health issues, and classification of them, do not use scientific method. Not even a little bit. Neither does the treatment, but that's a different matter. The DSM is politicized, and contains non-illnesses that allow drug makers to make more dough. Yeah, it sounds a bit tin foil, but do your homework and it's true.

Speaking personally - I was misdiagnosed by a worthless quack and medicated (with Ritalyn, and anybody who gives that shit to their kid deserves a beating) when I was in middle school. Being from a poor-ish and rural area, the quack worked (IIRC) for the County Dept. of Health. Possibly state. Either way, he was a .gov doc, so I'm sure my records are still there somewhere.

Understood M, but I'm talking about the likes of diagnosed schzophraniacs or severe conditions of bi-polar disorder and other mental disorders of that nature, hearing voices and what not. Experience has taught me that to a certain extent such individuals can keep said conditions in check with Meds. and proper treatment but it only takes missing an appointment or skipping their regular dose of Meds. to send them back over the deep end. Maybe I'm missing something in the purposed legislation but I'm under the impression that such issues are what would/could be flagged as suspect upon a BG check. By your post I'm assuming that "mental health issues" would go beyond what my definition of mental health is? If so, I can see your point and it's definitely a valid one but alas maybe I'm not 100% on what I read or heard and if that's the case in point I retract my previous statements.

 

[grumper]

Nope. Doesn't work that way. Unless you put that person before a judge with an attorney you can't revoke one of their fundamental rights.

Unless you're advocating for Obama to toss the 5th amendment out the window too.

If you think someone is dangerous then call LE to pick them up and hold them for a psych evaluation and a hearing before a judge. I don't want crazies around cars, trucks, planes, matches, gasoline, pickaxes, sledgehammers, subways or anything else if they are truly unstable.

This ^^ is what was missing from Cho, Loughner and Holmes. Their acquaintances and therapists knew they were nutso and never did anything about it. In Loughner's case his mother who worked for the county made a deal with the law to not take her murderous psycho boy in for evaluation.

Giving in to the gun grabbers to let them arbitrarily say an entire class of citizens gets denied without due process of law is a surefire recipe for it to blow up in your face.

They would love to have this kind of extrajudicial power. Veteran with PTSD after 3 tours in 'stan. Denied. Grief counseling after granny passed ? Denied. Saw a shrink and went to AA meetings 10 years ago ? Denied. OCD tendencies towards the Constitution ? Denied.

Who would even seek psychiatric help knowing they would forever forfeit their rights? You'd just end up with more mentally ill people that never seek help to begin with.

Bad idea is bad.

 

[M. Sage]

Nope. Doesn't work that way. Unless you put that person before a judge with an attorney you can't revoke one of their fundamental rights.

Unless you're advocating for Obama to toss the 5th amendment out the window too.

If you think someone is dangerous then call LE to pick them up and hold them for a psych evaluation and a hearing before a judge. I don't want crazies around cars, trucks, planes, matches, gasoline, pickaxes, sledgehammers, subways or anything else if they are truly unstable.

This ^^ is what was missing from Cho, Loughner and Holmes. Their acquaintances and therapists knew they were nutso and never did anything about it. In Loughner's case his mother who worked for the county made a deal with the law to not take her murderous psycho boy in for evaluation.

Giving in to the gun grabbers to let them arbitrarily say an entire class of citizens gets denied without due process of law is a surefire recipe for it to blow up in your face.

They would love to have this kind of extrajudicial power. Veteran with PTSD after 3 tours in 'stan. Denied. Grief counseling after granny passed ? Denied. Saw a shrink and went to AA meetings 10 years ago ? Denied. OCD tendencies towards the Constitution ? Denied.

Who would even seek psychiatric help knowing they would forever forfeit their rights? You'd just end up with more mentally ill people that never seek help to begin with.

Bad idea is bad.

This.

 

[Soldiernurse]

I have no problem w/more stringent background check prior to purchase. Not say'n should be as intense as CHL background check. Yet, with a current CHL sure is handy when buying a handgun.