GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Doug S.]

I agree that a lot of mass shootings, etc., are committed by individuals with mental health disorders.
There seems to be a lot of agreement on that among us.
So...why not treat the problem proactively?
Here’s my take on this...you would think that anyone who has the income necessary to buy even one assault rifle would have the income to afford mental health care...unfortunately, that seems to be a low priority among that group...it is probably a choice of one or the other.
Sure, that sounds like speculation, but here is the rub:

When budgets need to be cut, which seems necessary with Conservatives running things these days, public funding of mental health services is usually the first thing to get chopped out of the budget. Wouldn’t it seem wiser to treat the root of the problem, namely the mental health issue, rather than clean up the carnage when one of those unbalanced individuals goes “postal”? Could something as simple as making psychoactive medications available at no cost through the public healthcare system have a positive impact on the problem?

Just wondering what y’all think about that?

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

...you would think that anyone who has the income necessary to buy even one assault rifle would have the income to afford mental health care...unfortunately, that seems to be a low priority among that group...

Translation: Odds are "assault rifle" owners will one day NEED "mental health care" (CARE...not "insurance")...if they don't in fact need it already.

BTW, "assault rifles" can go 'full auto' right out of the box. The so-called "assault rifles" sold to the general public CAN'T. They must be 'modified' to do that, and that's illegal. Buuuut calling ALL assault-STYLE rifles "assault rifles" helps in the advancement of your "ban-the-gun" cause, dunnit...just like referring to illegal aliens as "immigrants" instead of "illegal aliens" (which IS what they are) furthers your agenda there.

I'm getting cranky.

Coffee time...

 

[Doug S.]

I don’t think all gun owners will eventually need mental health care, it just seems that every time we hear about a “massacre”, like the recent one at a church, the perp has had mental health issues...but then I think taking another human’s life (other than in self defense) must be the action of someone with mental issues.

I own 4 guns and shoot three of them on an irregular basis...the only one I don’t shoot is the family heirloom .38 pistol that my great-great grandmother used to chase off a thief in her chicken coop. It’s from the late 1800’s and so old that I’m not sure it’s safe. I have NO issue with responsible, appropriate gun ownership and use...but that’s not the issue, here...the connection between mental health issues and these terrible massacres is.

I am guilty regarding my lack of knowledge regarding the difference between “assault” rifles and “assault style” rifles. I’ll make every effort to do better in the future, thanks for the clarification!

Now back to topic...do you think that it would be a good idea if our society would prioritize mental health treatment, including medications, in an effort to reduce the prevalence of inappropriate gun use of the type under discussion?

I ask because for 18 months I worked for TDCJ’s Health Services Administration department as a mental health specialist. In that job I had to interview many “offenders” (we were not allowed to call them criminals, convicts or inmates). Almost all of them had been on psychoactive medications prior to their “offense”..and almost all of them had quit taking their Rx prior to the offense that landed them in jail. That is a connection that cannot be just a coincidence.

Today I am working in a middle school and we are prepping for a “lockdown” drill...most commonly an “active shooter” situation. We have to find a place to hide the students from view. That’s difficult to do with a large class, but we have to try...so it’s a situation that really requires a lot of planning.

What if medication availability would have a positive impact on the prevalence of assaults with “assault-style weapons”? Who would not want that? At this point I would gladly choose to spend a few bucks on medications (you would be surprised at how inexpensive meds can be if purchased in quantity) than spend a lot of money burying one of my three children because a parolee could not afford the meds...or, worst still, just did not want to take the meds.

Just a few things to think about, guys. IMHO it’s a problem that won’t just go away because we want to save a few tax dollars by hiding our heads in the sand.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

...do you think that it would be a good idea if our society would prioritize mental health treatment, including medications, in an effort to reduce the prevalence of inappropriate gun use of the type under discussion?

Eeeeeeeeeeh...

Somehow I smell within the wording of any legislation supposedly intended to "...reduce the prevalence of inappropriate gun use of the type under discussion" the AUTOMATIC inclusion of a mandatory "mental health evaluation" as a prerequisite to >government< GRANTING the God-given "right" to keep and bear arms lurking in the small print. Call me paranoid...or just recognize I know how government all-to-often works.

Once one gets into the realm of government determining who's nuts and who ISN'T, N-O-B-O-D-Y's gun rights will be safe.

NOBODY's.




Regardless, just how would such a 'program' ensure that each and every person assigned meds under the program would TAKE them...particularly if the meds are to be taken several times a day? The cost of 24/7/365 babysitting to guarantee that would be R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. And if the meds AREN'T taken, what's the point of spending bazillions on the 'program'??? The 'program' may as well never have been established.

And remember, prior to the 'Vegas massacre, Paddock was considered to be just a regular, ordinary guy according to many who were interviewed regarding their experiences with him.

 

[Larry L.]

Also, google the "good guy with a gun" MYTH.
...there's no empirical evidence that proves the "good guy with a gun" theory.

Here's the latest 'real world' illustration (that I know about anyway) showing just how bogus your "good guy with a gun "MYTH""/"no empirical evidence" argument truly is:

Florida dad fires gun to stop 17-year-old daughter's attempted kidnappers, cops say | Fox News

You very likely won't see ^this^ (or any similar story) mentioned on whatever "lamestream media" (- Goldberg) outlet you normally watch...which is probably one of the reasons why you've formed the opinion you have on the subject.

JMHO.

 

[Doug S.]

Somehow I smell within the wording of any legislation supposedly intended to "...reduce the prevalence of inappropriate gun use of the type under discussion" the AUTOMATIC inclusion of a mandatory "mental health evaluation" as a prerequisite to >government< GRANTING the God-given "right" to keep and bear arms lurking in the small print. Call me paranoid...or just recognize I know how government all-to-often works.

Regardless, just how would such a 'program' ensure that each and every person assigned meds under the program would TAKE them...particularly if the meds are to be taken several times a day? And if the meds AREN'T taken, what's the point of spending bazillions on the 'program'??? The 'program' may as well never have been established.

And remember, prior to the 'Vegas massacre, Paddock was considered to be just a regular, ordinary guy according to many who were interviewed regarding their experiences with him.

You know, Larry, I really DO think perhaps a mental health evaluation is appropriate when someone wants to buy an "assault-style" weapon (did I do OK on that???). They are SO much different than the weapons that the "Founding Fathers" had that the rules and procedures they implemented would certainly not be applicable to the situations we face today...and I know you disagree with that, having seen you as always following a strict interpretation of what you think they intended...that's OK, there's plenty of room there for disagreement.

As for taking the meds...nobody should be forced to take medications if they don't want to, IMHO..as long as they don't present a danger to others if they don't. My experience working with the "offenders" was that most of them were not the party who terminated use of the medications, it was most often that their supply was terminated by others (parole officers, doctors who suspected abuse such as selling the meds on the street, etc.). Yes, there were a few of them who just didn't want to be medicated, but for those there are legal procedures that can be implemented to "encourage" them, such as more intensive probation monitoring...but FORCING someone to take meds that they don't want SHOULD be a difficult process, IMHO, and SHOULD involve legal proceedings. The TDCJ had procedures for forced medication, but it was VERY unusual and required the agreement of two different doctors and an entire team to deliver the injection (it was hardly ever an issue with pills, as those who did not want to take their pills just did not go to the "pill window" to get them).

However...for those who DO realize that meds can have a positive impact on their choices and actions and want to take meds to avoid recidivism, there should be a way to make sure they have access to them. It's SO much cheaper than incarceration, and with the "trimming" of budgets everywhere the "bottom line" becomes important. I have noticed that as public mental health services are trimmed the mental health end up being "warehoused" in our prisons...it should not be a crime to have a mental health disorder.

Yeah...I did think about that Paddock guy as we were starting this discussion, but again I must reiterate my opinion that anyone who commits such a heinous crime as murder (whether it be mass murder as Paddock committed or a single murder) MUST have mental issues. Just MHO.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jeff Young]

Uhhhhh...no. Owning and and carrying guns is a RIGHT. One does NOT need government's permission - or need to carry insurance, etc. - in order to exercise a "right"...whereas driving a car is supposedly a "privilege".

Exactly where in the 2nd Amend did The Founders give the 'nod' to any of that? All four clearly infringe on the right to keep and bear. No amount of legal 'spin' (AKA "interpretation") invalidates the truth inherent in that statement.

#1 is THEE CLASSIC first move toward gun confiscation, #2 & #3 turn the RIGHT to keep and bear into a privilege, and #4 turns a basic principle of 'justice' on its head: namely that one cannot be held responsible for the act(s) of someone else.

As regards #4; 'may as well also decree that if someone's CAR is stolen and the thief kills somebody with it - that death is the car OWNER's fault...OR decree that if a slick LAWYER sets a criminal free and said criminal subsequently kills/injures/robs/rapes someone or commits some other offense - the LAWYER is responsible for THAT.

How 'bout the last one, Counselor? Do we have a "deal" there?

I thought not.

Two points:

1. Take up the car analogy with your man Veek. He brought it up. If you want to make car analogies, you get stuck with regulation you don't like --see long winded whine above.

2. ALL constitutional rights are and have been since day one and were always intended to be by the Founders subject to regulation under certain conditions. Freedom of Speech? The founders would have strung you up for obscenity that is protected now. Freedom of Religion? Christian religion, yes. And so on. And so it was with guns. For basically 200+ years the Founders, the Courts and the public recognized that reasonable gun regulation was not prohibited by the 2nd. That changed somewhat in Heller. The position you advocate, some completely unrestricted right for felons and crazy people to own bazookas, is an NRA fantasy. It may give you a woody, but Conservative Chief Justice William Burger called this idea no less than the biggest constitutional fraud foisted on the American public.

And you bought it, hook, line and sinker. Easy to dupe is not a good condition to go through life in.

 

[Larry L.]

Two points:

1. Take up the car analogy with your man Veek. He brought it up. If you want to make car analogies, you get stuck with regulation you don't like --see long winded whine above.

'Lame and nonsensical 'counter' intended to look as though you've addressed my point w/o having actually done so.

The founders would have strung you up for obscenity that is protected now.

Fortunately for you, huh...

For basically 200+ years the Founders, the Courts and the public recognized that reasonable gun regulation was not prohibited by the 2nd.

Wrong. The 2nd was "i-n-t-e-r-p-e-r-t-e-d" to mean it didn't prohibit "gun regulation"...just as the constitution was "i-n-t-e-r-p-e-r-t-e-d" to create the "separation of church and state" clause out of thin air. How one can "i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t" "no law INFRINGING" to mean the exact opposite is a complete mystery to me.

The position you advocate, some completely unrestricted right for felons and crazy people to own bazookas, is an NRA fantasy.

Nice try, Jeff, but I've advocated no such thing...and declaring I HAVE doesn't change that. One can - and SHOULD - lose his/her right to keep and bear - as well as his/her FREEDOM (imprisonment) - thru "due process" as a result of committing a serious crime or crimes.

Easy to dupe is not a good condition to go through life in.

'Just COULDN'T 'sign off' without a personal insult, could you. Surprise, surprise...

BUT, to your credit, I also noticed you made it thru your whole post W/O dropping a single F-bomb or facsimile. Well done, sir. :thumbsup: (NOT sarc)

 

[Jeff Young]

Veek brought up the car analogy. Discuss it with him.

The PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE 2A -- and the rest of the Bill of Rights -- intended that there be reasonable regulation of gun ownership. Hell you yourself admit it -- felons shouldn't own guns. You just draw the line in a different place. We've established you are a prostitute, now we are just negotiating the price.

But let me ask again, where is your line on what firearm someone should be allowed to own? FUlly auto? Bazooka? Surface to Air missile? Nuclear sub?

You tell me.

 

[Larry L.]

You know, Larry, I really DO think perhaps a mental health evaluation is appropriate when someone wants to buy an "assault-style" weapon (did I do OK on that???). (yes - you did just fine!) They are SO much different than the weapons that the "Founding Fathers" had (which is why they chose to use the word ARMS instead of flintlocks and muskets 'cause they KNEW...oh - you know the rest of it) that the rules and procedures they implemented would certainly not be applicable to the situations we face today...and I know you disagree with that, having seen you as always following a strict interpretation of what you think they intended ("know" they intended! The Fed. Papers bear me out on that one) ...that's OK, there's plenty of room there for disagreement.

As for taking the meds...nobody should be forced to take medications if they don't want to (then the program you're advocating would be USELESS in their case), IMHO..as long as they don't present a danger to others if they don't. (no one is ever a danger to others...until they ARE) My experience working with the "offenders" was that most of them were not the party who terminated use of the medications, it was most often that their supply was terminated by others (parole officers, doctors who suspected abuse such as selling the meds on the street, etc.). Yes, there were a few of them who just didn't want to be medicated, but for those there are legal procedures that can be implemented to "encourage" them, such as more intensive probation monitoring...but FORCING someone to take meds that they don't want SHOULD be a difficult process, IMHO, and SHOULD involve legal proceedings (again, be that the case, of what use is the program?). The TDCJ had procedures for forced medication, but it was VERY unusual and required the agreement of two different doctors and an entire team to deliver the injection (it was hardly ever an issue with pills, as those who did not want to take their pills just did not go to the "pill window" to get them). (That whole process appears to be a gigantic, bottomless, ineffectual money pit to me.)

However...for those who DO realize that meds can have a positive impact on their choices and actions and want to take meds to avoid recidivism (and what percentage of the total might they represent?), there should be a way to make sure they have access to them. It's SO much cheaper than incarceration, and with the "trimming" of budgets everywhere the "bottom line" becomes important. I have noticed that as public mental health services are trimmed the mental health end up being "warehoused" in our prisons...it should not be a crime to have a mental health disorder. (I'm not going to get on that treadmill.)

Yeah...I did think about that Paddock guy as we were starting this discussion, but again I must reiterate my opinion that anyone who commits such a heinous crime as murder (whether it be mass murder as Paddock committed or a single murder) MUST have mental issues. Just MHO. (OR they could just be flat-out EVIL.)

Cheers!

Doug

^^^'Took the lazy reply route!







​

 

[Larry L.]

Veek brought up the car analogy. Discuss it with him.

The PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE 2A -- and the rest of the Bill of Rights -- intended that there be reasonable regulation of gun ownership. Hell you yourself admit it -- felons shouldn't own guns. You just draw the line in a different place. We've established you are a prostitute, now we are just negotiating the price.

But let me ask again, where is your line on what firearm someone should be allowed to own? FUlly auto? Bazooka? Surface to Air missile? Nuclear sub?

You tell me.

"Prostitute" now, huh?

Swell.

G'day, Mr. Young.

 

[Jeff Young]

Good grief. It's a figure of speech. An example. lol...you crack me up dude. But if that is how you want to avoid the question, your choice obviously.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Veek brought up the car analogy. Discuss it with him.

The PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE 2A -- and the rest of the Bill of Rights -- intended that there be reasonable regulation of gun ownership. Hell you yourself admit it -- felons shouldn't own guns. You just draw the line in a different place. We've established you are a prostitute, now we are just negotiating the price.

But let me ask again, where is your line on what firearm someone should be allowed to own? FUlly auto? Bazooka? Surface to Air missile? Nuclear sub?

You tell me.

We already know what is allowed, semi auto pistols, semi auto rifles, revolvers, bolt action, lever action rifles, muzzle loaders, etc. No assault rifles, full auto, etc. Has an NRA member been involved in any of these shootings? Look up the political affiliation of the shooters. They all have been mentally unfit. So it's not the weapon, it's the deranged individual. That's a place to start.

 

[Larry L.]

We already know what is allowed, semi auto pistols, semi auto rifles, revolvers, bolt action, lever action rifles, muzzle loaders, etc. No assault rifles, full auto, etc. .

I disagree, Al. You've listed what POLITICANS have subsequently chosen to "allow".

The answer to what's ACTUALLY "allowed" is found (surprise, surprise) in the wording of the 2nd Amend. The key word therein being "bear"...as in carry. That means The Founders did authorize full autos, semi-autos - you name the "carry" weapon. They are ALL "a-r-m-s"...and we have the RIGHT to carry "arms".

The Founders themselves DID NOT "ban" diddley in the "carry" department...they left no 'guidelines' for doing so either. As I said, POLITICIANS have simply decreed 'guidelines'...unconstitutionally, I might add. BANNING private ownership of this-or-that firearm O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y goes faaaaaaar beyond "infringing" on the right to own it. It flat-out BANS owning it. The Founders did not give congress the power to DO that. Quite the contrary.

Think about it. One of THEE prime reasons The Founders said "no law infringing" was to ensure 'the people' would have whatever the current "arms" of the day might be so as to have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If The Founders had given congress the power to DICTATE what "arms" the people could and could NOT "keep and bear", the people could find themselves limited to pocket knives and pitchforks in the "arms" department. How effective would they be as "arms"?

Given that, it should be obvious one cannot "carry" an aircraft carrier...an F18...a battleship...an ICBM...an Abrams tank...a B52...a cruise missile...etc., etc., etc. Of what practical USE would they be in any conceivable self-defense/home invasion situation even if one could physically "carry" any of them???!

HOWEVER...an argument COULD be made thru "i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n" (SCOTUS is BIG on "interpretation") that one does have the right to "keep" any of them...and I don't say that totally "tongue-in-cheek".

 

[Walter Williams]

Wow, i did not know they had fully auto/semi auto back then ..where were they hiding them??

 

[Walter Williams]

That was a joke for those of you who did not get it.. I agree the right to bear arms would mean current arms and arms of today. How many people are killed by doctors? Maybe we should ban them. Where does it stop? A unarmed person is a victum.

 

[Rod]

A shoulder fired rocket launcher. What every militia needs to protect against a tyrannical government.

Thank goodness I live in CA, where they have strict(er) gun regulation and why I prefer to vacation in Hawaii. Two of the safest states (based on population).

And hopefully the recent election results will turn the tide and eventually will translate to more gun regulation. More guns equal more gun deaths.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

A shoulder fired rocket launcher. What every militia needs to protect against a tyrannical government.

Thank goodness I live in CA, where they have strict(er) gun regulation and why I prefer to vacation in Hawaii. Two of the safest states (based on population).

And hopefully the recent election results will turn the tide and eventually will translate to more gun regulation. More guns equal more gun deaths.

CA is one of the most restrictive yet has close to 3000 gun related deaths annually. So much for gun control.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I disagree, Al. You've listed what POLITICANS have subsequently chosen to "allow".

The answer to what's ACTUALLY "allowed" is found (surprise, surprise) in the wording of the 2nd Amend. The key word therein being "bear"...as in carry. That means The Founders did authorize full autos, semi-autos - you name the "carry" weapon. They are ALL "a-r-m-s"...and we have the RIGHT to carry "arms".

The Founders themselves DID NOT "ban" diddley in the "carry" department...they left no 'guidelines' for doing so either. As I said, POLITICIANS have simply decreed 'guidelines'...unconstitutionally, I might add. BANNING private ownership of this-or-that firearm O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y goes faaaaaaar beyond "infringing" on the right to own it. It flat-out BANS owning it. The Founders did not give congress the power to DO that. Quite the contrary.

Think about it. One of THEE prime reasons The Founders said "no law infringing" was to ensure 'the people' would have whatever the current "arms" of the day might be so as to have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If The Founders had given congress the power to DICTATE what "arms" the people could and could NOT "keep and bear", the people could find themselves limited to pocket knives and pitchforks in the "arms" department. How effective would they be as "arms"?

Given that, it should be obvious one cannot "carry" an aircraft carrier...an F18...a battle ship...an ICBM...an Abrams tank...a B52...a cruise missile...etc., etc., etc. Of what practical USE would they be in any conceivable self-defense/home invasion situation even if one could physically "carry" any of them???!

HOWEVER...an argument COULD be made thru "i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n" (SCOTUS is BIG on "interpretation") that one does have the right to "keep" any of them...and I don't say that totally "tongue-in-cheek".

I said what IS allowed, not an interpretation of what should be allowed. Most of the population lacks firearms knowledge, so if you put a assault rifle stock on a BB gun it would be an assault rifle to them.

 

[Larry L.]

And hopefully the recent election results will turn the tide and eventually will translate to more gun regulation. More guns equal more gun deaths.

On more time: If your assertion that "more gun regulation" results in fewer gun deaths were actually true, Detroit and Chicago would be heaven on Earth instead of the killing fields they are today.

Given the fact that we already have, what, 9,487,923-or-so "gun laws" on the books now, one would think, were your assertion actually true, there'd have to be darned close to Z-E-R-O gun deaths in this country by now.

Real world reality just flat-out does not mirror what passes for 'reality' in yours where guns/gun laws are concerned, Rod. Seriously.