Jump to content

Obama's plan


Scruit

Recommended Posts

Yeah, that jumped out at me too. Either the NRA was right and Obama and everyone on the left was being a cock for calling them hysterical for suggesting armed guards, or the "resource officers" are going to be unarmed, which is about as effective as a rape whistle against a spree-killer.

Gotta be one or the other...either stupid or lying.

I don't feel an armed resource officer will necessarily be effective. They will just become the first target. Arm teachers who feel comfortable with doing so.

The problem with the mental health professionals being able to flag people as dangerous that I didn't think of until now is in regards to our troops. When they return they have to talk to mental health professionals about their deployments. Now they are going to talk about killing people and ptsd type stuff. Does that mean now the mental health professional can ruin that soldiers military career by saying he is not safe to own a gun? Will they be able to take his right to owning a gun because he got a little screwed up in the head defending that right? Police departments often have mandatory counseling for officers involved in traumatic events. Will these counselors have the power to take that officers gun rights away because he claimed to be ok with shooting another person or he has nightmares about a car crash he responded to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arm teachers who feel comfortable with doing so.

You can't keep pushing none teaching issues off on the schools. We used to teach. Now we teach, feed them, teach them right from wrong, give them healthcare, teach them about the birds and the bees, how to be safe on the internet, the difference between candy and pills.

Really, I work in a school. The list of things we are forced to do that have nothing to do with education is MASSIVE.

I draw the line at a safe environment. If people want a safe environment for their children then get out the checkbook and provide it.

I would certainly carry my weapon if allowed and I would certainly put my life on the line to protect them if need be.

But primary protection is the responsibility of the police, and the taxpayers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck each and every one of you that think adding more checks to the system is acceptable. It's none of your damn business if grandma wants to give me grandpa's rifle & great-grandpa's shotgun. If I want to make my own gun, stay out of my private life. This is a very bad thing to have all guns accounted for on documents no matter if it is centralized or not.

How about you punish me if I act inappropriately with a firearm & offer me support if I have to use one to protect myself.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't keep pushing none teaching issues off on the schools. We used to teach. Now we teach, feed them, teach them right from wrong, give them healthcare, teach them about the birds and the bees, how to be safe on the internet, the difference between candy and pills.

Really, I work in a school. The list of things we are forced to do that have nothing to do with education is MASSIVE.

I draw the line at a safe environment. If people want a safe environment for their children then get out the checkbook and provide it.

I would certainly carry my weapon if allowed and I would certainly put my life on the line to protect them if need be.

But primary protection is the responsibility of the police, and the taxpayers.

First the police responsibility is to enforce laws which is why several have gotten away from the slogan "to protect and serve". Protection is on security.

Safe environment, just about every schools website lists its mission or goals as "Provide a safe learning environment". Put one armed guard in a school will do nothing against a planned attack except designate the first target. Schools need to reevaluate their lock down plans,.hiding and hoping the shooter doesn't bust the door in does not work. It just makes it easier to count the bodies. Now why not allow staff that would be comfortable to be armed to take training and be ready to protect the class if someone comes in the door to kill them all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck each and every one of you that think adding more checks to the system is acceptable. It's none of your damn business if grandma wants to give me grandpa's rifle & great-grandpa's shotgun. If I want to make my own gun, stay out of my private life. This is a very bad thing to have all guns accounted for on documents no matter if it is centralized or not.

How about you punish me if I act inappropriately with a firearm & offer me support if I have to use one to protect myself.

Now, tell us how you really feel. I loved taht post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mental health aspect of everything is just a poor idea. On the surface, it sounds like a solution, but deeper it's not. If I own a gun or would like to own one, will I seek help for my mental illness? If physicians are held responsible for "missing" the crazed killer, how will that impact the treatment of otherwise non-"crazed" mental health patients?

We have HIPAA for this EXACT reason: because we DON'T want people to have ANY barriers to seeking treatment, and there are no diagnoses more stigmatized and hard to get people to seek treatment for than mental illness. Last stat I saw was that the average depressed person suffers for TEN YEARS before seeking treatment as it is already. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a good way to connect mental health with commercial firearm sales in a way that makes this worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel for the soldier coming back from a war zone, seeking help to deal with those things that most of us will never understand, and then be blacklisted from legal firearms ownership.

There was time not too long ago that something as simple as depression would have all but ended your career options in the military....that is, actively seeking treatment for it and having med's subscribed. If you wanted to be a part of Spec Ops, you had to admit to having the med's and they, not medical professionals, would determine if you could attend or continue actively training (example, the SFQC).

Of course, you could be a walking drunk during PT and nothing was ever said about it. Our PT runs were a rolling brewery at Bragg and as long as you weren't drunk at the 0800 formation, all was good. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck each and every one of you that think adding more checks to the system is acceptable. It's none of your damn business if grandma wants to give me grandpa's rifle & great-grandpa's shotgun. If I want to make my own gun, stay out of my private life. This is a very bad thing to have all guns accounted for on documents no matter if it is centralized or not.

How about you punish me if I act inappropriately with a firearm & offer me support if I have to use one to protect myself.

Yeah. Really no need for me to post in these threads. Just double post whatever UP says and put my name on one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck each and every one of you that think adding more checks to the system is acceptable. It's none of your damn business if grandma wants to give me grandpa's rifle & great-grandpa's shotgun. If I want to make my own gun, stay out of my private life. This is a very bad thing to have all guns accounted for on documents no matter if it is centralized or not.

How about you punish me if I act inappropriately with a firearm & offer me support if I have to use one to protect myself.

This may very well be, the most intelligent thing, I have ever read on the interwebs

quoted for more face time, yet again:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thing to do there - politicize mental health practitioners, and compel them to determine who could maybe be a threat. Oh, and do you ever get off the list? It's a great message to send to society - once a sicko always a sicko.

Who wouldn't want to clam the fuck up when speaking to ANYONE in that field knowing your civil rights were about to get stripped?

Further, what protects doctors and therapists from lawsuit such as the one brought today against Holmes psychiatrist? It's going to make people report "threats" that aren't there to be on the safe side.

Need a gun? Well, that makes you paranoid and you're mentally deficient.

This is the building blocks of some scary fucking shit. It's not scary yet, it's the underpinnings of it, the mechanism by which a society starts to criminalize everything and everyone.

If you're not terrified of the ramifications, you're a fucking dumbass with no history books.

Way back on post #27, I think we are on the same side.

I do not want to be the person that decides what person is branded "as a mental health risk".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck each and every one of you that think adding more checks to the system is acceptable. It's none of your damn business if grandma wants to give me grandpa's rifle & great-grandpa's shotgun. If I want to make my own gun, stay out of my private life. This is a very bad thing to have all guns accounted for on documents no matter if it is centralized or not.

How about you punish me if I act inappropriately with a firearm & offer me support if I have to use one to protect myself.

I got to give it the props it deserves.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...