B-Large Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Just interested to see if any gun rights advoactes from the conservative side of the spectrum have set forth any proposals of changes in legislation to improve the Mental Health System? We've heard alot about how Gun Control legislation is not the core issue, but rather its the failure of the Mental Health System.... Diane Feinstein proposed basically a further reaching piece of legislation thats echo that of the 1994 AW/LCM ban... Does anybody know if there is anything in the works on the other side of debate? I'd be intersted to see suggestions of how we would identify threats, what constitutes a "mental ilness" and the privacy and confidentially issues that would be threatened by such a proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not if you're Joe I'm a few beers short of a six pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not if you're Joe I'm a few beers short of a six pack Its just a question. Its essentially the other side of the coin, but I have heard nothing as far as proposal or plans to change the Mental Health System... Don't drink much? if after 4 beers you are unable to determine if its Joe Six Pack, you need to work on your tolereance and drink what men drink, Bourbon... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) B, I am resisting giving a snide answer, because , as I am sure you may have gathered from our Obamacare discussions (I just cannot call it Affordable Care Act....too Orwellian) I really do not believe the government passing legislation will improve the Mental Health system. The best ways are to improve communication. Gov. Bobby Jindal Proposes Gun Safety Legislation Jindal announced today that he will seek legislation to improve gun safety in Louisiana by enabling the state to report to the federally administered National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database an individual’s eligibility to purchase firearms based on mental health records. “Too often, both in Louisiana and in states across the nation, the mentally ill are slipping through the cracks and getting lost in the system,” Jindal said in a news release. “In order to protect these individuals and the communities they reside in, it is imperative that we take proactive steps to prevent them from harming either themselves or others. “As a strong supporter of Constitutional gun rights, I fully believe that we can defend our Second Amendment right to bear arms and defend our children too,” he said. “This proposal is a common-sense way to protect our kids, our families and our loved ones.” Current state law prohibits reporting mental health eligibility to the NICS database. Under the governor’s proposal, Louisiana will be authorized to provide mental health eligibility to the NICS database, as is done by 17 other states. The NICS database is designed to prevent gun purchases by those with a criminal history or severe mental health illness. No actual medical records will be shared, he said, and the state will have the authority to request the removal of an individual from NICS should that person be deemed mentally competent by health care professionals. http://beforeitsnews...on-2559324.html Edited January 24, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 B, I am resisting giving a snide answer, because , as I am sure you may have gathered from our Obamacare discussions (I just cannot call it Affordable Care Act....too Orwellian) I really do not believe the government passing legislation will improve the Mental Health system. The best ways are to improve communication. http://beforeitsnews...on-2559324.html This seems to make sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Also, many other Republican Governors are addressing spending on Mental Health, while still cutting unnecessary spending (for those in DC who are unfamiliar with this....................its called leadership) Spending on mental health resumes FTA: Earlier this month, Ohio Gov. John Kasich announced a $5 million intervention program for children and young adults facing mental-health crises. The money will be used to help defuse situations where children pose a potential threat of violence to themselves, their families or others. The money could pay for emergency treatment, medication, a residential program or respite care for parents.The program was in the works before the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut that killed 20 children and six adults. The money for it comes from an $18 million bonus the state got from the federal government. The state reached a high level of enrollment in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program for families with modest incomes who do not qualify for Medicaid.About 30 states have reduced mental-health spending since 2008, when revenues were in steep decline, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. In a third of those states, the cuts surpassed 10 percent. The cuts came as unemployment was rising, causing more people to lose private insurance and forcing them to turn to public assistance. In South Carolina, spending fell by nearly 40 percent over four years. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley has called that “absolutely immoral.” Haley, who took office in 2011, has pledged to bolster a mental-health system that dropped caseworkers, closed treatment centers and extended waiting lists. She also wants to expand remote access to psychiatrists through videoconferencing. Pennsylvania and Utah have put aside plans to scale back their mental-health systems. Kansas, which cut mental-health spending by 12 percent from 2008 to 2011, has announced a $10 million program aimed at identifying mental-health dangers. “I don’t think we’re well set as a state at all to be able to deal with these intensive cases” of mental illness, acknowledged Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, who usually is an avid proponent of downsizing social programs. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/01/24/spending-on-mental-health-resumes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Just interested to see if any gun rights advoactes from the conservative side of the spectrum have set forth any proposals of changes in legislation to improve the Mental Health System? We've heard alot about how Gun Control legislation is not the core issue, but rather its the failure of the Mental Health System.... Diane Feinstein proposed basically a further reaching piece of legislation thats echo that of the 1994 AW/LCM ban... Does anybody know if there is anything in the works on the other side of debate? I'd be intersted to see suggestions of how we would identify threats, what constitutes a "mental ilness" and the privacy and confidentially issues that would be threatened by such a proposal. I'm assuming this is because after the Sandy Hook incident we're supposed to pretend there's a national crisis on this issue that must be immediately addressed with legislation from congress? It's interesting to me because I so often hear the enlighened gun control crowd chortle at the idea that anyone needs a gun for home defense, becuase statistically speaking home invasion is relatively rare, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the number of children killed in home invasions dwarfs the number killed in Sandy Hook/Columbine style shootings. So why the selective concern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'm assuming this is because after the Sandy Hook incident we're supposed to pretend there's a national crisis on this issue that must be immediately addressed with legislation from congress? It's interesting to me because I so often hear the enlighened gun control crowd chortle at the idea that anyone needs a gun for home defense, becuase statistically speaking home invasion is relatively rare, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the number of children killed in home invasions dwarfs the number killed in Sandy Hook/Columbine style shootings. So why the selective concern? Not that I care to get in a gun debate, but very few people think there is anything wrong with a gun for home defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Not that I care to get in a gun debate, but very few people think there is anything wrong with a gun for home defense. You should see the conversations I've had lately with some colleagues, but then again I'm in Quebec where simply wanting to own a gun for home protection makes me a hard line right winger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 You should see the conversations I've had lately with some colleagues, but then again I'm in Quebec where simply wanting to own a gun for home protection makes me a hard line right winger. You French-Canadians are so sophisticated and polite you are better equipped with some red wine for unexpected visitors bearing fudge and cheese, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Not that I care to get in a gun debate, but very few people think there is anything wrong with a gun for home defense. A month ago there was nothing wrong with having a hand gun or a rifle. I don't trust this crowd when they tell me they ONLY want to take X or Y because they've proven that as soon as they think they can pull it off (next crisis they don't let to waste) I know they're coming for Z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 You French-Canadians are so sophisticated and polite you are better equipped with some red wine for unexpected visitors bearing fudge and cheese, no? it ain't that at all!!! Meazza may have an often misdiagnosed mental health issue among French Canadians called the FO Complex... F is for French obviously, and the O is actually for around... This is symbolic of the Maginot line, and how fearful they are that an enemy may once again, run right around them... These people tend distrust authorities ability to defend them, and prefer to bear arms themselves. Though they hope and pray they are wrong about their governments abilities and/or willingness to protect them, they want a back up, just in case. His compatriots on the other hand, are more "enlightened", similar to the dumb masses we have here in America, that feel it will never happen to them, and even if it did, they will all sing kumbaya together with their new "leaders" who are sure to represent a more global agenda after "eliminating" a few RW nut job opposition, and live happily ever after... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'm assuming this is because after the Sandy Hook incident we're supposed to pretend there's a national crisis on this issue that must be immediately addressed with legislation from congress? It's interesting to me because I so often hear the enlighened gun control crowd chortle at the idea that anyone needs a gun for home defense, becuase statistically speaking home invasion is relatively rare, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the number of children killed in home invasions dwarfs the number killed in Sandy Hook/Columbine style shootings. So why the selective concern? I would say 3 mass shootings in 2 years constitutes a national crisis that needs to be addressed immediately. If it's not going to be gun control than mental health is the next best thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 A month ago there was nothing wrong with having a hand gun or a rifle. I don't trust this crowd when they tell me they ONLY want to take X or Y because they've proven that as soon as they think they can pull it off (next crisis they don't let to waste) I know they're coming for Z. Ding-Ding!!!! We have a winner!!! Let's be real a minute... There is no way Frankfienstein's bill goes through... But you can bet, she is hoping for compromise bill out of the mess that will still accomplish a good part of what she proposes.... Best thing to do, is FORCE a vote in both houses NOW.. no talking, no filibuster... Get them all on record now, in how they stand on the Feinnie bill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) A month ago there was nothing wrong with having a hand gun or a rifle. I don't trust this crowd when they tell me they ONLY want to take X or Y because they've proven that as soon as they think they can pull it off (next crisis they don't let to waste) I know they're coming for Z. So when someone says "I think X is a more harm than good scenario, but things not X are fine and appropriate for home defense and other purposes" your opposition is not that you think X is not a more harm than good scenario, but just that you don't trust the person at all? Edited January 25, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 So when someone says "I think X is a more harm than good scenario, but things not X are fine and appropriate for home defense and other purposes" your opposition is not that you think X is not a more harm than good scenario, but just that you don't trust the person at all? It's both. First, I see no real benefits to any of the proposals coming down the pike. It's a bunch of symbolic crap that serves only 2 purposes: 1. to take that incremental step toward stricter gun control; 2. to hold up as a victory to the gun control crowd. I see little value in either of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 So when someone says "I think X is a more harm than good scenario, but things not X are fine and appropriate for home defense and other purposes" your opposition is not that you think X is not a more harm than good scenario, but just that you don't trust the person at all? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Rob is making the slippery slope argument. If we take away assault rifles this time around. The next time it will happen with a handgun. So then we want to take away hand guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Rob is making the slippery slope argument. If we take away assault rifles this time around. The next time it will happen with a handgun. So then we want to take away hand guns. Yes and no. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is I believe the true goal is to take away more than is being copped to right now. The whole "assault weapon" ban is bogus anyway. "Assault weapons" are already illegal. The guns they're trying to take now are not functionally different from hunting rifles, they just look scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Rob is making the slippery slope argument. If we take away assault rifles this time around. The next time it will happen with a handgun. So then we want to take away hand guns. Yes and no. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is I believe the true goal is to take away more than is being copped to right now. The whole "assault weapon" ban is bogus anyway. "Assault weapons" are already illegal. The guns they're trying to take now are not functionally different from hunting rifles, they just look scary. Rob basically addresses this for me. You can call it a slippery slope but it's really just not trusting the other person, or even thinking the other person is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 You French-Canadians are so sophisticated and polite you are better equipped with some red wine for unexpected visitors bearing fudge and cheese, no? Those are the frenchies from France not the Quebecois. With the Quebecois, you're better off having some poutine ready with some bleue dry and a jos louis or what you blokes like to call a twinky. You're mistaking me with oliver in france. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts