TexasCHLforum.com

matrix wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

matrix wrote:A clinically depressed person should not be allowed to buy a firearm, but I see no reason to take away their other constitutional right, the right to vote.

So depressed people give up their right to self-defense? Very generous of you not to take away their right to vote --probably because you think depressed people are more likely to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

You've obviously not given a wit of thought to your "common sense" regulations. Just what do you think depressed people are going to do if they know getting treatment is going to result in stigmatization and denial of their right to self-defense? Did it occur to you that taking away basic rights based on vague psychological concepts might cause people to avoid treatment? That makes the denial of gun and self-defense rights self-selective. So obviously, treatment will have to be coerced, and just as obviously, anyone who displays anything that might be considered signs of depression will have to be coerced into treatment, or everyone buying a guy will have to have a psychiatric evaluation --otherwise, depressed people will still be able to buy guns.

VM, your vitriol and obvious attempts to get personal with me make it hard for me to respond to you. Unless you cool off a little bit, this will be my last response to you. I'm not sure what the exact definition of a troll is on this forum, but I'm pretty sure you're trolling me. Let's calm down and talk, OK?

Clinical depression is not a "vague psychological concept." It is a real disease with real symptoms. Depressed people are much more likely to commit suicide or at least have suicidal ideation, so I would submit to you that it's probably not a good idea to put a gun in their hands. They are also much more likely than the general population to go on murder-suicide sprees (a la Grapevine, TX yesterday, or any number of other such incidents). And no, it's not "obvious" that treatment will be coerced. What is obvious is that clinical depression should be a disqualifier from buying a firearm.

Frankly, my dear, I don't....well, maybe you know the line, maybe you don't. You're snide, smug, and condescending. My first response to you was quite civil --here it is again:

While I agree that such political comments are inappropriate in a CHL class I also realize that people are apt to make such comments when they believe they are addressing a friendly audience --and I suspect there aren't too many gun toting Obama supporters: that's sort of like being an anti-abortion feminist. If you voted for Obama, and are an Obama supporter, you voted for, and support and administration that wants to take away your right to own guns and your right to defend yourself, as well as other Constitutional rights. The Gun Walker program was INTENDED to covertly undermine 2nd Amendment rights and he nominated an anti-gun zealot to head the BATF --no doubt to implement policies via the BATF that he cannot pass through Congress.

Fortunately we haven't yet reached the point where a president can simply do whatever he wants --because if Obama could do whatever he wanted your guns would already be gone and you'd be subject to prosecution for self-defense --like people in the UK. If that's what you want vote for Obama again and help the gun grabbers seat more anti-gun judges on the Federal bench, perhaps get another anti-gun judge on the SC to reverse the recent 2nd Amendment victory, and enable more covert anti-gun policies. But if you're that anxious to get rid of your guns, why wait? I'm sure some of us here on this board will be willing to take them off yours hands.

You followed up with this post....your snide and condescending remarks excerpted:

VM, let's get out of our preconceived notions about what people are supposed to be like based on one or two of their characteristics. Labels are simple and easy, I understand the allure, but they're also simplistic and the assumptions that go with them are often wrong. Even many of the people who you would consider gun-grabbing liberals own guns and aren't anti-gun at all, just simply favor some common sense gun regulations (such as closing the gun show loophole), and oppose some of the totalitarian craziness coming out of the NRA (like their opposition to closing the gun show loophole). And let's not forget that the current system does not protect against mentally ill people legally purchasing firearms. You can be mad as a hatter (Jared Loughner, anyone?), and still walk into any gunstore and purchase a firearm. Some common sense reforms are not EVIL LIBERALS STEALING MY GUNS!!! Calm down. All this talk about the president wanting your guns has no basis in reality. It's all based on what you think he may do, not anything he's done in his first 3 years as president. Tell you what, instead of reflexively going on about how the president wants my guns, why don't you tell me a specific action he has taken as president to take my guns... Patiently waiting.

You come on here touting your self-proclaimed superiority by suggesting my statements are "preconceived notions" that I find "alluring" because of my "simplistic" and "wrong" assumptions (your smug condescending comments are in red). You spout Brady Bunch propaganda (blue) and use hyperbolic rhetoric when it suits you (green) while telling me that I'm "reflexively going on" about things, and then smugly tell me to "calm down." You talk about "common sense" solutions, and when asked for some, tell us that it's too complicated for you, and you'll just leave it up to "experts."

I've seen the exact same style/tactic used on numerous boards by other big government liberals. If you think you're going to be smug and condescending and I'm going to be nice in response, you're sadly mistaken. In addition to your tone, your statements are full of straw men, another typical liberal "debating" tactic. For instance, your contention that someone who owns a gun can't be "anti-gun" and your request for specific actions Obama has taken "as president" to take your guns. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

matrix wrote:A clinically depressed person should not be allowed to buy a firearm, but I see no reason to take away their other constitutional right, the right to vote.

So depressed people give up their right to self-defense? Very generous of you not to take away their right to vote --probably because you think depressed people are more likely to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

You've obviously not given a wit of thought to your "common sense" regulations. Just what do you think depressed people are going to do if they know getting treatment is going to result in stigmatization and denial of their right to self-defense? Did it occur to you that taking away basic rights based on vague psychological concepts might cause people to avoid treatment? That makes the denial of gun and self-defense rights self-selective. So obviously, treatment will have to be coerced, and just as obviously, anyone who displays anything that might be considered signs of depression will have to be coerced into treatment, or everyone buying a guy will have to have a psychiatric evaluation --otherwise, depressed people will still be able to buy guns.

matrix wrote:

G26ster wrote:What does walking in to a gun store and purchasing a gun with an NICS check have to do with the so-called "gun show loophole?"

Nothing. Hence the gun show loophole, and not the gunstore loophole.

G26ster wrote:How do you propose preventing someone as mad as a hatter from purchasing a gun in a gun store? (or a knife, a baseball bat, tire iron, matches, lighter, gasoline, rat poison, etc., etc., etc.) A psychiatric exam?

First, let's not go reductio ad absurdum (fancy, huh? ) with the tossing of guns into the same category with knives, poison, etc. We're talking about guns, OK? Otherwise we might as well be talking about heavy watermelons (tossing one of those from a 2nd story window and nailing somebody on the head sure seems like it would do some damage).

Second, I don't know. I'm not an expert nor am I a policymaker, but it sure seems wrong to me that a certifiable nut like Loughner can legally purchase a firearm. Don't you think we should take steps to prevent that? I'm sure a really smart person could devise a reasonable mechanism for this purpose.

Right, you come here espousing "common sense" gun regulation, and specifically cite as an example, preventing people you think are crazy from buying guns, but you haven't given the slightest bit of thought to how this could be done. I'm confused, because in your postings you seem to consider yourself to be really smart; then you go and say a "really smart" person, or some kind of "expert,' needs to figure out how to implement what, according to you, is merely common sense. You mean a smart guy like you doesn't have a common sense solution? Then I must ask, how could the solution merely be "common sense" if you have to leave it to a really smart expert to figure it out?

You know what, I think you just went and got all agitated about Obama and gun regulations, and came here to vent. Maybe you should follow your own advice and just calm down. Take it easy. Hope and Change is on the way.

matrix wrote:

VMI77 wrote:While I agree that such political comments are inappropriate in a CHL class I also realize that people are apt to make such comments when they believe they are addressing a friendly audience --and I suspect there aren't too many gun toting Obama supporters: that's sort of like being an anti-abortion feminist. If you voted for Obama, and are an Obama supporter, you voted for, and support and administration that wants to take away your right to own guns and your right to defend yourself, as well as other Constitutional rights. The Gun Walker program was INTENDED to covertly undermine 2nd Amendment rights and he nominated an anti-gun zealot to head the BATF --no doubt to implement policies via the BATF that he cannot pass through Congress.

Fortunately we haven't yet reached the point where a president can simply do whatever he wants --because if Obama could do whatever he wanted your guns would already be gone and you'd be subject to prosecution for self-defense --like people in the UK. If that's what you want vote for Obama again and help the gun grabbers seat more anti-gun judges on the Federal bench, perhaps get another anti-gun judge on the SC to reverse the recent 2nd Amendment victory, and enable more covert anti-gun policies. But if you're that anxious to get rid of your guns, why wait? I'm sure some of us here on this board will be willing to take them off yours hands.

VM, let's get out of our preconceived notions about what people are supposed to be like based on one or two of their characteristics. Labels are simple and easy, I understand the allure, but they're also simplistic and the assumptions that go with them are often wrong. Even many of the people who you would consider gun-grabbing liberals own guns and aren't anti-gun at all, just simply favor some common sense gun regulations (such as closing the gun show loophole), and oppose some of the totalitarian craziness coming out of the NRA (like their opposition to closing the gun show loophole). And let's not forget that the current system does not protect against mentally ill people legally purchasing firearms. You can be mad as a hatter (Jared Loughner, anyone?), and still walk into any gunstore and purchase a firearm. Some common sense reforms are not EVIL LIBERALS STEALING MY GUNS!!! Calm down. All this talk about the president wanting your guns has no basis in reality. It's all based on what you think he may do, not anything he's done in his first 3 years as president. Tell you what, instead of reflexively going on about how the president wants my guns, why don't you tell me a specific action he has taken as president to take my guns... Patiently waiting.

Wow, you must be an amazing guy, so superior to the rest of us with no preconceived notions, unaffected by the allure of labels, and like, so "complicated" and not at all simplistic like us mouth breathers. And at the same time you describe opposition to closing the supposed "gun show loophole" with such a level headed term like "totalitarian craziness" --so I guess it must be true and common sensiscal, not some kind of simplistic label or preconceived notion. And you're so "calm" and all, unlike us agitated inbreds.

And you must be into the "diversity" thing too....as a gun owner spouting language right out of the Brady Bunch playbook --like "common sense gun regulations." Such a beautiful phrase too, since it leaves everyone to fill in the blanks, from anti-gun zealots to people like you who fancy themselves to be politically progressive, rejecting all us fools who merely revel in the "allure" of political labels. Frankly, your repetition of Brady Bunch language has me doubting that you own guns or have a CHL, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The term, my friend, is meaningless, intentionally meaningless. It allows you to believe in the fantasy that politicians like Obama are only going to do what you think is "reasonable" while appeasing the zealots who believe "reasonable" is something else entirely. You've been had.

And just who is going to decide who is "mad as a hatter." Tell us how you'd have stopped Jared Loughner from buying a gun without abridging the rights of people who aren't "crazy?" Perhaps a panel of advanced thinkers like you will make that decision? He was not diagnosed as mentally ill, so you must have some other method for this determination in mind? Perhaps anyone deemed wacky by the SPLC? Maybe anyone who says something you think is a little off --like me?-- should subjected to a forced psychiatric evaluation? Oh, I get it, anyone who wants to buy a gun should have to pass a psychiatric evaluation --that sounds like the kind of "common sense" you're espousing.

'll repeat myself in plainer language. Obama hasn't taken any overt actions (which is why I used the word "covert" to describe his actions) and is very unlikely to in this administration. That may change if he gets reelected. Obama isn't stupid --he knows the anti-gun stance is not a winning political issue at the moment-- and he's not going do anything overtly anti-gun before the election. In the meantime he's filling important positions with anti-gun zealots. You obviously aren't interested in knowing anything about Obama's gun and self-defense ideology because if you were you'd already have done the research yourself instead of asking me for references. But here's a reference I found in about five seconds by doing a search on Obama + guns: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -and-guns/

Here are some excerpts (actually hard to post excepts, since the entire article contains examples of his anti-gun and anti-selfdefense attitudes):

During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama’s own handwriting.)

In 2004, he said he was “consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry,” and that he’d back “federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.” Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders - such as domestic violence victims - to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama’s world, “authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed,” he said.

In 2003, while serving on the Illinois state Senate’s Judiciary Committee, Mr. Obama voted for a bill that would have banned (as so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons”) most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns.

He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. On Mr. Obama’s watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation’s most aggressive gun-prohibitionist group.

Illinois lawmakers proposed legislation that would make self-defense an “affirmative defense” against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette. Mr. Obama voted four times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois’ anti-gun governor, Rod Blagojevich, a long-time Obama ally.


But hey, BO has probably changed his mind about all that, seen the error of his ways. Keep kidding yourself if it makes you feel better.

matrix wrote:Well, I'm definitely glad to hear that not everyone has to sit through things like that for the sin of wanting to obtain a CHL. Popular opinion in this forum notwithstanding, not everybody who voted for Obama is a gun-grabbing, "guns-are-evil" person. I, for example, am very much in favor of the 2nd amendment and reserve my right to protect myself and my family from would-be assailants.

pcgizzmo wrote:Welcome.

Strange first post but to each his own. I agree that the political statements were uncalled for in your class but I'm sure as you already know most people actively involved in the gun community are not supportive of the current president because of his stance on guns, his attorney generals stance on guns etc..

Gizzmo, I'm glad you agree with me about the inappropriate context to be making those statements, and yes, I am totally aware of how people in the "gun community" perceive the president. I just happen to disagree with most of the "gun community." (BTW, am I in the gun community? I have a CHL, own a gun, carry as often circumstances permit, etc etc.) And why you find my 1st post "strange" is a mystery to me. It's more than tangentially gun-related (right out of forum rules), and I believe posted in the appropriate folder (political issues). What's strange about that?

While I agree that such political comments are inappropriate in a CHL class I also realize that people are apt to make such comments when they believe they are addressing a friendly audience --and I suspect there aren't too many gun toting Obama supporters: that's sort of like being an anti-abortion feminist. If you voted for Obama, and are an Obama supporter, you voted for, and support and administration that wants to take away your right to own guns and your right to defend yourself, as well as other Constitutional rights. The Gun Walker program was INTENDED to covertly undermine 2nd Amendment rights and he nominated an anti-gun zealot to head the BATF --no doubt to implement policies via the BATF that he cannot pass through Congress.

Fortunately we haven't yet reached the point where a president can simply do whatever he wants --because if Obama could do whatever he wanted your guns would already be gone and you'd be subject to prosecution for self-defense --like people in the UK. If that's what you want vote for Obama again and help the gun grabbers seat more anti-gun judges on the Federal bench, perhaps get another anti-gun judge on the SC to reverse the recent 2nd Amendment victory, and enable more covert anti-gun policies. But if you're that anxious to get rid of your guns, why wait? I'm sure some of us here on this board will be willing to take them off yours hands.