On 4/18/2013 10:05 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a lethal weapon "punishment?"


It's the slippery slope, Ranger...
It's the fist step of confiscation.

As punishment, I'm referring to the inability to protect one's life
and family.

On 4/17/2013 10:07 PM, Richard wrote:
On 4/18/2013 10:05 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background
check than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before
purchasing a lethal weapon "punishment?"


It's the slippery slope, Ranger...
It's the fist step of confiscation.

As punishment, I'm referring to the inability to protect one's life
and family.





Bad Freudian pun?

On 4/18/2013 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:07:29 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/18/2013 10:05 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a lethal weapon "punishment?"


It's the slippery slope, Ranger...
It's the fist step of confiscation.

That's your imagination running overclocked.


As punishment, I'm referring to the inability to protect one's life
and family.

How are background checks interfering with your ability to protect
your life and that of your family??


Did you get my note, Ed?

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a lethal weapon "punishment?"

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:07:29 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/18/2013 10:05 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a lethal weapon "punishment?"


It's the slippery slope, Ranger...
It's the fist step of confiscation.

That's your imagination running overclocked.


As punishment, I'm referring to the inability to protect one's life
and family.

How are background checks interfering with your ability to protect
your life and that of your family??

--
Ed Huntress

Ok, let's try this again. Without the 3

Hi Ed,

I'm a disabled vet. 100% permanent and total.
PTSD, burns, shrapnel, and some bones.

Some people would claim that to be a serious mental illness.
Does it make me dangerous?
As soon as that rating came in, FAA refused to renew my flight physical.
Can't have crazy people flying around now, can we?

But I have never been adjudicated as a danger to myself or others.
EVER.

Toomey said. "The mentally ill should not have guns.
I don't know anyone who disagrees with that premise."

But who calls that tune?
If private shrinks will be able to add patients names into a federal
database of the mentally ill - without due process - you will be at
their mercy.

As Red State editor, Erick Erickson says, “Activist mental health
providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the
list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the
physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto
the list.”

And as for veterans? Toomey-Manchin-Schumer reinforces the proposition
that bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs can take away
veterans' rights without any due process. If a veteran has $30,000 to
spend getting back the rights Toomey-Manchin-Schumer wrongly took from
him, the sell-out creates yet another redundant money-trap for
restoration of rights that shouldn't have been taken away in the first
place.


Does that answer the question?
How are background checks interfering with your ability to protect
your life and that of your family??

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:07:29 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
On 4/18/2013 10:05 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:

Ok, you had your vote.



You Lost.



Get over it.







You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes



of so very few criminals.



In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a lethal weapon "punishment?"





It's the slippery slope, Ranger...
It's the fist step of confiscation.

In what way?

As punishment, I'm referring to the inability to protect one's life
and family.

Please elaborate. How in the world does prohibiting convicted violent felons and dangerously mentally ill people from purchasing lethal weapons take away your ability to protect your life and family (unless you are afraid that you couldn't pass such a background check yourself)?

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Hee-haw! "NRA -- Making the world safe for violent criminals!'

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:43:52 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...

Hey, moron, check out the laws on private sales. First, from the NRA:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/alabama.aspx

....then, for further explanation, from the Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence:

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/sta...sales-of-guns/

You'll note they're not in disagreement, but you can link to each
state's statutes, if you're a skeptic.

There are six states that require background checks on private sales,
and two additional states that require bookkeeping or reporting of
private sales.

In most states, it's "Katie Bar the Doors, We've got a buyer, and he
has a pulse -- and some money!"

So wake up.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:43:52 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...

Hey, moron, check out the laws on private sales. First, from the NRA:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/alabama.aspx

...then, for further explanation, from the Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence:

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/sta...sales-of-guns/

You'll note they're not in disagreement, but you can link to each
state's statutes, if you're a skeptic.

There are six states that require background checks on private sales,
and two additional states that require bookkeeping or reporting of
private sales.

In most states, it's "Katie Bar the Doors, We've got a buyer, and he
has a pulse -- and some money!"

So wake up.

The fact is that that all handgun sales across state lines require a FFL
and a background check. The fact is that intrastate private sales are
prohibited if the seller has any reason to believe that the buyer could
not pass a background check. The oft cited street corner sales are
felonies, and background checks have no relevance whatsoever.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:20:40 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:43:52 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...

Hey, moron, check out the laws on private sales. First, from the NRA:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/alabama.aspx

...then, for further explanation, from the Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence:

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/sta...sales-of-guns/

You'll note they're not in disagreement, but you can link to each
state's statutes, if you're a skeptic.

There are six states that require background checks on private sales,
and two additional states that require bookkeeping or reporting of
private sales.

In most states, it's "Katie Bar the Doors, We've got a buyer, and he
has a pulse -- and some money!"

So wake up.

The fact is that that all handgun sales across state lines require a FFL
and a background check. The fact is that intrastate private sales are
prohibited if the seller has any reason to believe that the buyer could
not pass a background check.

Hahaha! And how do you prove that he DID have reason to believe that?

All he has to say is that the buyer said he was OK, and the seller had
no evidence to the contrary. He doesn't even need to ask for an ID in
most states. So a seller in Aridzona could be selling to someone from
Maryland, and he'd have no way to know it if the buyer said he was not
"prohibited," including that he was an Aridzona resident.

The seller would neither know, nor have to make any effort to find
out.

It was the "Making the World Safe for Violent Criminals" act.


The oft cited street corner sales are
felonies, and background checks have no relevance whatsoever.

But where did those guns come from? From legal sources. The FBI says
the largest single *criminal* source is strawman purchases, followed
by thefts.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:20:40 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:43:52 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...

Hey, moron, check out the laws on private sales. First, from the NRA:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/alabama.aspx

...then, for further explanation, from the Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence:

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/sta...sales-of-guns/

You'll note they're not in disagreement, but you can link to each
state's statutes, if you're a skeptic.

There are six states that require background checks on private sales,
and two additional states that require bookkeeping or reporting of
private sales.

In most states, it's "Katie Bar the Doors, We've got a buyer, and he
has a pulse -- and some money!"

So wake up.

The fact is that that all handgun sales across state lines require a FFL
and a background check. The fact is that intrastate private sales are
prohibited if the seller has any reason to believe that the buyer could
not pass a background check.

Hahaha! And how do you prove that he DID have reason to believe that?

The gang tattoos are usually a good indication, but then in most of
those cases the seller also has gang tattoos and is also a convicted
felon, adding a few more felonies to the whole transaction, again making
background checks entirely irrelevant.


All he has to say is that the buyer said he was OK, and the seller had
no evidence to the contrary. He doesn't even need to ask for an ID in
most states. So a seller in Aridzona could be selling to someone from
Maryland, and he'd have no way to know it if the buyer said he was not
"prohibited," including that he was an Aridzona resident.

A prohibited buyer traveling across multiple states to buy a firearm
from a private seller, my you are grasping at mighty thin straws. Once
again you're assembling a felony transaction that background checks have
no relevance to,


The seller would neither know, nor have to make any effort to find
out.

It was the "Making the World Safe for Violent Criminals" act.

The oft cited street corner sales are
felonies, and background checks have no relevance whatsoever.

But where did those guns come from? From legal sources. The FBI says
the largest single *criminal* source is strawman purchases, followed
by thefts.

Straw purchases are felonies, not legal purchases as are thefts and no
background check has any relevance. You know this perfectly well like
other anti-gun propagandists, but you can't let facts get in the way of
your ideology.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:56:45 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:20:40 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:43:52 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...

Hey, moron, check out the laws on private sales. First, from the NRA:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/alabama.aspx

...then, for further explanation, from the Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence:

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/sta...sales-of-guns/

You'll note they're not in disagreement, but you can link to each
state's statutes, if you're a skeptic.

There are six states that require background checks on private sales,
and two additional states that require bookkeeping or reporting of
private sales.

In most states, it's "Katie Bar the Doors, We've got a buyer, and he
has a pulse -- and some money!"

So wake up.

The fact is that that all handgun sales across state lines require a FFL
and a background check. The fact is that intrastate private sales are
prohibited if the seller has any reason to believe that the buyer could
not pass a background check.

Hahaha! And how do you prove that he DID have reason to believe that?

The gang tattoos are usually a good indication...

Well, that's 20% of homicides:

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Su...-Gang-Problems

How about the other 80%?

but then in most of
those cases the seller also has gang tattoos and is also a convicted
felon, adding a few more felonies to the whole transaction, again making
background checks entirely irrelevant.

And you know this about sellers, how?



All he has to say is that the buyer said he was OK, and the seller had
no evidence to the contrary. He doesn't even need to ask for an ID in
most states. So a seller in Aridzona could be selling to someone from
Maryland, and he'd have no way to know it if the buyer said he was not
"prohibited," including that he was an Aridzona resident.

A prohibited buyer traveling across multiple states to buy a firearm
from a private seller, my you are grasping at mighty thin straws.

You're the one who brought up out-of-state purchases. There is enough
crime within most states that you don't need that hypothesis to begin
with.

And there is enough psychosis to go around, too.

Once
again you're assembling a felony transaction that background checks have
no relevance to,...


The point is that background checks, where they're required for
private sales (six states), will disallow anyone who doesn't pass
NICS.




The seller would neither know, nor have to make any effort to find
out.

It was the "Making the World Safe for Violent Criminals" act.

The oft cited street corner sales are
felonies, and background checks have no relevance whatsoever.

But where did those guns come from? From legal sources. The FBI says
the largest single *criminal* source is strawman purchases, followed
by thefts.

Straw purchases are felonies, not legal purchases as are thefts and no
background check has any relevance.

You miss the point. A straw purchase looks like a legal purchase under
the law, until the straw purchaser sells the gun to a criminal or
mental defective, and the straw purchaser knows the buyer was
unqualified. In most states now, there's no way to prove that he knew
it. He can go right on with his straw-purchasing business.

If a straw purchaser/seller sells the gun -- which is the point of
being in the straw-purchase business to begin with -- he should have
to run a background check on the buyer. Then he can't get away with
saying "Gee, the guy said he wasn't a prohibited buyer." Which, of
course, ends any possible prosecution, unless the prosecutor is
unusually lucky and has lots of other evidence. And that's rare. Straw
purchasing is a pretty safe business as the laws stand in most states
now.

'See the relevance?


You know this perfectly well like
other anti-gun propagandists, but you can't let facts get in the way of
your ideology.

I think we can penetrate your thick skull with the facts if you just
pay attention.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:



The point is that background checks, where they're required for
private sales (six states), will disallow anyone who doesn't pass
NICS.

Private sales are private and no background check law will stop, or even
hinder someone who is going to do an illegal transfer.

Straw purchases are felonies, not legal purchases as are thefts and no
background check has any relevance.

You miss the point. A straw purchase looks like a legal purchase under
the law, until the straw purchaser sells the gun to a criminal or
mental defective, and the straw purchaser knows the buyer was
unqualified. In most states now, there's no way to prove that he knew
it. He can go right on with his straw-purchasing business.

If a straw purchaser/seller sells the gun -- which is the point of
being in the straw-purchase business to begin with -- he should have
to run a background check on the buyer. Then he can't get away with
saying "Gee, the guy said he wasn't a prohibited buyer." Which, of
course, ends any possible prosecution, unless the prosecutor is
unusually lucky and has lots of other evidence. And that's rare. Straw
purchasing is a pretty safe business as the laws stand in most states
now.

If someone is making a felony straw purchase, they aren't going to do
any background check on the person they are transferring the gun to.
Your argument is total nonsense claiming that a new law will stop people
from doing something that is already illegal.


This is no different than the illegal sales of prescription drugs. The
buyer may well "pass the background check" with a valid prescription,
however their sale to a third party is already illegal, and making up
some law that states a private sale of prescription drugs which is
already illegal requires the buyer to have a prescription is absurd.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:17:04 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:



The point is that background checks, where they're required for
private sales (six states), will disallow anyone who doesn't pass
NICS.

Private sales are private and no background check law will stop, or even
hinder someone who is going to do an illegal transfer.

Uh, Pete, we have a failure to communicate here.

If you have a background check system, you know if the seller made a
legal sale. If someone else has the gun and there's no record of it
being background-checked before the sale, you have a strawman seller.
You can put him in jail and make the strawman-purchase business very
risky and costly.

The only other thing you need is a requirement that thefts be reported
in a very short time. Some states already have that.


Straw purchases are felonies, not legal purchases as are thefts and no
background check has any relevance.

You miss the point. A straw purchase looks like a legal purchase under
the law, until the straw purchaser sells the gun to a criminal or
mental defective, and the straw purchaser knows the buyer was
unqualified. In most states now, there's no way to prove that he knew
it. He can go right on with his straw-purchasing business.

If a straw purchaser/seller sells the gun -- which is the point of
being in the straw-purchase business to begin with -- he should have
to run a background check on the buyer. Then he can't get away with
saying "Gee, the guy said he wasn't a prohibited buyer." Which, of
course, ends any possible prosecution, unless the prosecutor is
unusually lucky and has lots of other evidence. And that's rare. Straw
purchasing is a pretty safe business as the laws stand in most states
now.

If someone is making a felony straw purchase, they aren't going to do
any background check on the person they are transferring the gun to.

I think you misunderstand what straw purchases are about. A strawman
purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns from legit
dealers and then sells them to someone who shouldn't have them. If you
sell a gun without a background check, and the gun is recovered in a
crime or even an unlawful possession, you, the straw purchaser, are up
the river.

Without a background check it's just your word against the criminal.
And you're the one with the clean record.

Your argument is total nonsense claiming that a new law will stop people
from doing something that is already illegal.

Your argument shows a complete lack of thinking, or of understanding
what straw purchases are and how they work. The idea is to catch the
straw purchaser making an illegal sale. Where background checks are
required, and there is no record in an FFL's Bound Book that you made
one, you're in deep ****.



This is no different than the illegal sales of prescription drugs. The
buyer may well "pass the background check" with a valid prescription,
however their sale to a third party is already illegal, and making up
some law that states a private sale of prescription drugs which is
already illegal requires the buyer to have a prescription is absurd.

If there was a way to identify the drugs, like the serial number on a
gun, the original purchaser would be in jail. Just like a strawman gun
purchaser who failed to get a background check on his buyer.

Are we starting to communicate yet?

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/19/2013 7:32 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Nothing to do with guns or gun laws interferes with my ability to
protect my life or that of my family.


Yep.

The problem with the mental health aspect is simply this;
EVERYBODY thinks they are normal.

But the psychologist are quite adamant about there being
no such thing.

So now the politicians enter the fray.
(here is a whole class of people who really need mental health help!)

As you said, everyone is in favor of "improving" the system.
But nobody has a clue how to do that.

In the end, the gun control issue is not about guns at all.


It's about control.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:53:15 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/18/2013 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:07:29 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/18/2013 10:05 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a lethal weapon "punishment?"


It's the slippery slope, Ranger...
It's the fist step of confiscation.

That's your imagination running overclocked.


As punishment, I'm referring to the inability to protect one's life
and family.

How are background checks interfering with your ability to protect
your life and that of your family??


Did you get my note, Ed?

What note? Did you send me something by e-mail? If you did, the
address I post is not valid. You have to drop out the "3".

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:36:42 -0500, Richard
wrote:


Ok, let's try this again. Without the 3

Hi Ed,

I'm a disabled vet. 100% permanent and total.
PTSD, burns, shrapnel, and some bones.

Some people would claim that to be a serious mental illness.
Does it make me dangerous?

PTSD covers a lot of symptoms and reactions. If you hallucinate and
experience hyperarousal or hyperanxiety at the same time, you can be
as dangerous as a hand grenade without a pin.

I assume you don't have those symptoms, because they're pretty rare
and you don't act like you have a bad case of anxiety. But I'm not one
who could judge it, anyway.

Here's the rub: Gun owners talk about "improving our mental health
system," and often about how liberals let the "crazies" out of mental
institutions, causing our mass-murder problem; then they turn around
and talk about how unreliable psychologists are at determining who's
dangerous; and, finally, they bring up the vets who have been treated
for mental health issues, and how unfair it is to keep them from
having guns. After all, they're vets. Right?

So where does that leave us? IMO, in an impossible position. I don't
have a clue about the effectiveness of it. I'm all for "improving"
mental health although I have little idea about how it should be, or
could be, improved. I don't think there's a lot of evidence that
suggests it would make a difference as far as gun safety goes.
Probably they could stop some suicides, but most gun nutz brush them
off as meaningless, anyway. As for the NRA, it looks like a carefully
crafted distraction to take the pressure off of AR and magazine bans.
It's a feel-good pitch with no substance. Of course, the liberal
anti-gun crowd had to adopt it as well, to keep it from becoming a
divisive issue that could be used against them. It plays well with
almost everyone.

Do you have any suggestions on that front?

As soon as that rating came in, FAA refused to renew my flight physical.
Can't have crazy people flying around now, can we?

Nor Type I diabetics, it seems.


But I have never been adjudicated as a danger to myself or others.
EVER.

Well, then, you should be in the clear. I don't think there's much
support for tightening the criteria. The mainstream pitch, from both
sides, is to "improve" treatment.


Toomey said. "The mentally ill should not have guns.
I don't know anyone who disagrees with that premise."

Neither do I. But everyone has a different idea of what constitutes
mental illness.


But who calls that tune?
If private shrinks will be able to add patients names into a federal
database of the mentally ill - without due process - you will be at
their mercy.

Wayne and the NRA aren't helping your cause. Here's Wayne:

“I think we can agree that our mental health system is broken. We need
to look at the full range of mental health issues, from early
detection treatment, to civil commitment laws, to privacy laws that
needlessly prevent mental health records from being included from the
national list.” [Jan. 30th]

There's just too much privacy, says Wayne LaPier

“23 states are still putting only a small number of records into the
system and a lot of states are putting none. So when they go through
the National Instant Check System and they go to try to screen out one
of those lunatics, the records are not even in the system.” [Dec.
23rd]

So he wants more mental health records in the system, and "privacy
laws" that allow "private shrinks...to add patients names into a
federal database of the mentally ill" sounds like exactly what he has
in mind.


As Red State editor, Erick Erickson says, “Activist mental health
providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the
list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the
physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto
the list.”

Overblown paranoia, in all likelihood. But it sounds like Erickson is
worried about the wrong end of the political spectrum. See above.


And as for veterans? Toomey-Manchin-Schumer reinforces the proposition
that bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs can take away
veterans' rights without any due process. If a veteran has $30,000 to
spend getting back the rights Toomey-Manchin-Schumer wrongly took from
him, the sell-out creates yet another redundant money-trap for
restoration of rights that shouldn't have been taken away in the first
place.


Does that answer the question?

It does, but not in the way I expected, nor, probably, in the way you
intended. I've thought from the start that the whole issue was a big
red herring thrown up to keep guns out of the debate. I also think it
has succeeded to some extent.

Underneath the political maneuvering is a genuine issue -- Lanza,
Holmes, and Loughner are the prime evidence of it -- that I feel we
have little chance of solving. The mental-health issue, and the people
who could conceivably be caught in the middle of it, like you, are
going to be the ping-pong balls.

It doesn't help that the unmasked, honest conclusion of the NRA's and
the gun-nutz pitch is that don't have to control guns; we have to
control people.

Good luck.

How are background checks interfering with your ability to protect
your life and that of your family??

Nothing to do with guns or gun laws interferes with my ability to
protect my life or that of my family.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/18/2013 1:43 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...



What percentage of leftists would pass a background check to vote, not
just a picture ID? I believe that in order to vote, one must be a land
owner, have a job or some source of non-government income and pay
federal income taxes. In other words, only responsible, upstanding
citizens that are crime-free and actually have some skin in the game.
There should be no taxation without representation and no representation
without taxation.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:36:09 -0400, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 4/18/2013 1:43 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:56 -0400, "Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:14:19 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Ok, you had your vote.

You Lost.

Get over it.



You were trying hard to punish innocent people for the crimes

of so very few criminals.

In what way is requiring a background check (less of a background check
than is required to be a crossing guard in my town) before purchasing a
lethal weapon "punishment?"

There SHOULD be a background check..........to VOTE!


In all but about five states, ID is required to vote. In most states,
no ID is required to buy a handgun.

Your lies and distortions are getting old...



What percentage of leftists would pass a background check to vote, not
just a picture ID? I believe that in order to vote, one must be a land
owner, have a job or some source of non-government income and pay
federal income taxes. In other words, only responsible, upstanding
citizens that are crime-free and actually have some skin in the game.
There should be no taxation without representation and no representation
without taxation.

Ah, oligarchy, the Politics of Wealth Defense! Orwell's The Party!

You could adopt the old government of South Africa. You'd feel right
at home, Tom. That was an oligarchy, too.

Up yours, elitist. g

--
Ed Huntress

Richard wrote:

Does that answer the question?

There is a large political class that functions consistently and entirely by
making progressive changes always in the same direction, but if you say that
you have a suspicion that maybe they want to make a change with the
premeditated intention to expand upon it later, they say you're paranoid.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word.