One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
T******s With Assault Weapons...Still Think Background Checks Are A Bad Idea?
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
Mar 29, 2023 13:12:59   #
Justice101
 
son of witless wrote:
If you have a kid who is nuts, you have a duty to society to protect everyone from your kid.


If your kid is seeing a psychiatrist, psychologist or social worker, the duty to warn, the duty to protect is primarily derived from the 1976 case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, in which the Supreme Court of California ruled that mental health professionals have a duty to protect foreseeable victims of their violent patients by warning them directly or notifying the police.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2018.130402

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:13:04   #
Turtle keeper
 
EmilyD wrote:
The NICS does do background checks...

"The NICS conducts background checks on people who want to own a firearm or explosive, as required by law.

NICS Process

When a person tries to buy a firearm, the seller, known as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), contacts NICS electronically or by phone. The prospective buyer fills out the ATF form, and the FFL relays that information to the NICS. The NICS staff performs a background check on the buyer. That background check verifies the buyer does not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to purchase or own a firearm. Since launching in 1998, more than 300 million checks have been done, leading to more than 1.5 million denials."


https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/nics#
The NICS does do background checks... br br i &q... (show quote)


There is a problem with “Background” checks. They are VERY inaccurate. I found out today that a criminal record shows for a person with a different middle name than mine is showing up on my records. I also found out that I have a Phone in Dallas TX, I don’t. All of these sites are extremely sloppy with information. You cannot trust them. I’m not sure if you can dispute the records. Of course if you are H****r B***n you can be a drug addicted and still purchase a firearm

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:18:49   #
EmilyD
 
Turtle keeper wrote:
There is a problem with “Background” checks. They are VERY inaccurate. I found out today that a criminal record shows for a person with a different middle name than mine is showing up on my records. I also found out that I have a Phone in Dallas TX, I don’t. All of these sites are extremely sloppy with information. You cannot trust them. I’m not sure if you can dispute the records. Of course if you are H****r B***n you can be a drug addicted and still purchase a firearm

Yes, but where is the breakdown. The seller can only do so much. They don’t have crystal balls.

Doctors are bound with privacy laws to circumnavigate, and not all - in fact I would guess fairly few - nut jobs even see doctors.

Can't blame the seller for breakdowns in the background check process...

Reply
 
 
Mar 29, 2023 13:20:32   #
Wickedestoldwolf
 
EmilyD wrote:
I bet the seller had no way of knowing this person was t***s


The new paperwork is supposed to be 17 pages but even with the old paperwork some on here wouldn't pass if they answered 100% honestly as it asked if you'd ever smoked pot. I'm one of those outlaws you speak of so I don't care about paperwork. So there ain't no loopholes in private sales. Not at gunshows, closest thing to a.loopjole bring it's easier to buy a antique then anything but a black powder. Black powder you can walk in purchase and walk out, then go next door and pick up a cartridge conversion cylinder.

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:21:49   #
EmilyD
 
Wickedestoldwolf wrote:
The new paperwork is supposed to be 17 pages but even with the old paperwork some on here wouldn't pass if they answered 100% honestly as it asked if you'd ever smoked pot. I'm one of those outlaws you speak of so I don't care about paperwork. So there ain't no loopholes in private sales. Not at gunshows, closest thing to a.loopjole bring it's easier to buy a antique then anything but a black powder. Black powder you can walk in purchase and walk out, then go next door and pick up a cartridge conversion cylinder.
The new paperwork is supposed to be 17 pages but e... (show quote)

So whose fault is that?

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:33:22   #
Turtle keeper
 
Wickedestoldwolf wrote:
The new paperwork is supposed to be 17 pages but even with the old paperwork some on here wouldn't pass if they answered 100% honestly as it asked if you'd ever smoked pot. I'm one of those outlaws you speak of so I don't care about paperwork. So there ain't no loopholes in private sales. Not at gunshows, closest thing to a.loopjole bring it's easier to buy a antique then anything but a black powder. Black powder you can walk in purchase and walk out, then go next door and pick up a cartridge conversion cylinder.
The new paperwork is supposed to be 17 pages but e... (show quote)


There are very few firearms sold at gun shows that are sold with no background checks. The Booths are setup by gun store owners with FFL’s. There may be a couple people there that are selling there own firearms but not many. Gun show sales are political footballs & anti gun nuts talking points. I have purchased firearms from shows and they were approved by the ATF.

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:35:59   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
woodguru wrote:
Word is on our christian shooting t****y, she was unstable to a degree she never should have been able to legally buy guns...her parents knew it.


NWR

Reply
 
 
Mar 29, 2023 13:38:14   #
Justice101
 
EmilyD wrote:
Yes, but where is the breakdown. The seller can only do so much. They don’t have crystal balls.

Doctors are bound with privacy laws to circumnavigate, and not all - in fact I would guess fairly few - nut jobs even see doctors.

Can't blame the seller for breakdowns in the background check process...



Interesting link below regarding a psychiatrist's duty to warn and protect in regard to a patient's threats.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2018.130402
In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient. The court's decision mandates that mental health professionals use "reasonable care" in informing authorities or warning potential victims, initially referred to as the "duty to warn," or by using wh**ever means deemed necessary, should they determine that a patient poses a threat to a third party (2). The duty to protect has proliferated widely and has been adapted in some form throughout the United States. Forty years after the Tarasoff ruling, the threshold of the duty to protect remains subjective, with no clear set of clinical guidelines regarding when a breach of confidentiality is warranted, which places mental health providers in a dubious position.

The Tarasoff decision ultimately paved the way for the codification of the principle that confidentiality and, in turn, privilege are not absolute, especially when a patient communicates a seemingly legitimate threat that jeopardizes the safety of a third party (4).

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:41:16   #
son of witless
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
But redf**g laws are unconstitutional.


The shooter was living in their home. I'm sorry, but they had control of what went on in their home. She hid the guns in their home.

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:50:11   #
EmilyD
 
son of witless wrote:
The shooter was living in their home. I'm sorry, but they had control of what went on in their home. She hid the guns in their home.

That's right. She hid the guns from her parents. They didn't know she had the guns...

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 13:55:07   #
EmilyD
 
Justice101 wrote:
Interesting link below regarding a psychiatrist's duty to warn and protect in regard to a patient's threats.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2018.130402
In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient. The court's decision mandates that mental health professionals use "reasonable care" in informing authorities or warning potential victims, initially referred to as the "duty to warn," or by using wh**ever means deemed necessary, should they determine that a patient poses a threat to a third party (2). The duty to protect has proliferated widely and has been adapted in some form throughout the United States. Forty years after the Tarasoff ruling, the threshold of the duty to protect remains subjective, with no clear set of clinical guidelines regarding when a breach of confidentiality is warranted, which places mental health providers in a dubious position.

The Tarasoff decision ultimately paved the way for the codification of the principle that confidentiality and, in turn, privilege are not absolute, especially when a patient communicates a seemingly legitimate threat that jeopardizes the safety of a third party (4).
Interesting link below regarding a psychiatrist's ... (show quote)

I totally agree that if a psychologist or psychiatrist or even a medical doctor suspects that one of their patients may be someone who would use a gun to k**l people indiscriminately, that patient should be reported to the NICS. But I would guess that is not as easy as it sounds. If a psychiatrist has, say 200 patients, should all of them be reported? If so, how many people would not seek treatment that needed it knowing they would be reported as unfit to carry a gun? It's a complex issue. A lot of people aren't their "true selves" when they go to a therapist.

Reply
 
 
Mar 29, 2023 13:57:01   #
CarolBinkley Loc: Somewhere in Time
 
To quote Nena from "99 Red Balloons": This is it, boys, this is war.

Or should be.

I think, but have no proof, that Obamma, with men using CIA MKUltra tactics on troubled individuals, may be involved in this. I don't think he cares for Christians. Remember D'Azurara, the warrior-cleric who chronicled the Portuguese "Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", who mentioned natives' use of poisoned arrows, and the fact that natives didn't "cover their shame"? And other advanced European and Christian concepts to describe the first contact Europeans had with the natives of black Africa?

I don't think Obamma and the Jewish Left wanted normal people to know about that.

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 14:28:28   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
woodguru wrote:
Word is on our christian shooting t****y, she was unstable to a degree she never should have been able to legally buy guns...her parents knew it.
The only way a mentally disturbed individual can be entered and f**gged in the NICS database is if that individual has been diagnosed and adjudicated as a potential violent threat.

Under sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act, the list of "certain persons" prohibited from purchasing firearms
we find the following: Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.

IOW, the individual must have an official record of a mental disorder that could result in violence, such as paranoid schizophrenia.

Hale's parents said she was seeing a doctor for an "emotional disorder", but since Audrey was an adult,
her parents could not force the issue. Obviously, the doctor she was seeing found no reason to believe she was a threat, and therefore did not commit her to therapy or to a mental institution.

In a nutshell, Hale was never diagnosed and adjudicated as a mental defective,
therefore her name and pertinent data was never entered into the NICS database,
therefore, Hale's name could not be f**gged and she passed the background check.

Whether or not Hale's parents "knew" she/he was mentally disturbed has no bearing on
getting her/his name entered in the database.

Reply
Mar 29, 2023 17:32:57   #
whole2th
 
Why did Hale change shoes? The police released a still image from security video--black/white shoes with a different pattern than the 'rag doll' on the floor had on--red with different pattern.

Is this a staged control drama?

Are narratives being pushed by a 'false f**g' event ... narratives about gun control and about mental stability of t******s are a couple of the talking points.

B***hute and Rumble have analysis that isn't allowed on JewTube.



Reply
Mar 29, 2023 17:42:23   #
Turtle keeper
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The only way a mentally disturbed individual can be entered and f**gged in the NICS database is if that individual has been diagnosed and adjudicated as a potential violent threat.

Under sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act, the list of "certain persons" prohibited from purchasing firearms
we find the following: Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.

IOW, the individual must have an official record of a mental disorder that could result in violence, such as paranoid schizophrenia.

Hale's parents said she was seeing a doctor for an "emotional disorder", but since Audrey was an adult,
her parents could not force the issue. Obviously, the doctor she was seeing found no reason to believe she was a threat, and therefore did not commit her to therapy or to a mental institution.

In a nutshell, Hale was never diagnosed and adjudicated as a mental defective,
therefore her name and pertinent data was never entered into the NICS database,
therefore, Hale's name could not be f**gged and she passed the background check.

Whether or not Hale's parents "knew" she/he was mentally disturbed has no bearing on
getting her/his name entered in the database.
The only way a mentally disturbed individual can b... (show quote)


I don’t know if you have ever socialized with a lesbian/T***s but there are other names associated with them. I am not trying to be derogatory towards them however; the male acting (Dikes) are so animated about being masculine that the put men to shame. They feel they have something to prove. Most try to be extremely dominant. I have been around lesbians/T***s most of my life. I have seen unbelievable acts they have perpetrated upon others. I can confidently share with you that this lesbian/T***s was at the top of trying to prove to the world SHE was a man. I will never use someone’s preferred pronouns UNLESS they have completed their t***sition. Females Top and Bottom surgery males breasts and bottom reconstruction. I would venture to say that only about 2 to 5% of females go through the whole process. Males I would bet maybe 2 or 3% complete the process. I have come right out and ask males if they are going to compete it and I had 1 guy tell me yes. He also explained that he h**ed his male parts and want them gone. The rest said no because they liked there little Willy so they plan on keeping it. Many years ago I lived with a t***s that had completed it. It was in Hawaii and almost every night there was a different soldier or sailor sleeping with her. Also she was really a nice person and fun to be around. Her surgery was really great I couldn’t tell it was “created” not natural

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.