goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
23 Mar 2018, 3:14 pm
Zero % chance I'm reading 2232 pages of a funding bill to find the couple paragraphs about gun control.
Since you already know where they are, can you copy and paste the relevant parts?
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
23 Mar 2018, 4:09 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
23 Mar 2018, 4:44 pm
Since you already know where they are, can you copy and paste the relevant parts?
I dont know I’d have t search though it too. It’s in there though as it’s listed in the top.
There text for the original bill but they could have changed it when they put it into the spending bill.
So, we’re back to square one where you have no idea what, if anything, this bill says about gun control.
That’s a far cry from what you started this thread about.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.23 Mar 2018, 8:37 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
23 Mar 2018, 8:57 pm
Since you already know where they are, can you copy and paste the relevant parts?
I dont know I’d have t search though it too. It’s in there though as it’s listed in the top.
There text for the original bill but they could have changed it when they put it into the spending bill.
So, we’re back to square one where you have no idea what, if anything, this bill says about gun control.
That’s a far cry from what you started this thread about.
It’s either as it was or worse. They’d not made it less. It sets quotas States have to meet. So they going start adding people to meet the quotas.
Provide the actual text from the bill that says this or all you have are your assumptions & anxiety, no actual evidence that such a gun control law was passed nor what the specific details of it are, or whether there's language about autistics or quotas etc etc.
Just for the record, you are the only source I've seen any mention of this from. There has yet to be a single news headline about it. You'd think if it actually happened there would be some news about it somewhere in between Trump's tweets.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.23 Mar 2018, 9:02 pm
23 Mar 2018, 9:04 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
23 Mar 2018, 10:13 pm
First google result for fix nics:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ps/556250/
A couple of quotes from this article:
They're incentivizing entering data into the background check system so that they have complete information on prospective gun purchasers. That's it.
The most pro gun people in America are a-okay with this bill. Why are you running around screaming that the sky is falling, chicken little?
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
23 Mar 2018, 10:26 pm
Aaaah, found something worth complaining about, sly, here in the third hit:
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/21/fix- ... -gun-sales
End of the article:
Congress has decreed that any felony punishable by more than a year in prison, no matter how long ago it was committed and regardless of whether it involved violence, is enough to strip someone of the fundamental right to armed self-defense. So is any record of court-mandated psychiatric treatment, even if the involuntary patient never posed a threat to anyone else; unlawful use of controlled substances, including taking medication prescribed for a relative and smoking pot in states where it's legal; and living in the United States without the government's permission, which (contrary to what the president seems to think) is by no means an indicator of violent intent. To the extent that "better" background checks prevent peaceful people from buying firearms, they do not qualify as an improvement.
Update: The spending bill unveiled on Wednesday night includes Fix NICS.
[This post has been revised to include the NRA's response to the GOA's criticism of Fix NICS and to clarify that felonies disqualify gun buyers only when they are punishable by more than a year in prison (as they typically are).]
Yep, that is some BS right there - you're right, sly. Chances are if this passed with this wording that it will be opposed in the courts & amended. There's no way they're going to keep & enforce laws against peaceful people. I bet there are already dozens, if not hundreds, of lawyers working away at this already. The part that's particularly LOL worthy is that anyone who's ever smoked pot isn't allowed to own a gun. That's ridiculous to the nth degree!
If it's law, it'll be challenged & changed.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.23 Mar 2018, 11:18 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
24 Mar 2018, 12:19 am
Sounds like the anti pot smoking garbage is aimed at California more than anywhere else.
Most of those last few paragraphs I quoted sound like BS. I can see why the NRA doesn't care though, it targets disabled people and pot smokers.
*shrug* Wouldn't affect me if I did live in the USA since I'm not afraid of an invisible boogeyman storming my house at night and have no need for a firearm. My brother is a firearms instructor for federal law enforcement & has never owned a gun himself. I've never fired a real one, either. There just aren't that any gun people here.
Canada started a long gun registry a decade or so ago. Many people, like my father, gave their guns away (his dad's) that they never used and didn't want the hassle of registering. The database cost more than $1B and then the gov't decided to scrap the whole database thing because it cost too much to maintain for no good reason. It's possible their objective was to get a lot of excess guns turned in/destroyed... but I don't think that many were, really. People who owned guns just registered them. There are still a lot of guns in Canada, just not so many here on the far West Coast where we don't need them. Criminals have guns, and so do hunters who typically live hours away from Vancouver. Other than that gun culture is pretty tame/nearly non-existent. I think there's ONE public gun range in our metropolis of ~2.5 Million people - that's how much people care about going shooting. There's only one I can think of, anyways.
You'd think more sensible & targeted gun control laws might be enacted.. like get red flagged by counsellors/psychiatrist/doctor/police & possibly by some school administrators as a threat to yourself or others and then you go on the no guns for you list. Something like that.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
24 Mar 2018, 7:32 am
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
24 Mar 2018, 1:58 pm
I remember asking for something like that once...
Except you didn't. Besides, sly posted a link to 2232 page document. I posted a link with the text you sought on the first page multiple times over. We've already discussed this in the relevant thread.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
24 Mar 2018, 2:17 pm
Well to be fair you didn't post any specifics about why the gun control that got snuck into the funding bill, would specifically strip all aspies of the right to own guns. So are you sure that is specifically what it will do, or are you just worried it that it could be a result?
Either way even if some stuff did get passed, things can always be changed later...I mean as I have said I think we do need better gun regulations but I think more research and stuff should be done to determine what changes would actually be beneficial, which ones could do more harm than good ect.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
24 Mar 2018, 2:27 pm
First google result for fix nics:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ps/556250/
A couple of quotes from this article:
They're incentivizing entering data into the background check system so that they have complete information on prospective gun purchasers. That's it.
The most pro gun people in America are a-okay with this bill. Why are you running around screaming that the sky is falling, chicken little?
So essentially people who shouldn't have guns can still legally purchase them due to back-ground check loopholes? Well that is pretty dumb....how are any gun regulations going to work if people can still just get around getting a background check?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
24 Mar 2018, 2:36 pm
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/21/fix- ... -gun-sales
End of the article:
Congress has decreed that any felony punishable by more than a year in prison, no matter how long ago it was committed and regardless of whether it involved violence, is enough to strip someone of the fundamental right to armed self-defense. So is any record of court-mandated psychiatric treatment, even if the involuntary patient never posed a threat to anyone else; unlawful use of controlled substances, including taking medication prescribed for a relative and smoking pot in states where it's legal; and living in the United States without the government's permission, which (contrary to what the president seems to think) is by no means an indicator of violent intent. To the extent that "better" background checks prevent peaceful people from buying firearms, they do not qualify as an improvement.
Update: The spending bill unveiled on Wednesday night includes Fix NICS.
[This post has been revised to include the NRA's response to the GOA's criticism of Fix NICS and to clarify that felonies disqualify gun buyers only when they are punishable by more than a year in prison (as they typically are).]
Yep, that is some BS right there - you're right, sly. Chances are if this passed with this wording that it will be opposed in the courts & amended. There's no way they're going to keep & enforce laws against peaceful people. I bet there are already dozens, if not hundreds, of lawyers working away at this already. The part that's particularly LOL worthy is that anyone who's ever smoked pot isn't allowed to own a gun. That's ridiculous to the nth degree!
If it's law, it'll be challenged & changed.I think when it comes to a history of mental issues, it should be a case by case basis. I mean I have struggled with depression and anxiety and have periods of my life it would not have been good to have a gun. However I've gotten treatment have been doing much better for quite some time so I see no reason I should be legally barred from owning a gun if I wanted to.
I was reading up on some swedish gun laws, and it seems like they have a system where you can temporarily surrender your fire-arms if you are not mentally fit so they can be stored somewhere safe till you get better. I'd have to look it up again though....of course there are limits like someone who's been charged with domestic abuse or has a conviction for violent crime would be barred period. I think it would be good to have something like that here...sounds like their laws go on more of a case by case basis, rather than wider one-size fits all approaches.
