Someone PLEASE Explain This To ME.....

[Deleted]

I'm watching Meet The Press and they are discuessing the events in Arizona.

What I don't understand is, how someone who was REJECTED from enlisting in the military because of potentional mental illness, able to purchase a GUN! If they military won't let you carry one, why is the US goverment allowing it!

Why aren't these people put on a no gun buy list similar to the no fly list... WHAT THE HELL!

[chiver78]

can you please post this question in the "Limbaugh" thread too? I've been trying to argue this point for the past couple days, and finally walked away last night. I was getting a headache in there, because there are some that still think the rules are too loose.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2011 11:02:15 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

can you please post this question in the "Limbaugh" thread too? I've been trying to argue this point for the past couple days, and finally walked away last night. I was getting a headache in there, because there are some that still think the rules are too loose.

There's a Limbaugh thread? As in RUSH limbaugh?

[chiver78]

yeah, to further his point that the aforementioned nut in AZ has the "full support of the Democratic Party"

5 or 6 pages long now, actually. good luck...

[billisonboard]

Back to the OP Question:

The explanation is that the Founding Fathers forgot to include an asterisk in the Second Amendment.

[burnsattornincan]

The explanation is that the Founding Fathers forgot to include an asterisk in the Second Amendment.

Sounds like a good idea but as always the government would use it to further their anti-gun agenda. Where would it end? What level of mental incapacity would make someone ineligible to buy a gun? Another case of minority rules. One nut or small group of vocal lobbyists could cause a new nation wide law. Happens all to often.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2011 12:19:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Back to the OP Question:

The explanation is that the Founding Fathers forgot to include an asterisk in the Second Amendment.

SO If the milarty doesn't allow crazy poeople into the miltary, WHY are they allowed to purchase guns LEGALLY

[sanityjones]

If he was not officially declared to be mentally ill then his 2nd amendment rights will not be abridged. That's how the law is written.

[deziloooooo]

This message has been deleted.

[b2r]

Around Christmas in 2008, Jared Lee Loughner, who had just turned 20, found himself on North 1st Street in Phoenix, more than 100 miles (160 km) from his home in Tucson, Ariz. He was several hundred yards north of US Airways Center, the "Purple Palace" that is home to the NBA's Phoenix Suns. Loughner was standing before one of the Pentagon's 65 Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), where would-be recruits show up for tests and screenings designed to determine if they're right for the U.S. military. He walked into the MEPS and prepared for a daylong series of questions, tests and paperwork.

The trip to MEPS appears to have been at least the third trip Loughner made to military facilities over a three-month period in late 2008. He would have visited a recruiter in the Tucson area — maybe more than once — before indicating his desire to enlist, and then taken the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a 90-minute test that measures language and math skills. It ensures that the test taker is smart enough to sign up, and it pinpoints his or her strengths, which can help in choosing military jobs. Once Loughner passed that test, Army officials say, he was sent on to the MEPS in Phoenix.
(See TIME's complete coverage of the Tucson shooting.)

But instead of marking the beginning of Private Loughner's military career, the visit to the processing station quickly aborted it, ending abruptly at Question 17i on DD Form 2807-1. That question — part of the medical history required by the military before someone is allowed to enlist — asked if Loughner had ever "used illegal drugs or abused prescription drugs." An Army official says Loughner admitted he was a regular marijuana user. With that, the official says, the young man's military career went up in smoke



Read more: www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2041634,00.html#ixzz1BDr4TsLF

[dmsm]

Again I will repeat. We do not need more gun laws.We need to enforce those we already have. Do you really think this shooter would of obeyed another law? No he would not and neither do the bad guys. You are aiming laws that only affect the law biding citizen not the bad guys since they do not obey the laws to start with.

[handyman2]

If I remember correctly he was not rejected for mental illness but a outstanding misdemeanor charge on his record. Many recruts are rejected for this depending on the charge.

[deziloooooo]

Funny how times change.., back in the day, same answer,

"An Army official says Loughner admitted he was a regular marijuana user. With that, the official says, the young man's military career went up in smoke"

most likely the recruiter would have said " I didn't hear that.. sign here recruit and welcome to the US Army, have a nice life."...

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2011 13:54:05 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

If I remember correctly he was not rejected for mental illness but a outstanding misdemeanor charge on his record. Many recruts are rejected for this depending on the charge.

And even if it was for previous charges... He would have had to go thru a physchological evalautan and THEN it would have been detected...


But that's not what they said on MTP!

[handyman2]

cropchick: If he he had an issue that would disqualify him to become a recrut it may have surfaced before they ever got to the stage of a phycological exam and they would have most likely stopped right there. He never got beyond the recruitment office so I doubt he ever was given one but cannot be positive.
I remember with all the discussion that it was said that he had a charge of distruction of private property in his past and if so may have been told to go home right then if he admitted it.
I know there is a lot of claims flying around so it is hard to sort fact from fiction.
There seems to be some holes in the background check process that does not help. Seems there is more info filed than they can keep up with.

[jkapp]

The problem with the term "mental illness" is that it is too far ranging...

Someone with dyslexia has a mental illness - but it wouldn't affect their capacity to own a firearm. But if we just declare anyone with a "mental illness" to not own firearms then we also include those that are perfectly capable of being responsible gun owners.


What I also find amazing from the left concerning these types of issues is that on one hand they are looking to ban things (firearms, for example) and then turning around and saying how banning other things (such as marijuana) doesn't work and hsould be stopped. It is all just very confusing and rather hypocritical

[billisonboard]

Jan 16, 2011 19:51:17 GMT -5 jkapp said:

What I also find amazing from the left concerning these types of issues is that on one hand they are looking to ban things (firearms, for example) and then turning around and saying how banning other things (such as marijuana) doesn't work and hsould be stopped. It is all just very confusing ...

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s memorable words from his 1841 essay, “Self-Reliance”:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

[Tennesseer]

(Jkapp) - Someone with dyslexia has a mental illness - but it wouldn't affect their capacity to own a firearm.

And that's because dyslexia is not a mental illness. It is a learning disability. Schizophrenia is a mental illness.

[mmhmm]

Tenn's right. Dyslexia isn't a mental illness, for crying out tears! Furthermore, I've never seen anyone shoot anyone else to death with a marijuana cigarette!

[formerexpat]

And that's because dyslexia is not a mental illness. It is a learning disability. Schizophrenia is a mental illness.

[/size]

According to you, right now. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness by the government. No ammo for homo?

Call me paranoid but our government doesn't have a good history of doing what is in the best interest of the citizens. Gun restrictions would be no different.

[mmhmm]

Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness by the psychiatric community, and was listed as such in DSM I (1950S) and DMS II (1960s). In 1980, the DSM III changed that, as psychiatry broadened its scope and began to learn a bit more about mental illness AND homosexuality. It wasn't the government who made these determinations. It was the medical community. At one time, there were a lot of illnesses that were terminal. There was no cure, and few treatments. Shall we then assume those things are still incurable, despite the forward steps made by medical research? I don't think so! The earth isn't flat, either.

[sanityjones]

Alcohol abuse kills far more people nationwide that firearms. Car crashes, cancer, etc all take a heavier toll. There is no rational argument for the disarming of Americans based solely on deaths attributed to firearms. Finish the war on drugs before you take away my ability to defend myself from man or beast.

[deziloooooo]

"The earth isn't flat, either"
---------------------------------------
Link please

[fairlycrazy23]

Nuts shouldn't have guns, but nuts shouldn't be allowed to do lots of things. One thing that is somewhat interesting is this is one of the only mass shootings that WASN"T in a gun free zone, at least I don't think it was in a gun free zone.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2011 20:50:46 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness by the psychiatric community, and was listed as such in DSM I (1950S) and DMS II (1960s). In 1980, the DSM III changed that, as psychiatry broadened its scope and began to learn a bit more about mental illness AND homosexuality. It wasn't the government who made these determinations. It was the medical community. At one time, there were a lot of illnesses that were terminal. There was no cure, and few treatments. Shall we then assume those things are still incurable, despite the forward steps made by medical research? I don't think so! The earth isn't flat, either.

The only reason why homosexuality was considered a mental illness was because society then and still does consider it "devient" behavior! It's out of the norm, not acceptable behavior. It's no different then back in the 50's, 60's, 70s when girls got knocked up. They were sent to live with their imaginary Aunt Susie out in Kentucky. This way "the family" was spared embarrssment of having a child out of wed-lock... It's all about society and their perception of what is "acceptable"!

[mmhmm]

Hey, Dezi .... ttthhhhhwwwaaaaaaappp!

[deziloooooo]

Jan 16, 2011 22:57:44 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hey, Dezi .... ttthhhhhwwwaaaaaaappp!

Caught it...worth it..couldn't resist. ;D

[Tennesseer]

Jan 16, 2011 20:33:24 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

And that's because dyslexia is not a mental illness. It is a learning disability. Schizophrenia is a mental illness.

[/size]

According to you, right now. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness by the government. No ammo for homo?

Call me paranoid but our government doesn't have a good history of doing what is in the best interest of the citizens. Gun restrictions would be no different.
[/quote]

Are you saying there is a possibility dyslexia is soon to be classified as a mental illness or are you saying schizophrenia is soon to be no longer considered a mental illness. Not sure of your point.

[floridayankee]

Jan 17, 2011 6:50:56 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Americans have the right to bear arms. That has been established.
There is also a limit to the level of armament we as indivduals may have. Without a special license you are not allowed to have a fully automatic weapon, a tank, or many other weapons.
I personally believe that the ban on assault rifles and some other weaponry that expired in 2004 should be reinstated. That legislation makes clips that hold more than ten rounds illegal too.

I remember a wreck head on killing all in both vehicles because one was driving the wrong way on the interstate. It was ultimately ruled a suicide but, I don't believe cars should be banned. I simply don't believe that one person's abuse should cause a ban for the millions of others that do not.

[billisonboard]

Jan 17, 2011 7:59:49 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jan 17, 2011 6:50:56 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I remember a wreck head on killing all in both vehicles because one was driving the wrong way on the interstate. It was ultimately ruled a suicide but, I don't believe cars should be banned. I simply don't believe that one person's abuse should cause a ban for the millions of others that do not.

Some people are required to wear corrective lens to be able to legal drive. Because some people do not wear those lens when driving, we should no longer require a vision test before giving people a license to drive?

Some people build vehicles or modify existing vehicles making them unsafe to drive on public roads. Because some people then drive them on public roads, we should no longer have any legal restrictions on what can be driven on public roads?

We have placed stop signs at many intersections in this country. Because some people fail to stop at those signs, we should remove all stop signs?

We have taken legitimate steps to make our use of cars safer.