(02-22-2013 09:50 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.

And if it's true?

(02-22-2013 11:07 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:03 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So you be the dumb and predictable one for trying to stir $h1+ up about Obama. What a joke.

Kinda like those who mindlessly defend him.

Joke, indeed.

(02-22-2013 09:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Um, and if he/she's mentally sound, and has a physical condition that can keep him/her from going to the bank?

(Second sentence under "What information did we receive?", page 1)

(02-23-2013 06:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You wound me, sir.

I don't believe I advocated the mentally ill having firearms, or argued against the prohibition of them to do so.
BTW, I don't listen to either of those people, nor talk radio much in general.

BTW, I don't listen to either of those guys, or much talk radio in general.

I've got sufficient irritants in my life that I don't seek out any extra (unless you count internet message boards).

A list of posts from this thread. We're "mindlessly defending" Obama by pointing out this is part of the Brady Bill that was passed in '93 and that being declared mentally deficient by the VA has been going on for ages. But, you're the one calling out Obama and liberals and whoever else for taking away people's guns because "they can't get to the bank" which isn't even close to what that letter said. You're just feeding right back into the echo chamber and not thinking critically or speaking rationally because you don't want to risk agreeing with someone like me or Robert.

(02-23-2013 06:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I'm really disappointed in Smaug in this debate. He used to be a reasonable righty, but he's hung around this place too long. Which actually makes me kind of sad, that is exactly what's happening in the greater world and people are just getting more extreme on both sides. Only after 15 years of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. would a group of people be arguing whether or not we should prevent mentally ill people from buying firearms.

You are missing the argument. What is being argued if IF it can be done given there is no objective definition or test for "mentally ill". No matter how you do it, you are going to take away the constitutional rights of someone based on another's erroneous subjective opinion. Again, take a step back, try not to knee jerk, think, analyze with a level head, and don't oversimplify.

(02-23-2013 11:28 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:50 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.

And if it's true?

(02-22-2013 11:07 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:03 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So you be the dumb and predictable one for trying to stir $h1+ up about Obama. What a joke.

Kinda like those who mindlessly defend him.

Joke, indeed.

(02-22-2013 09:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Um, and if he/she's mentally sound, and has a physical condition that can keep him/her from going to the bank?

(Second sentence under "What information did we receive?", page 1)

(02-23-2013 06:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You wound me, sir.

I don't believe I advocated the mentally ill having firearms, or argued against the prohibition of them to do so.
BTW, I don't listen to either of those people, nor talk radio much in general.

BTW, I don't listen to either of those guys, or much talk radio in general.

I've got sufficient irritants in my life that I don't seek out any extra (unless you count internet message boards).

A list of posts from this thread. We're "mindlessly defending" Obama by pointing out this is part of the Brady Bill that was passed in '93 and that being declared mentally deficient by the VA has been going on for ages. But, you're the one calling out Obama and liberals and whoever else for taking away people's guns because "they can't get to the bank" which isn't even close to what that letter said. You're just feeding right back into the echo chamber and not thinking critically or speaking rationally because you don't want to risk agreeing with someone like me or Robert.

At what point did I accuse you of mindlessly defending Obama?

My point about getting to the bank was because I read the letter to say "physical or mental condition."

Yep. I re-checked. That is actually what it said.

Damn Obama run VA violating the gun rights of our veterans....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires...r=politics

(02-23-2013 06:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I'm really disappointed in Smaug in this debate. He used to be a reasonable righty, but he's hung around this place too long. Which actually makes me kind of sad, that is exactly what's happening in the greater world and people are just getting more extreme on both sides. Only after 15 years of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. would a group of people be arguing whether or not we should prevent mentally ill people from buying firearms.

and yet you seem to miss the point, dipstick. What is important is WHO gets to define mental problems. If it is somebody with the "correct" political connections, we can all be classified as mental cases - at least those that disagree with the administration.

Just another reason to be mistrustful of Obamacare. There's all kinds of mischief that can be done if the government controls healthcare.

(03-11-2013 08:16 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  if the government controls healthcare.

I'd be with you, if that's what Obamacare was

(03-11-2013 08:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 08:16 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  if the government controls healthcare.

I'd be with you, if that's what Obamacare was

But that IS what Obamacare is. Government won't own healthcare--they don't have the guts to take the risks--but the regulatory scheme will guarantee that government will most assuredly CONTROL healthcare.

(03-11-2013 08:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 08:16 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  if the government controls healthcare.

I'd be with you, if that's what Obamacare was

Even if it was clearly not a first step towards single payer in its current form AFA will allow the fed to control your healthcare by regulating the hell out of providers and insurance companies.

Glad everyone is ignoring the link I resurrected the thread for anyway

So the VA won't be beholden to a NY law...

whats your point?

(03-11-2013 10:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Glad everyone is ignoring the link I resurrected the thread for anyway

I'm not sure what your link has to do with anything. Why would the VA need to pay attention to the NY law when they can do the same thing on their own? You need to take another look at Post #62. The letter talking about possible prohibitions on firearm ownership came directly from the VA. And from the VA in Portland, Oregon. I'm pretty sure NY's new gun law didn't have anything to do with the letter that started the thread.