Lefties who hailed Sanders as more Progressive pitbull watched him crumble last night

[Disir]

[QUOTE

I believe that there is a consensus in this country. A consensus has said we need to strengthen and expand instant background checks, do away with this gun show loophole, that we have to address the issue of mental health, that we have to deal with the strawman purchasing issue, and that when we develop that consensus, we can finally, finally do something to address this issue.

We have been doing those things for over 40 years.
The people who have been committing these shootings did not get any of their guns from gun shows. There is no gun show loopholes. That is a lie.
We have more than enough background checks.
Any legislation that the right have done on the mentally ill to stop them from getting guns has been blocked by the left.
Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it.
Then the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients.

THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation's mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.

But who, specifically, played some of the more important roles in the formation of this ill-fated policy? What motivated these influential people and what lessons are to be learned?

A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.

Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950's and 1960's said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.

The records show that the politicians were dogged by the image and financial problems posed by the state hospitals and that the scientific and medical establishment sold Congress and the state legislatures a quick fix for a complicated problem that was bought sight unseen.
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

Short-Doyle Act in 1957
Major Milestones: 43 Years of Care and Treatment of the Mentally Ill

Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act, Mental Retardation Facilities and Construction Act, Public Law 88-164 (1963)
https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL88-164.pdf

^^^Federal funding

What is the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act?
The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act provides guidelines for handling involuntary civil commitment of individuals to mental health institutions in the State of California. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan, and went into full effect on July 1, 1972. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States.

The legislative intent of the 1967 Lanterman-Petris-Short Act is to:

• End the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities
• Provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with mental health disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism
• Guarantee and protect public safety
• Safeguard individual rights through judicial review
• Provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for persons who are gravely disabled
• Encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures
• Protect persons with mental health disorders and developmental disabilities from criminal acts
  What is the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act? - Mental Health Division - LA Court
  
  The issue here is not only this law but that Reagan used this to turn around and slash the budget as governor. Further, there are ties between the private industry and the law makers as deinstitutionalization had already begun the process and these people were moved to nursing homes. But, what is most phenomenal about this is that Reagan slashed the budget and decided to rely on Federal Funding grants. Then he turned around as President and immediately orchestrated and repealed the Mental Health Systems Act
  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=32339
  and slashed funding.

 

[Disir]

There is no gun show loopholes. That is a lie.

MILWAUKEE (WITI) -- Some call it a "loophole." Others say that's just how it ought to be. Either way, the internet is making it easy to get a gun - no questions asked.

Over the past 15 years, the FBI has processed more than 100-million criminal background checks on potential gun buyers. But those checks only apply to the sale of guns through a federally licensed firearms dealer.

Don't want a background check? No problem. Just buy from a private seller instead.

Last month, the FOX 6 Investigators took hidden cameras into a gun show at Serb Hall to see just how easy that is. We found most of the vendors were licensed dealers who did have to perform background checks. But there was one individual liquidating his private collection. And he was quick to boast about the advantages of buying a gun from him.

Private seller: "You're not paying taxes. You're not paying background, any of that other stuff."
FOX 6 Investigator Bryan Polcyn: "So there's no need for a background check?" Private seller: "No, there's no background check."

...Daniel knows just how easily a person who shouldn't have a gun can get one, online. His sister, Zina Daniel, was gunned down at Azana by her husband, Radcliffe Haughton.

Three days before the shooting, a judge issued a restraining order that prohibited Haughton from possessing a firearm. But that didn't stop him from posting an ad on Armlist.com, looking to buy a handgun.

The ad Haughton posted specifically sought a gun from a private party. He wrote that "any caliber" would do. He had cash. And he wanted the gun "asap."

Within hours he had the 40-caliber Glock he would use the next day to murder three people and wound four others.

"Had there been a background check done before he bought the gun," Daniel says, "there's a good possibility that Zina would still be with us today."
Guns for sale: No background check required

Shall I go on? Or will these two examples suffice?

 

[Thunderbird]

I'm not sure where you see him as folding and crumbling under Hillary.

How about when he got on his knees and begged her not to be angry with him?

When was that again?

C'mon he was practically kissing her feet. lol Sanders is a rebel so daring he can't grovel fast enough to the corrupt Democratic elite. It made normal people vomit.

 

[Disir]

I'm not sure where you see him as folding and crumbling under Hillary.

How about when he got on his knees and begged her not to be angry with him?

When was that again?

C'mon he was practically kissing her feet. lol

When was that again?

 

[peach174]

Katie Pavlich - Debunking the Gun Show Loophole Myth in One Video
None of the recent shooters in the last 7 years have gotten guns from gun shows.
Only one of them got his guns from the internet in Colorado.
All of them have had mental problems and none of the laws deal with it.

On line buying of guns has to go through the FFL.
The FFL transfer process involves two Federally Licensed Firearm dealers (otherwise known as type 01 FFLs) shipping a firearm from one to the other. In order to complete the process, the shipping dealer has the legal responsibility of verifying that the receiving dealer is a legitimately licensed entity. This process involves exchanging paper or electronic copies of their licenses prior to the shipment of goods.


The left is addressing VERY limited circumstances in both and none of the mass shootings had gotten their guns through those very limited circumstances. NOT a one.
All it does is sound good, like something good will be accomplished and it does nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy guns.

 

[Thunderbird]

I'm not sure where you see him as folding and crumbling under Hillary.

How about when he got on his knees and begged her not to be angry with him?

When was that again?

C'mon he was practically kissing her feet. lol

When was that again?

When did Sanders criticize Hillary directly for serving special interests?

 

[Disir]

I'm not sure where you see him as folding and crumbling under Hillary.

How about when he got on his knees and begged her not to be angry with him?

When was that again?

C'mon he was practically kissing her feet. lol

When was that again?

When did Sanders criticize Hillary directly for serving special interests?

When was he supposed to?

 

[peach174]

There is no gun show loopholes. That is a lie.

MILWAUKEE (WITI) -- Some call it a "loophole." Others say that's just how it ought to be. Either way, the internet is making it easy to get a gun - no questions asked.

Over the past 15 years, the FBI has processed more than 100-million criminal background checks on potential gun buyers. But those checks only apply to the sale of guns through a federally licensed firearms dealer.

Don't want a background check? No problem. Just buy from a private seller instead.

Last month, the FOX 6 Investigators took hidden cameras into a gun show at Serb Hall to see just how easy that is. We found most of the vendors were licensed dealers who did have to perform background checks. But there was one individual liquidating his private collection. And he was quick to boast about the advantages of buying a gun from him.

Private seller: "You're not paying taxes. You're not paying background, any of that other stuff."
FOX 6 Investigator Bryan Polcyn: "So there's no need for a background check?" Private seller: "No, there's no background check."

...Daniel knows just how easily a person who shouldn't have a gun can get one, online. His sister, Zina Daniel, was gunned down at Azana by her husband, Radcliffe Haughton.

Three days before the shooting, a judge issued a restraining order that prohibited Haughton from possessing a firearm. But that didn't stop him from posting an ad on Armlist.com, looking to buy a handgun.

The ad Haughton posted specifically sought a gun from a private party. He wrote that "any caliber" would do. He had cash. And he wanted the gun "asap."

Within hours he had the 40-caliber Glock he would use the next day to murder three people and wound four others.

"Had there been a background check done before he bought the gun," Daniel says, "there's a good possibility that Zina would still be with us today."
Guns for sale: No background check required

Shall I go on? Or will these two examples suffice?

And when that problem is addressed they will still get them from street dealers with stolen guns sold from the trunks of their cars.
These examples are very few and far in between.

 

[Disir]

Katie Pavlich - Debunking the Gun Show Loophole Myth in One Video
None of the recent shooters in the last 7 years have gotten guns from gun shows.
Only one of them got his guns from the internet in Colorado.
All of them have had mental problems and none of the laws deal with it.

On line buying of guns has to go through the FFL.
The FFL transfer process involves two Federally Licensed Firearm dealers (otherwise known as type 01 FFLs) shipping a firearm from one to the other. In order to complete the process, the shipping dealer has the legal responsibility of verifying that the receiving dealer is a legitimately licensed entity. This process involves exchanging paper or electronic copies of their licenses prior to the shipment of goods.


The left is addressing VERY limited circumstances in both and none of the mass shootings had gotten their guns through those very limited circumstances. NOT a one.
All it does is sound good, like something good will be accomplished and it does nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy guns.

So we moved from "lie" to "limited". That's nice. Can you find where Bernie Sanders says that the recent shooters acquired the guns illegally? Do you suppose that he was talking about broader issues?

Indiana guns: Favorite of Chicago gangbangers

 

[Disir]

Let's move on to some of the most pressing issues facing our country right now, some of the biggest issues right now in the headlines today. We're going to start with guns. The shooting in Oregon earlier this month, once again it brought the issue of guns into the national conversation. Over the last week, guns have been the most discussed political topic on Facebook by two to one.

Senator Sanders, you voted against the Brady bill that mandated background checks and a waiting period. You also supported allowing riders to bring guns in checked bags on Amtrak trains. For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Now, you say you're reconsidering that. Which is it: shield the gun companies from lawsuits or not?

SANDERS: Let's begin, Anderson, by understanding that Bernie Sanders has a D-minus voting rating (ph) from the NRA. Let's also understand that back in 1988 when I first ran for the United States Congress, way back then, I told the gun owners of the state of Vermont and I told the people of the state of Vermont, a state which has virtually no gun control, that I supported a ban on assault weapons. And over the years, I have strongly avoided instant background checks, doing away with this terrible gun show loophole. And I think we've got to move aggressively at the federal level in dealing with the straw man purchasers.

Also I believe, and I've fought for, to understand that there are thousands of people in this country today who are suicidal, who are homicidal, but can't get the healthcare that they need, the mental healthcare, because they don't have insurance or they're too poor. I believe that everybody in this country who has a mental crisis has got to get mental health counseling immediately.

COOPER: Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?

SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't.

On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, is Bernie Sanders tough enough on guns?

CLINTON: No, not at all. I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it's time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country...

(APPLAUSE)

... supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do.

Senator Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill. Since it was passed, more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. He also did vote, as he said, for this immunity provision. I voted against it. I was in the Senate at the same time. It wasn't that complicated to me. It was pretty straightforward to me that he was going to give immunity to the only industry in America. Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers. And we need to stand up and say: Enough of that. We're not going to let it continue.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: We're going to bring you all in on this. But, Senator Sanders, you have to give a response.

SANDERS: As a senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, that all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence that we are seeing.

I believe that there is a consensus in this country. A consensus has said we need to strengthen and expand instant background checks, do away with this gun show loophole, that we have to address the issue of mental health, that we have to deal with the strawman purchasing issue, and that when we develop that consensus, we can finally, finally do something to address this issue.

COOPER: Governor O'Malley, you passed gun legislation as governor of Maryland, but you had a Democratic-controlled legislature. President Obama couldn't convince Congress to pass gun legislation after the massacres in Aurora, in Newtown, and Charleston. How can you?

O'MALLEY: And, Anderson, I also had to overcome a lot of opposition in the leadership of my own party to get this done. Look, it's fine to talk about all of these things - and I'm glad we're talking about these things - but I've actually done them.

We passed comprehensive gun safety legislation, not by looking at the pollings or looking at what the polls said. We actually did it. And, Anderson, here tonight in our audience are two people that make this issue very, very real. Sandy and Lonnie Phillips are here from Colorado. And their daughter, Jessie, was one of those who lost their lives in that awful mass shooting in Aurora.

Now, to try to transform their grief, they went to court, where sometimes progress does happen when you file in court, but in this case, you want to talk about a - a rigged game, Senator? The game was rigged. A man had sold 4,000 rounds of military ammunition to this - this person that killed their daughter, riddled her body with five bullets, and he didn't even ask where it was going.

And not only did their case get thrown out of court, they were slapped with $200,000 in court fees because of the way that the NRA gets its way in our Congress and we take a backseat. It's time to stand up and pass comprehensive gun safety legislation as a nation.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Sanders, I want you to be able to respond, 30 seconds.

SANDERS: I think the governor gave a very good example about the weaknesses in that law and I think we have to take another look at it. But here is the point, Governor. We can raise our voices, but I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not.


Our job is to bring people together around strong, commonsense gun legislation. I think there is a vast majority in this country who want to do the right thing, and I intend to lead the country in bringing our people together.

O'MALLEY: Senator - Senator, excuse me.

(CROSSTALK)

O'MALLEY: Senator, it is not about rural - Senator, it was not about rural and urban.

SANDERS: It's exactly about rural.

O'MALLEY: Have you ever been to the Eastern Shore? Have you ever been to Western Maryland? We were able to pass this and still respect the hunting traditions of people who live in our rural areas.

SANDERS: Governor...

O'MALLEY: And we did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA.

SANDERS: Well, as somebody who has a D-minus voting record...

(CROSSTALK)

O'MALLEY: And I have an F from the NRA, Senator.

SANDERS: I don't think I am pandering. But you have not been in the United States Congress.

O'MALLEY: Well, maybe that's a healthy thing.

(LAUGHTER)

SANDERS: And when you want to, check it out. And if you think - if you think that we can simply go forward and pass something tomorrow without bringing people together, you are sorely mistaken.