We have a mass shooting problem. What are repubs going to do about it?

[martybegan]

The only one whining is you, "fuh fuh fuh, due process is bad! government lists are good, fuh fuh fuh"

Where was I whining? I have my guns..I could.buy more guns if I so desired. And you think I am whining?

You got the stupids bad this morning.

No, you are whining that GASP government has to follow due process.

 

[Wilbur Right]

No, you are whining that GASP government has to follow due process.

WTF?

 

[pismoe]

Republicans control congress, what are they going to do about our mass shooting problem?

Who ARE you people? You post this kind of craziness after another Muslim terrorist attack?! You think tighter gun control laws are going to prevent further terrorist attacks?! France has very tough, strict gun laws, by the way. (You know: France, where some horrendous terrorist attacks occurred recently.)

FYI, even the Soviet Union, with its massive police state, could not keep guns out of the hands of organized crime in the country.

The idea that somehow tougher gun laws will deter Muslim terrorism is beyond stupid.

--------------------------------------------- thanks for the common sense Mike Griffths !!

 

[martybegan]

No, you are whining that GASP government has to follow due process.

WTF?

The thread is about "doing something". "Doing something" right now is banning people on some list from buying firearms, without due process. Keep up.

 

[miketx]

Republicans control congress, what are they going to do about our mass shooting problem?

Ima gonna keep carrying a gun. You can get a bigger box on manpons.

 

[Mr Natural]

Nothing more than collateral damage in the War on Freedom and Guns.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And when the Dems control Congress at some point in the future, they won't do anything about mental health either. It's a non-starter as far as Congress is concerned.
Sucks, but there it is.

Who opposes it?

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To 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;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Mass shooting problem... what a moron.