In response to:

Sens. Cruz, Grassley Announce Gun Replacement Bill

Great Scott! Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 12:32 PM
Alright guys and gals, let's not get all bat-shiite crazy. This seems to be a bill that addresses the mental health issue which is THE real issue anyway. I haven't thoroughly read up on the rest of the proposals; but remember, Cruz and several others tried to filibuster the original legislation so I doubt he's gonna sell us down the river with his own bill.
Coyote9 Wrote: Apr 18, 2013 12:12 PM
The devil is in the details, my friend. And, there's a lot of garbage attached to that "one good idea", which really ain't such a hot idea anyway.
Ronald494 Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 10:21 PM
As you may have noted from my previous responses, we need to be concerned about the mental health issue but...Yes this is a precipice above a slippery slope. But still drugs are involved in the crux of this problem.
Reported 4500 Public shootings, attacks and attempts by people on psychotropic drugs in recent years world wide.
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

Clearly these drugs are dangerous at least when administered to people with psychiatric unbalance. They are considered dangerous by the profession yet seem to be their preferred or most effective at attaining a cure. Perhaps we also should ask what would be the results if they were not used. Could the results be even worse?

Ronald494 Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 10:26 PM
(cont.) Given the seriousness of this question to the question of preventing the violence, the psychiatric profession would be required(by law) to adjudicate cases.
Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.
I doubt that the psychiatric profession is up to the task of reliably separating out that 300 out of 300,000 probable cases.


YassirSanchez Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 2:12 PM
If we cannot trust Cruz we are all boned.
Coyote9 Wrote: Apr 18, 2013 12:17 PM
Mike4166 Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 1:53 PM
Doesn't matter Scott. This will fly directly in the face of what the ACLU has worked so hard, over the decades, to achieve. And the ACLU owns the proglodytes, so the land swindler, the self loathing jew a boatload of the remaining democraps, and however many RINOS, that don't have to worry about reelection, won't vote for this.
Nana82 Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 12:52 PM
How is better enforcement of gun laws selling you down the river?
psydoc Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 1:04 PM
Is that post directed to me, Nana? If so, I do not think better enforcement is; however, I do not trust any politician, they have sold us down the river so many times, I am just naturally suspicious.
Coyote9 Wrote: Apr 18, 2013 12:17 PM
It was true in yesteryear, and it is true today. If a politician is speaking, he is lying. Doesn't really matter what political stripe s/he wears. You can bet your BP that this will only lead to more problems for gun owners.
psydoc Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 12:36 PM
Don't ever count on a politician not selling us down the river, remember, Grassley is involved, too...that and 98 other senators, many of whom will have their amendments to add.

If they wanted to fix the mental health reporting issue, the bill would include only that.
Great Scott! Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 1:16 PM
Agreed, Doc. I don't necessarily trust them either, but Cruz strikes me as someone to whom we should give the benefit of our doubts. I like his Tea Party bona fides, and that helps me think he might have a real solution with this bill. BTW, any word on additional co-sponsors? I don't know where my Senators (Lee and Snatch...er, Hatch) stand on this yet, but I'll be calling them soon.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Apr 17, 2013 1:33 PM
Trust but verify? Cruz is making a name for himself. He got in the mud and wrestled that pig, FineSwine, to the ground over the 2nd Amendment. She had smoke coming out of her ears and nostrils and her eyes glowed red during their exchange. Senator Cruz was calm and collected and didn't seem phased a bit by her counter attack or here attempt to dress him down with her "experience in the Senate". You go Cruz. We are beginning to see you as a Senator with a spine who's willing to rock the boat with respect to gun rights in Washington. Most of the career politicians in Washington on the GOP side are mushy on the topic of gun rights. Most democrats in Washington are openly hostile towards gun rights.
Coyote9 Wrote: Apr 18, 2013 12:14 PM
In my opinion, for what it's worth, no true Tea Party believer would author or sponsor a bill that includes new taxes. TEA = Taxed Enough Already, right?

Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa) introduced an alternative gun bill this morning that would replace the current Senate proposal from Chuck Schumer and would replace the Manchin-Toomey background checks legislation. The proposal is the "Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act." This Cruz-Grassley proposal would "improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, increase resources for prosecutions of gun crime, address mental illness in the criminal justice system, and strengthen criminal law by including straw purchasing and illegal firearm trafficking statutes."

Grassley put an emphasis on the mental illness part of the bill. "We’ve put together...