Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
10. It's already a slide, my issue is the government is always trying to privatize stuff
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:31 AM
Jun 2016

Databases are expensive to construct and maintain so that their accuracy is up-to-date and they cannot be hacked.

There's a huge industry that wants background information on people. Imagine that in order to get operating funds the gov't decided to sell that information, or imagine that because maintenance is expensive they just decided not to continue protecting it well. It could very negatively effect people's lives.

For 2012 a study reported by National Association for Mental Illness* found unemployment for the mentally ill ran at a national average of EIGHTY percent. Americans are very deeply prejudiced against the mentally ill and don't want them in their workplaces and neighborhoods.

NICS currently includes names of persons adjudicated to be dangerous to self and others (a process that in most states includes opportunity for legal representation). In recent years there have been some frightening proposals, including some success, for mental health records to be linked to NICS (the new NY gun law as it was passed required psych therapists to report their hunches that persons might be dangerous in the future, not sure if that has been modified), there have even been proposals that pharmacy records should be linked to NICS so that persons taking some types of psychiatric medicines become prohibited.

Imagine the devastation that could result from such prejudicial stuff out in the hands of the background check industry where potential employers, competitors, ex-friends/lovers can get their hands on it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

*Mental Illness: NAMI Report Deplores 80 Percent Unemployment Rate; State Rates and Ranks Listed—Model Legislation Proposed
Jan 01 2014

Arlington, Va.—One of the best steps in recovery from mental illness is a job, but the national unemployment rate for individuals receiving public mental health services is approximately 80 percent, according to a report issued by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).

The states with the five highest levels of unemployed persons in the public mental health care system are:

• Maine 92.6 percent
• West Virginia 91.9 percent
• Hawaii 91.4 percent
• Pennsylvania 90.6 percent
• California 90.0 percent

<snip>

- See more at: https://www.nami.org/Press-Media/Press-Releases/2014/Mental-Illness-NAMI-Report-Deplores-80-Percent-Un#sthash.pZt75u8g.dpuf

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'm a big fan of due process and I agree with you (nt) Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #1
Would an appeals process allow for due process? Nt moriah Jun 2016 #4
There is no apeals process. oneshooter Jun 2016 #17
If you were denied only for that reason, and told, you'd learn.... moriah Jun 2016 #18
Or possably learn by a visit from a Federal Agent..............or two. n/t oneshooter Jun 2016 #19
Yeah. And sometimes that may be needed, if they are actually *trained* properly. moriah Jun 2016 #20
Actually that's why the head of the FBI opposed using the Terror Watch List in such a way. PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #31
Maybe I just don't get that logic. But I'm weird. moriah Jun 2016 #34
I believe he is saying Lonusca Jun 2016 #93
So take the right away without due process, but give you due process to get it back? X_Digger Jun 2016 #42
If they don't own the gun yet, it's not their property, and "due process".... moriah Jun 2016 #44
It's called prior restraint. X_Digger Jun 2016 #48
The government cannot stop you from keeping your guns, or bearing them (even if there are SCOTUS ... moriah Jun 2016 #54
Too cute by half reasoning doesn't cut it. X_Digger Jun 2016 #55
But not immediate purchase or unregulated purchase. moriah Jun 2016 #59
Quick quiz: Who said, "A right delayed is a right denied." No googling. X_Digger Jun 2016 #60
If you equate the right to vote with the "right" to purchase a Sig Sauer MCX immediately... moriah Jun 2016 #65
I don't pick and choose which rights I protect. I'll leave that to republicans. X_Digger Jun 2016 #66
It was quiet enough, with loud music, that many people thought the gunshots were sound effects. moriah Jun 2016 #74
At a club pumping out 120db+ music, yes. Fucking duh. X_Digger Jun 2016 #76
I support life. moriah Jun 2016 #78
"I support life." is a platitude. We can see exactly what you support. X_Digger Jun 2016 #81
I support the right to go to a club I would have felt safe in and not get shot. Aka, life. moriah Jun 2016 #88
Oh, anyone who reads can see what you mean. Just scroll through your replies in this subthread. n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #92
I noticed you didn't respond to my post regarding my reaction to the tragedy. moriah Jun 2016 #94
By the way, here's what I finally wrote when I could find words for Orlando. moriah Jun 2016 #89
The military version comes with a 3 position ssfety oneshooter Jun 2016 #73
I'm honestly, as I said, less familiar with modern rifles. moriah Jun 2016 #75
For many military operations oneshooter Jun 2016 #85
---> Petrushka Jun 2016 #83
Then if we aren't limited to rights guaranteed by the Constitution for this discussion.... moriah Jun 2016 #87
There is no right to due process when it comes to a privilege... scscholar Jun 2016 #79
It's a right, not a privilege whether you like it or not friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #91
On a theoretical level, I see your point. But on a real-life level, I don't know anyone MH1 Jun 2016 #2
I have been on the FAA No Fly list at least since 12/2001. Dustlawyer Jun 2016 #3
A few days ago in Orlado safeinOhio Jun 2016 #5
They would be just as dead if Mateen had used a straw buyer a la the San Bernadino... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #7
Mateen wouldn't have been prevented from buying a gun EL34x4 Jun 2016 #29
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . leanforward Jun 2016 #6
Al FREAKING Gore was on a no fly list! tblue37 Jun 2016 #8
Well said. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #9
It's already a slide, my issue is the government is always trying to privatize stuff HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #10
I ain't taking your bait. trumad Jun 2016 #11
I guess that's one way to evade debate wen you can't justify your stance. Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #12
No I just evade debating gun humpers. trumad Jun 2016 #13
A wise move, if one has no logical response friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #22
A wise move since one hates to debate morans. trumad Jun 2016 #24
You should learn to be more tolerant, I debate the half-clever who use eye speech... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #26
Tolerant of gun humpers... trumad Jun 2016 #35
Why not? I tolerate knee-jerk bigots, and even engage in conversation with them... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #67
Don't tolerate them either trumad Jun 2016 #70
That must make it difficult to look in a mirror, as I have seen nothing *but*... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #71
Hillarious sarisataka Jun 2016 #27
There is a reason guns control is a smoking wreck in America hack89 Jun 2016 #32
If you're going to define all "pro-gunners" as "morans", then you've just said "one hates to debate" Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #49
Jury results: Auggie Jun 2016 #56
No, same reason we ignore idiotic GOP voters, not worth the effort. nt Logical Jun 2016 #43
You are not an objective poster. nt Logical Jun 2016 #72
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #40
Imagine if a southern state or Trunp admin formed a "vote fraud watch list" Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #14
Why stretch? Igel Jun 2016 #15
Vote fraud is small potatos sarisataka Jun 2016 #25
That's true- wait till someone on assistance commits some terrorist act Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #28
I agree. geomon666 Jun 2016 #16
Then let the courts decide brentspeak Jun 2016 #21
you know that the "slippery slope" is a FALLACY, right? maxsolomon Jun 2016 #23
Well then... I guess it's OK for the GOP to limit the voting rights of minorities then? davidn3600 Jun 2016 #38
yes. that's exactly what i meant. maxsolomon Jun 2016 #39
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not illegal. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #45
ok, then. libel. maxsolomon Jun 2016 #95
Libel is a civil tort - and at its core requires a false statement. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #96
yes,anyone with a desire for an assault weapon should be denied and watched, absolutely swhisper1 Jun 2016 #30
I'm a white middle-aged man. I do business around the world. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #33
Some may not like the reference felix_numinous Jun 2016 #36
It won't get struck down, you just get a hearing Drahthaardogs Jun 2016 #37
We have folks still alive who remember Nixon, McCarthy, and J Edgar Hoover X_Digger Jun 2016 #41
Yeah. librarylu Jun 2016 #86
You need to have a hearing, some sort of due process. uppityperson Jun 2016 #46
im only in my 30's beergood Jun 2016 #47
Well buying a military grade weapon shouldn't be a constitutional right so it all evens out... n/t leeroysphitz Jun 2016 #50
It depends on who is in power....if we're in control we can ensure the right people get on the list. ileus Jun 2016 #51
the Constitution started being shredded by Nixon's DEA and it was set afire by the Enabling Act of hobbit709 Jun 2016 #52
It would e better to stem the flow of arms to mass murderers at the start by baldguy Jun 2016 #53
No, guns need to be licensed and insured like cars. alarimer Jun 2016 #57
While I like the idea of insurance on gun owners Wayburn Jun 2016 #84
Then the solution is to repeal the 2nd Amendment Orrex Jun 2016 #58
What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you want to abolish "to keep us safe"? Odin2005 Jun 2016 #63
Which other amendment's used to justify the purchase of semi-automatic murder weapons? Orrex Jun 2016 #64
That's not an answer to the question asked- but you knew that already... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #68
"secret Lists" are never a good thing. Why not simply ban sales of military grade weaponry? -nt- NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #61
The number of DUers who are now OK with the terror watch list is frightening. Odin2005 Jun 2016 #62
I remember when it was virginia mountainman Jun 2016 #69
All I really want is for the people on the list to have a delay while due process straightens out... moriah Jun 2016 #77
This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #80
Basing allowed sales on a greatly flawed list isn't a great idea. SeattleVet Jun 2016 #82
The keepers of thee watch lists probably aren't too eager to share either. JVS Jun 2016 #90
I don't think so, either. Iggo Jun 2016 #97
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I don't think it's a good...»Reply #10