Some times Truth is Scarier than Fiction.
From 2000: Maine Voters Choose to Restrict The Mentally Ill's Rights To Vote
Thank goodness for Judicial Activism.
Some times Truth is Scarier than Fiction.
From 2000: Maine Voters Choose to Restrict The Mentally Ill's Rights To Vote
Thank goodness for Judicial Activism.
*Gosh! Didn't certified mental health professionals take away their rights for a reason!?*
end sarcasm
Well, it might be anecdotal evidence, but Germany has strict gun laws and less overall gun crimes. Of course, banning guns won´t stop drug-gang criminals - but then, do you really believe having a gun will protect you from those types? It might have some impact because it would make it harder for petty criminals to obtain big guns, and it might help preventing killing sprees like the latest. Arguing that criminals won´t abide the laws and preventing legislation based on that argument is just beside the point - with a reasoning like that, you could as well say that murder should not be illegal anymore, because it does not prevent murderers from murdering their victims. No law has ever prevented a criminal from breaking it, but making it harder to break the laws by controlling the means might be a good idea, I think.
As the idea that making guns illegal would make them more likely to stop gun violence seems a illogical argument as well. Think of the huge amounts of drugs that come across our borders. These are not small little shippements that come across at a time. The weapons made illegal would still be available to the said criminal types. All you are doing is taking the weapons from the law abiding citizens. I would like to see some statisical data on how many gun deaths are from legally owned guns by the legal owner of the gun. I think I remember reading some place this is not the case. But I have been wrong before I am certain someone here has access to some stats if they are out there.
Respectfully this comparison is deeply flawed. Without researching the specific data, I presume Germany has a lower rate of knifings and assaults with fists etc.; I seriously doubt that this is the result of far stricter German laws against knifing and punching, and I doubt Germany has appreciably fewer fists and knifes. This would suggest to me that the difference is driven more by culture than restrictive laws. It would also seem to me that more restrictive laws and more regulation wont necessarily yield results that look more like Germany or any other advanced nation.
I don't presume to know all of the reasons why we have more violence, but we do seem to be more violent regardless of weapon laws.
Thank god the idiot that shot her used a gun and not a bomb. If he had shown up and used a fertilizer truck bomb instead of the gun, a ton more people would have been hurt or killed.
I don't think taking guns away from people like Loughner will make a dent in killings; it might make them worse, as they are forced to resort to explosives to get their point across.
Furthermore, I don't think it is a good idea to restrict weapons to crazy people, even like Loughner, because the government could use any sign of unhappiness or suspicion as a basis for a decision to deny you your right to have a weapon. I think we need these weapons because we are the kinds of people who are one step away from fascism at any given point and if in the next generation or two, we go all Nazi Germany by throwing all of the Arabs into concentration camps or attempting to deport all of the Mexican Immigrants, they need to make sure that they have enough weapons to fight back. The ability to use an up your butt kind of law, like a no sale to the crazies law, would let the government come through and disarm the most capable fighters ahead of time.
1. The government should prohibit weapons to crazy people.
2. Americans are not the kind of people 1 step away from fascism.3. An Arab or any other kind of ethnic that conspires to topple the US should be jailed and charged with treason.
4. Deporting ILLEGAL immigrants who enter from any country should be priority #1 of any immigraton policy. Of any country.
5. In your world its best to have guns in the hand of illegal aliens than US citizens? I would not think the government would be doing its job if they allowed weapons into the hands of illegal immigrants so they could be armed against its citizenry.
The future world you have created sounds like Kosovo or Bosnia.
I once walked into a sporting goods store here in Texas, plunked down my credit card, signed on the dotted line that I promised I wasn't an axe murderer, and walked out 10 minutes later with a short-barrelled 12-gauge and enough shells to turn everyone in this thread into spaghetti sauce. There was no waiting period, and I needed no permit of any kind.Stories like these give me the creeps.
This is a very common attitude from people outside of the US or people who come from areas with more restrictions on firearms ownership.
Let me turn the idea around a bit. Should Kirth have to pass a mental health exam, have character references from friends and family, pass a series of written and physical tests, or have the approval of people who live around him to have the right to buy a gun? (in addition to the thousands of laws already on the books)
I don't think so. From what I've gathered from our interaction on these boards over the years it wouldn't trouble at all if he had an anti tank weapon.
However it seems to me that the assumption that people shouldn't have access to the means of self defense unless they pass arbitrary government requirements is deeply troubling.
If asserting a basic human right requires the permission of the government then I think we are all in trouble.
Should we mandate a government process before having children or going to church? Why not? Some religious fanatics do terrible harm. Some people are dreadful parents, and they they create great cost to society.
I think the basic we have to ask is, "Are we a people who will restrict the rights of the vast majority of people to protect society from the choices of a tiny minority?". I believe this question defines us as a culture and a people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However it seems to me that the assumption that people shouldn't have access to the means of self defense unless they pass arbitrary government requirements is deeply troubling.If asserting a basic human right requires the permission of the government then I think we are all in trouble.
Should we mandate a government process before having children or going to church? Why not? Some religious fanatics do terrible harm. Some people are dreadful parents, and they they create great cost to society.
Heavy handed much?
No access to automatic rifles =/= can't defend yourself. That's absurd.
There are several processes in place. I know of no state where you can just get a firearm without some kind of a permit, meaning you acquired one from a court house or local police department. They do a background check before you get one. I had to have one, and wait a few days when I bought my pistol.I once walked into a sporting goods store here in Texas, plunked down my credit card, signed on the dotted line that I promised I wasn't an axe murderer, and walked out 10 minutes later with a short-barrelled 12-gauge and enough shells to turn everyone in this thread into spaghetti sauce. There was no waiting period, and I needed no permit of any kind.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm in favor of gun ownership. Long arms in particular are part of American heritage, all the way back to muskets and blunderbusses. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of allowing access to all weaponry, and it doesn't mean that I think that some more restrictions on who can own them (e.g., mental patients) would be at all unreasonable.
Yeah I don't think "hunting rifles" which is what shotguns and most large caliber rifles are considered, are limited by legislation.
Was is a gas-powered semi-auto? My uncle has a semi-auto berreta 12 gauge. The thing is a monster!
Alas I must disagree.
Under some laws the trusty shotgun that may be helpful for home defense is an "evil assault weapon", and your grandfather's deer rifle might be an "evil sniper rifle". Sadly bird hunters and deer hunters who think this debate doesn't impact them are sadly mistaken.
However it seems to me that the assumption that people shouldn't have access to the means of self defense unless they pass arbitrary government requirements is deeply troubling.If asserting a basic human right requires the permission of the government then I think we are all in trouble.
Should we mandate a government process before having children or going to church? Why not? Some religious fanatics do terrible harm. Some people are dreadful parents, and they they create great cost to society.
Heavy handed much?
No access to automatic rifles =/= can't defend yourself. That's absurd.
I must disagree. What are you defending yourself against? Trespassers, coyotes, muggers, bears, or tyrants?
Who gets to decide? Is it the individual or the state? What if the state is the biggest threat to your safety? Should the state get to decide that you can never defend yourself from the state? That doesn't seem like the condition of a free person to me. If you are a citizen, and you own yourself why aren't you competent to decide how best to defend yourself? If you think it's wise to keep a shotgun to defend your ranch and family why should the state be permitted to imprison you if some people feel differently?
Who gets to decide? The individual or the state?
You wouldn't kill him outright, either, would you? If he saw reason when you produced the shotgun and wanted to leave quietly you'd let 'em, right? Owning a firearm for home defense doesn't mean you're just going to blow away any old tresspasser just because you can.First I'd pump the gun loudly -- they say that's scarier to a burglar than a dog barking. And yell for whoever it is to stop kicking the door and get lost (only Spider-Man could get in by a window).
He still kicks in the door in and actively prevents us from leaving, or actually fires shots at us? At that point I would, with great reluctance, shoot him at close range as many times as needed. I hope to God it never comes to that.
*How dare you think you have the right to decide that! Only expert qualified government licensed people can make that kind of choice to keep people safe! What gives you the right or expertise to do that!?!? Someone might get hurt!*
end sarcasm
I get the fact that there are a lot of very stupid people out there, but shouldn't there be a basic presumption that individuals are better qualified to make choices about their own safety unless a jury of their peers decides they are not competent to do so?
(This is not directed at you Kirth; I'm just breaking down the question.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who gets to decide? Is it the individual or the state? What if the state is the biggest threat to your safety? Should the state get to decide that you can never defend yourself from the state? That doesn't seem like the condition of a free person to me. If you are a citizen, and you own yourself why aren't you competent to decide how best to defend yourself? If you think it's wise to keep a shotgun to defend your ranch and family why should the state be permitted to imprison you if some people feel differently?
The paranoid delusional that thinks the government wants to take his land and his guns, and will do whatever it takes to protect his bunker from them, is PRECISELY the type of person we need to be taking the guns from.
Or we could agree that there's obviously a line, we just disagree where it should be drawn. For example, I IMAGINE we both agree that nuclear weapons shouldn't be legal for civilian use. Or dynamite. We restrict these things.
I find it most efficacious to defend myself by killing everyone I see. Before they can put their evil eye on me.
Why aren't *some* of us competent to decide how to defend ourselves? Because *some* of us abuse that. Sorry, there's a lot of dicks out there, and jumping through a couple hoops to prove you're not one of them doesn't strike me is incompatable with the idea of personal liberty. Not in the slightest.
I mean. Do you think we should have the absolute right to mine our front lawns? Just defending your property as you see fit, right? What about ammunition that is custom made to cause as much pain and damage to internal organs as possible? Like, really?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise, all it is good for is attacking people.Thats what it is built for in the first place - attacking living beings, with the intent to kill them. Perhaps that is why I don´t like the idea of everyone having the right to bear arms - it is basically a statement that "I can kill anybody anytime".
Quick history lesson:
The Second Amendment basically exists to allow U.S. citizens to protect themselves from an oppressive government, not so they can go hunting. The reasoning being that a well armed population would be harder to push around. Read the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay were pretty explicit about their reasoning behind a lot of what wound up in the Constitution. (So, you know, all that crap about not knowing the intent of our Founding Fathers is pretty much bs).
Now, that broke down pretty quickly, as the population, due to the propaganda of the Revolutionary War, thought the whole deal was about taxes, when it was really about not being represented in the House of Commons as all good Englishmen should be. This lead to stuff like the Whiskey Rebellion, where the U.S. government seemed shocked that people would actually try to not be put upon by their government, and the people were shocked that they were being nickle and dimed by a government they thought was formed to avoid such things.
And, considering how out of control our police and government are these days concerning our basic civil and human rights, I see where the Founders were coming from. I'd really prefer to have access to a firearm for that day when we decide to follow Jefferson's advice and shed a little blood to get ourselves back on track as the beacon of freedom we're supposed to have been.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.Ok, I´m no expert on this. It looks to me like a military-grade weapon. I don´t understand why any civilian would "need" such a gun.
Of course you wouldn't. You already forget what happened when your country decided to take everyone's guns a few decades ago. We've been sliding towards fascism in this nation for quite some time now, with our government taking little baby steps, like slowly boiling a lobster so it doesn't release its poison into the meat before it even knows it's cooked.
And an assault rifle, by definition, is a weapon that can switch from single shot to either a burst mode or full automatic. Caliber, clip capacity and outer appearance has nothing to do with the classification.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, as some one touched on earlier, Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, I think they train everyone in their use and give everyone a gun, and they have one of the lowest crime rates and least oppressive governments in the world.
Does one have to do with the other? I don't know, but it does kind of refute the "gun ownership = high gun crime rate" theory.
|
|
Well the Supreme Court said it does, so I guess those lower courts now have to change their tune.Federal courts have, however, consistently rejected an individual right(s) interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gun enthusiasts don't like to talk about this, despite their claims of fervent belief in our system and in the rule of law. Not surprisingly, most "gun people" feel that the Constitution happens to mean precisely what they want it to mean.I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
Yeah, I think someone forgets the SCOTUS ruled AGAINST Washington D.C.'s gun laws. See: DC V Heller (2008). I.E., the SCOTUS basically said the Second Amendment DOES protect the right for an individual to own a firearm.
So, whoever said otherwise, um, you're objectively wrong.
Edit: See also: McDonald V Chicago (2010).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does one have to do with the other? I don't know, but it does kind of refute the "gun ownership = high gun crime rate" theory.
No one has proposed such a theory.
My theory is much more nuanced: easy gun ownership+a$%*$+~ Americans=deaths by guns.I'm not saying that it's guns that make us violent, I'm saying that there are so many people who like violence and that's why they like guns. American society is different from Swiss society.
I'm saying that, COLLECTIVELY, not as individuals, we've shown that we can't play nice and we should have our toys taken away. Just maybe.
|
|
Some times Truth is Scarier than Fiction.
From 2000: Maine Voters Choose to Restrict The Mentally Ill's Rights To Vote
Thank goodness for Judicial Activism.
*Gosh! Didn't certified mental health professionals take away their rights for a reason!?*
end sarcasm
Would anyone who thinks Obama is any better than Bush was be considered mentally ill?
Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Otherwise you start arguing that the difference between 18" and 17.5" is negligible and then that 17.5" and 17" is as well and then 17" and 16.5" and so on and you have no regulation at all.
OK. I get that law should be objective and quantifiable as much as possible to avoid abuse, but sometimes rigid numbers can run contrary to justice.
For example, much of the Ruby Ridge tragedy stemmed from the legal and regulatory basis of a shotgun that was cut down to what the gunsmith thought was a legal length of 18 inches. Unfortunately his cut was not perfectly perpendicular and a fraction of the barrel was less than 18 inches long. This fraction of an inch gave the federal government the option of going after the gunsmith like he was selling crew served weapons. I'm not saying he was a great guy, but I can't imagine how his wife deserved to be killed by an FBI HRT sniper when she was unarmed and holding their infant.
This is the ugly reality of government regulation. No matter how well intentioned the authors of the war on drugs were the results are millions of human tragedies. Likewise if we choose to ban more guns and have a kind of "War on guns" the results will be far more horrific. The anti gun lobby is not ignorant of this, and they think they can restrict gun rights very slowly by tiny bits and pieces.
You can call it a slippery slope or what have you, but the destruction of human rights doesn't come in one big blow. It happens one tiny cut at a time until we die from ten thousand paper cuts rather than one big blow.
Tyrants only have to wait until we are too ignorant or apathetic to care.
|
|
Thank god the idiot that shot her used a gun and not a bomb. If he had shown up and used a fertilizer truck bomb instead of the gun, a ton more people would have been hurt or killed.Why stop at a fertilizer truck bomb fear.
We should give all of the mentally unstable people guns, lest they build nuclear weapons and destroy entire cities.
The logic is flawless.
Or, and this is an out there idea I know but stick with me, maybe when someone is believed to be dangerous by the people who are treating them, they could be able to restrict them purchasing firearms while also being notified if they attempt a purchase.
Wild idea I know, I mean it isn't like the Virginia Tech shooter and Loughner had been in treatment for a significant amount of time and were of great concern to those working with them.
Once again the laws and bureaucracy were in place to disqualify the VT shooter from lawfully purchase a firearm, and that system failed. At the time Virginia was considered a leader in compliance with the law.
The article you linked to actually states.
"Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.".
If that is the "Leader" how crappy are the other states?
|
|
Let me turn the idea around a bit. Should Kirth have to pass a mental health exam, have character references from friends and family, pass a series of written and physical tests, or have the approval of people who live around him to have the right to buy a gun? (in addition to the thousands of laws already on the books)
What has actually been said is that if a certified mental health professional believes that someone shouldn't have a gun, they should be able to fill out a simple form and prevent that person from purchasing a gun pending review.
I personally added that it would be nice if the database also notified the therapist when that person tried to buy a gun, so the therapist can act appropriately if they feel law enforcement should be notified.
I know your strawman is much easier to defeat, but it isn't what anyone has proposed. And I understand it is a very difficult position to take, arguing that Cho and Loughner should have been able to buy guns prior to killing so many people, but that was the side you chose.
|
|
Would anyone who thinks Obama is any better than Bush was be considered mentally ill?Some times Truth is Scarier than Fiction.
From 2000: Maine Voters Choose to Restrict The Mentally Ill's Rights To Vote
Thank goodness for Judicial Activism.
*Gosh! Didn't certified mental health professionals take away their rights for a reason!?*
end sarcasm
Depends. How brown are they?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends. How brown are they?Would anyone who thinks Obama is any better than Bush was be considered mentally ill?Some times Truth is Scarier than Fiction.
From 2000: Maine Voters Choose to Restrict The Mentally Ill's Rights To Vote
Thank goodness for Judicial Activism.
*Gosh! Didn't certified mental health professionals take away their rights for a reason!?*
end sarcasm
The brownest person I know of, Glen Ford, thinks Obama is evil.
I was actually thinking of all the hipsters on my FB feed who seem to think eroding civil liberties, handing billions of dollars to billionaires and bombing the crap out of brown people is a-ok as long as you have a "d" after your name.
|
|
Of course you wouldn't. You already forget what happened when your country decided to take everyone's guns a few decades ago. We've been sliding towards fascism in this nation for quite some time now, with our government taking little baby steps, like slowly boiling a lobster so it doesn't release its poison into the meat before it even knows it's cooked.
From the left or the right?
We literally had internment camps for minority group in living history, so I'm not sure about the "slide" you refer to.
More like waves up and down over specific issues.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From both sides. Well, the "left" in this country has little representation, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any interest in our civil liberties or protecting us from predatory Wall Street billionaires.
Nothing about the Democratic Party is liberal in practice, except the rhetoric. In action, they're more center-right compared to the rest of the Western world.
Those waves you refer to are evening out slowly into pure fascism. Our police are no better than jack booted thugs any more, and the Federal government can monitor anyone without having to clear it with a judge any more. But, as long as Jersey Shore and Pawn Stars is on, we don't care.
|
|
From both sides. Well, the "left" in this country has little representation, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any interest in our civil liberties or protecting us from predatory Wall Street billionaires.
Nothing about the Democratic Party is liberal in practice, except the rhetoric. In action, they're more center-right compared to the rest of the Western world.
Those waves you refer to are evening out slowly into pure fascism. Our police are no better than jack booted thugs any more, and the Federal government can monitor anyone without having to clear it with a judge any more. But, as long as Jersey Shore and Pawn Stars is on, we don't care.
I both agree and disagree.
Are the police often as you describe? Yes.
Is it more so than before. Absolutely not.
I think you underestimate how bad things used to be, and I think now things that used to just happen all the time under the radar are more likely to be exposed.
We are as offended as perhaps we should be, but that doesn't mean it is worse than it was.
|
|
I'm saying that, COLLECTIVELY, not as individuals, we've shown that we can't play nice and we should have our toys taken away. Just maybe.
Check your crime stats, the total breakdown. "Collectively" 14% of the population is responsible for nearly 50% of the violent crime in the nation. Also happens to be the 14% with the highest drop out rate, unemployment rate and poverty rate. Maybe we should focus on making life better for that 14% instead of eroding everyone's rights.
|
|
From both sides. Well, the "left" in this country has little representation, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any interest in our civil liberties or protecting us from predatory Wall Street billionaires.
Nothing about the Democratic Party is liberal in practice, except the rhetoric. In action, they're more center-right compared to the rest of the Western world.
Those waves you refer to are evening out slowly into pure fascism. Our police are no better than jack booted thugs any more, and the Federal government can monitor anyone without having to clear it with a judge any more. But, as long as Jersey Shore and Pawn Stars is on, we don't care.
I both agree and disagree.
Are the police often as you describe? Yes.
Is it more so than before. Absolutely not.
I think you underestimate how bad things used to be, and I think now things that used to just happen all the time under the radar are more likely to be exposed.
We are as offended as perhaps we should be, but that doesn't mean it is worse than it was.
I never said it was better. I said "the beacon of freedom we should have been", not "the beacon of freedom we were". I am not one who thinks the "good old days" were good. The Haymaker Riots, Whiskey Rebellion, The "Bonus Army" incident, everything in the South during the Civil Rights movement, etc, etc, all pretty much indicate we've always had an out of control government. Heck, the Whiskey Rebellion, a reaction to a very unfair tax, was in 1791.
|
|
I never said it was better. I said "the beacon of freedom we should have been", not "the beacon of freedom we were". I am not one who thinks the "good old days" were good. The Haymaker Riots, Whiskey Rebellion, The "Bonus Army" incident, everything in the South during the Civil Rights movement, etc, etc, all pretty much indicate we've always had an out of control government. Heck, the Whiskey Rebellion, a reaction to a very unfair tax, was in 1791.From both sides. Well, the "left" in this country has little representation, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any interest in our civil liberties or protecting us from predatory Wall Street billionaires.
Nothing about the Democratic Party is liberal in practice, except the rhetoric. In action, they're more center-right compared to the rest of the Western world.
Those waves you refer to are evening out slowly into pure fascism. Our police are no better than jack booted thugs any more, and the Federal government can monitor anyone without having to clear it with a judge any more. But, as long as Jersey Shore and Pawn Stars is on, we don't care.
I both agree and disagree.
Are the police often as you describe? Yes.
Is it more so than before. Absolutely not.
I think you underestimate how bad things used to be, and I think now things that used to just happen all the time under the radar are more likely to be exposed.
We are as offended as perhaps we should be, but that doesn't mean it is worse than it was.
Cool, then we largely agree.
I tend to believe that less regulation leads to more corruption while more regulation leads to inefficiency, and so there is always going to be a back and forth between the two.
As technology improves, theoretically accountability should be less onerous, which I hope will lead to more efficiency with more accountability.
I think it is absurd we can quickly assess someones credit to allow them to make purchases on loan via credit cards, but we can't screen more efficiently for firearm, prescription, or any other number of purposes.
I get the fear of big brother, but as someone who is technically "The Man" as a profession, most of us are more afraid of John Q. Public getting upset at a headline in the paper and us losing funding than we are thinking about plots to take over the world.
Not that we don't need to be vigilant, but I'm not sure what we lose is worth what we pay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose,
People shouldn't form racist groups with white hoods, but the government shouldn't stop people from talking about what they believe. There are two regrettably conflicting shouldn'ts.
People who can't afford kids shouldn't be able to keep having them, but the government shouldn't be sterilizing people.
People who commit murder and hire a fancy lawyer to get them off shouldn't be walking free: but the government should respect the juries decision.
Crazy people shouldn't have access to guns: but people shouldn't have their rights revoked the second someone with a degree decides that they're crazy.
There are many, MANY things where two or more shouldn'ts collide and you have to pick what you think is the lesser of two evils. Usually we side with the evil that gives less power to the government.
I know of one case of a man losing his guns because a doctor declared him suicidal for refusing to go to the hospital for testing because he wanted to get home to his farm, instead of taking care of his animals he was greeted by cops that took him in for suicide watch. Not right at all.I know of two cases of the top of my head in which deranged people perpetrated mass shootings because people were too afraid to infringe on their gun rights. Also not right at all.
There is no perfect solution; we just need to strike a reasonable balance between rights and reason. To my mind, the right to ownership of hunting rifles -- for anyone not under psychiatric assessment and/or violent felony charges -- should be pretty well unbreakable. That's as much a part of American heritage as apple pie and the 4th of July.
After that, though -- when we start getting into easily-concealable handguns, ownerhip by psychiatric patients or violent felons still under probation, or outright ownership of WMDs -- it makes sense to me to back off a bit and think carefully about cost-benefits.
Should my friends who are struggling with PTSD be allowed to have a firearm in their home?
Some of them just need some help sleeping, and some of them might need in patient care, but who gets to decide? I've seen many field grade officers with a decade of experience decide that troops were fine, but a civilian therapist thinks they need more help. Who gets to send the SWAT team to the house to seize the guns in a no knock blitz?
If they say you're paranoid and a dozen masked men in black body armor storm your home and seize your family are you suffering from mental illness or just paying attention?
Why does the question always get phrased like this? I've never seen a gun control advocate anywhere endorse confiscation from someone who wasn't threatening another person, but the counter argument is always phrased as "Ownership standards = federal forces breaking down your door." (As a gun owner, I will freely admit that there are weapons so destructive that simply owning them is a threat.)
As I said earlier, I live on the edge of a state park. By my experience there are a good number of people who just shouldn't have been sold firearms without at least a gun safety course.
Given that we're within a week of the Colorado shootings where a dozen people died and upwards of fifty were wounded (gas, I know, but still...) I have to ask, why do civilians have access to high capacity magazines? (I don't know that Holmes had one, but you get my point.) It's not a gun, but if you want to talk about one thing that would slow down the escalation of violence nation wide, consider this: why the hell is body armor available on the civilian market?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holmes had a 100 round drum magazine, that apparently jammed somewhere around shot 50.
There has to be some balance between a reasonable ability to defend yourself and something that dangerous. What POSSIBLE rational is there for a 100 round clip to be legal? If you need that many shots to hit the deer you really, really don't belong out in the woods.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor problem, I think the British of the 1940's were a bit more civilized (or war weary, or even just flat broke) than the American government of 2012. Non-violence only works if the government you oppose has a conscience or no heart for violence or no means to oppress.That's simply not true.
The British did plenty of oppression in 1940s India. There were massacres.
The whole point of Gandhian resistance is not to appeal to their conscience or make them so sick from hurting you that they give up or even to shift public opinion to your side, though that helps.It's to deny them what they want from you. Britain wasn't governing India for its own good or for national pride. It was making money off it. Gandhi both raised the cost and lowered the revenue. It wasn't worth keeping India.
Think of a strike. You can send in thugs and break the striker's heads. You can shoot their leaders, but if they don't go back to work, you don't make any money. There are fights you can't win with violence.
Yeah, that would be #2 and #3. They lost heart and were broke. Neither of which will happen here. Jersey Shore and Pawn Stars will keep the population docile enough, and the media will keep them misinformed enough, that our government is never going to face a situation where it gets too problematic or expensive to keep going.
Keep thinking our government can be changed by wishful thinking, and vote for Obama or Romney.
Thank god the idiot that shot her used a gun and not a bomb. If he had shown up and used a fertilizer truck bomb instead of the gun, a ton more people would have been hurt or killed.Why stop at a fertilizer truck bomb fear.
We should give all of the mentally unstable people guns, lest they build nuclear weapons and destroy entire cities.
The logic is flawless.
Or, and this is an out there idea I know but stick with me, maybe when someone is believed to be dangerous by the people who are treating them, they could be able to restrict them purchasing firearms while also being notified if they attempt a purchase.
Wild idea I know, I mean it isn't like the Virginia Tech shooter and Loughner had been in treatment for a significant amount of time and were of great concern to those working with them.
Once again the laws and bureaucracy were in place to disqualify the VT shooter from lawfully purchase a firearm, and that system failed. At the time Virginia was considered a leader in compliance with the law.
The article you linked to actually states.
"Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.".
If that is the "Leader" how crappy are the other states?
You are so obtuse that you don't seem to realize that you are making my argument for me.
Almost exactly what you want for every human being in the whole US was in place when your example happened.
It failed.
Your argument is that we should do that more.
That seems kind of stupid.
You think that any certified mental health professional should be able to deny basic human rights on a whim because they can deny other basic human rights on a whim. There might be an appeal process if you're rich enough to afford it. If all mental health professionals were beyond reproach this would make sense, but in the real world it seems stupid.
Even if your ideal police state existed it would still fail in many cases.
Of course you and I have radically different world views. In your world the state strips people of fundamental human rights for the collective good. In my world people have fundamental human rights, but human tragedy still occurs.
I don't see how your vision of state control and my view of human rights can coexist peacefully. It seems like your vision of peace through obedience to the state can only be achieved through horrific violence. This seems like a sick and twisted kind of peace to me.
And i have seen lives saved by legal carriers. Different view i guess.Nobody is arguing against you on that Andrew. They are saying that for things designed for no other reason to kill people, perhaps it should be a wee bit tougher to acquire them.Exactly. I've personally been put into danger by drunken "law-abiding citizens" who were legally carrying concealed semi-automatic pistols, so that's kind of a sore point for me.
+1
Too bad these examples don't dominate the news cycle for a week or so.
*I wonder why?*
Otherwise, all it is good for is attacking people.Thats what it is built for in the first place - attacking living beings, with the intent to kill them. Perhaps that is why I don´t like the idea of everyone having the right to bear arms - it is basically a statement that "I can kill anybody anytime".It is more of a guarantor of the right of self-defense. The right to bear arms acknowledges the reality that in any society there will be armed aggressors. A right to self-defense against armed aggression that does not include the right to bear arms is kind of pointless since unarmed resistance against armed aggression is unlikely to succeed.
As far as the argument about banning "assault rifles" because nobody needs military-grade weaponry--after all, we've come a long way from muskets, right?
In the Revolutionary War days, muskets were state-of-the-art military-grade weapons. Nobody used a musket to hunt--people used rifles for that. Muskets are smoothbore, which means they can be loaded faster, which means a higher sustained rate of fire, which is primarily useful when you're standing shoulder-to-shoulder in formation, pouring volumes of fire into the enemy. Rifles, OTOH, were more accurate, but with a slower rate of fire, and therefore ideal for hunting.
One's view of private ownership of military-grade personal arms probably says a lot about one's view of the state. If you think the state is your security blanket, you probably don't want any suspicious private citizens to have the ability to effectively resist the state. But if you see the seeds of a totalitarian police state like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia in even the most benign governments, you'd probably appreciate the ability to resist in kind when the jack-booted stormtroopers show up with "assault rifles."
I do think there is a certain line where weapons of mass destruction shouldn't be available for private use. I would just draw that line a little farther out than...
Well said, but we wouldn't want common sense to intrude on the statist vision of those who think they are our betters.
So, a high rate of gun violence probably points to severe societal problems.Yes.
In that case, would it not be responsible to make the access to guns more difficult to reduce the tendency to solve these problems at gunpoint?The problem there is that it won't really work. We'd switch to knives and bats to solve disagreements. It might make spree killings harder, but those are so far into the minority to not be much of a factor here.
Furtheremore, there are a LOT of guns in the country, and they won't go away if banned. Even if all guns were made illegal in the US, any criminal who wanted one would be able to get one. All gun control here would do is disarm those who actually obey the law.
It might work if the state were willing to butcher or enslave everyone who disagreed with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holmes had a 100 round drum magazine, that apparently jammed somewhere around shot 50.
There has to be some balance between a reasonable ability to defend yourself and something that dangerous. What POSSIBLE rational is there for a 100 round clip to be legal? If you need that many shots to hit the deer you really, really don't belong out in the woods.
Because the intent of the second amendment was to allow for armed revolution to always be a possibility. It had nothing to do with hunting.
Because the intent of the second amendment was to allow for armed revolution to always be a possibility. It had nothing to do with hunting.Holmes had a 100 round drum magazine, that apparently jammed somewhere around shot 50.
There has to be some balance between a reasonable ability to defend yourself and something that dangerous. What POSSIBLE rational is there for a 100 round clip to be legal? If you need that many shots to hit the deer you really, really don't belong out in the woods.
Listen, I know we're not going to solve a decades-if-not-centuries old debate in one morning on the internet, but citation please?
Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Otherwise you start arguing that the difference between 18" and 17.5" is negligible and then that 17.5" and 17" is as well and then 17" and 16.5" and so on and you have no regulation at all.That's when a female tells me that length doesn't matter, I laugh and laugh and laugh. And she breaks kayfabes and acknowledges her fib.
EDIT: I know I'm off topic. It just needed a Comrade Anklebiter moment.
That is flat out not true Urizen.
Girth is what matters the most as long as you have enough length but length by itself is sort of a waste if it is only like a 1/2 inch thick you only need about 6 inches and 1 1/2 thickness and most women are pretty happy so its the girth that really makes them happy though.
I suspected that this would become a penis size conversation at some point, I just wasn’t sure when.
On another note, y’all might be confused about what the Second Amendment was about.
So, then, someone does try to restict the operation of motor vehicles, right?Same goes for carrying concealed weapons. But criminals don't care and drive and carry regardless. that should not be a reflection on law abiding people.Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around.Um, also, there's this thing, Citizen R, it's called a driver's license, and, if you drive without one you can go to jail.
Often without any regard for guilt or innocence. The courts keep telling us that driving is a privilege. So if the state arbitrarily strips you of the right to drive to work then they have not violated your rights. They have only reduced your access to a privilege.
Because the intent of the second amendment was to allow for armed revolution to always be a possibility. It had nothing to do with hunting.Holmes had a 100 round drum magazine, that apparently jammed somewhere around shot 50.
There has to be some balance between a reasonable ability to defend yourself and something that dangerous. What POSSIBLE rational is there for a 100 round clip to be legal? If you need that many shots to hit the deer you really, really don't belong out in the woods.
But we outlaw the rocket launchers,tanks, and fighter jets that you'd need to take a serious go at it. The idea of doing anything more than making a token resistance against the government went out with world war I. Sure, you can make the government go through greater lengths to take you down and that will raise a greater public outcry, but you'll have the same effect with 14 shots as with 100.
Listen, I know we're not going to solve a decades-if-not-centuries old debate in one morning on the internet, but citation please?Because the intent of the second amendment was to allow for armed revolution to always be a possibility. It had nothing to do with hunting.Holmes had a 100 round drum magazine, that apparently jammed somewhere around shot 50.
There has to be some balance between a reasonable ability to defend yourself and something that dangerous. What POSSIBLE rational is there for a 100 round clip to be legal? If you need that many shots to hit the deer you really, really don't belong out in the woods.
Seriously?
Are you from the US?
I'm not trying to be cute, but have you really not heard or studied this before?
But we outlaw the rocket launchers,tanks, and fighter jets that you'd need to take a serious go at it. The idea of doing anything more than making a token resistance against the government went out with world war I. Sure, you can make the government go through greater lengths to take you down and that will raise a greater public outcry, but you'll have the same effect with 14 shots as with 100.Because the intent of the second amendment was to allow for armed revolution to always be a possibility. It had nothing to do with hunting.Holmes had a 100 round drum magazine, that apparently jammed somewhere around shot 50.
There has to be some balance between a reasonable ability to defend yourself and something that dangerous. What POSSIBLE rational is there for a 100 round clip to be legal? If you need that many shots to hit the deer you really, really don't belong out in the woods.
You are utterly wrong.
If you think light infantry and insurgents can't defeat a vastly superior force in terms of technology, army, navy, air force, marines, money, satellites etc. then I submit that you have missed decades of asymmetrical warfare.
We didn't lose in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because they had huge navies and air forces and vastly superior technology. We lost to poorly trained insurgents with (largely) light weapons.
Here's the thing BT: not from anyone who's really studied the Constitution, no insult. The writers of the Constitution weren't talking in code. Whatever your reading of the second amendment, a well armed militia, or even the personal right to bare arms don't equal armed revolution.
There are countless mechanisms to avoid a tyrannical head of state taking power in the US, but they're all stuff like separation of powers and the amendment process. No where in the constitution is it written that people stockpiling weapons to overthrow the state is in the interest of the nation.
Mind you, the idea that it is written there is frequently put forth by those who find it politically expedient to do so.