Firearms and the mentally unstable.

[Ishmael]

I doubt that anyone here is going to argue that we shouldn't make an effort to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable. The problem is how do you accomplish that?

The biggest part of the problem is that you are denying someone their constitutional rights based on the premise that they "might do something." In effect pronouncing guilt before the fact. (Which is what any ban does.)

If you want to propose an out and out ban, fine, start a thread on amending the constitution. For the purpose of this thread please restrict yourself to workable ideas as to how to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

So what's your idea?

Ishmael

 

[LincolnDuncan]

But, but, but, the slippery slope. We can't give in. Obama will come for all our guns. Every American should be given a gun a birth!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Nobody is going to like this answer, but the simple fact is there is almost no law that can be passed, no matter how reasonable its premise or strict with regard to its penalties, that ensures compliance. And when it comes to gun violence, that is the unrealistic expectation that gun control advocates expect, which is why they could give less of a damn about the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings or anything else.

Nothing less than a 100% effective prevention of innocent people being shot is their objective, and the only way they see to accomplish that is to eradicate firearms.

The rest of rationale humanity is grounded in the reality that "shit is going to happen" despite our best efforts to prevent it.

 

[Tryharder62]

I don't think there will ever be a plan that would satisfy everybody or that can guarantee that tragedies won't happen. Mental illness has such a wide range of illnesses, and each person who has an illness exhibits symptoms in different ways.

I think there has to be better education about mental illness. We have a misconception that all mentally ill people should be treated the same way. We also lack mental health professionals. In my area you may have weeks, maybe months, before you can get into a psychiatrist. I was a mental health nurse for 17 years and I can tell you the mental health system is broken. I would start by getting the people the help they need first.

 

[bobbyinhouston]

Guns

This sick SOB along with the other nut cases who give gun owners a bad should be lined against the wall and with no fanfare should be killed.

Even the POTUS agrees it will be hard to take our guns away but he surely will try.

 

[Disgustipated]

This sick SOB along with the other nut cases who give gun owners a bad should be lined against the wall and with no fanfare should be killed.

Even the POTUS agrees it will be hard to take our guns away but he surely will try.

You claim both Texas and Ohio. That doesn't even qualify you as an American so fuck off, dummy.

As for the topic -- there's not a helluva a lot we can do besides a federal mandated background check with the same strict rules applying to all.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Just ban hand guns.

<thread/>

 

[eyer]

The biggest part of the problem is that you are denying someone their constitutional rights...

Geezus...

...in America, the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable, natural right which supersedes government itself.

The framers constituted that fact by not granting the new government any power over that inalienable right at all; the framers did the exact same with freedom of speech/press...

...still, some framers argued that government couldn't be trusted to not do something unless they were specifically forbidden to do it; many of them threatened to not sign the Constitution at all unless a so-called bill of rights was immediately forthcoming after the C was signed. The main concern of the movers of the Convention was to get the C signed asap, so they assured their colleagues that a bill of rights would happen - after the C was signed.

Thus the first two amendments, not giving rights to Americans who already naturally possessed them...

...but specifically and purposely prohibiting the new government from making any law abridging or infringing upon those natural rights.

Again:

The Second Amendment gives no one the right to keep and bear arms...

...that right being inalienable, the Second succinctly prohibits government from infringing on that natural right.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

eyer This user is on your Ignore List.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Speaking of the mentally unstable

 

[phrodeau]

Nobody is going to like this answer, but the simple fact is there is almost no law that can be passed, no matter how reasonable its premise or strict with regard to its penalties, that ensures compliance. And when it comes to gun violence, that is the unrealistic expectation that gun control advocates expect, which is why they could give less of a damn about the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings or anything else.

Nothing less than a 100% effective prevention of innocent people being shot is their objective, and the only way they see to accomplish that is to eradicate firearms.

The rest of rationale humanity is grounded in the reality that "shit is going to happen" despite our best efforts to prevent it.

European countries have varied laws and measures to control gun possession, none have 100% effective prevention of innocent gun deaths, but all of them have a better record than the US. Any of those apparent successes is preferable to the US failure.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

European countries have varied laws and measures to control gun possession, none have 100% effective prevention of innocent gun deaths, but all of them have a better record than the US. Any of those apparent successes is preferable to the US failure.

Only if those apparent successes could be attempted under the U. S. legal system in harmony with the Second Amendment as currently upheld and interpreted by extant Supreme Court decisions.

We are not permitted to simply sweep away the Constitution in order to conduct social experiments derived from other cultures and legal systems.

 

[Sammael Bard]

If you want to propose an out and out ban, fine, start a thread on amending the constitution. For the purpose of this thread please restrict yourself to workable ideas as to how to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

So what's your idea?

Ishmael

There are mental aptitude tests conducted by government agencies before you work for them. Something along those lines should *probably* work.

Maybe people will find a way to bypass/cheat in that too.

 

[Sean Renaud]

-snip-​

The rest of rationale humanity is grounded in the reality that "shit is going to happen" despite our best efforts to prevent it.

I forget who said it, it was some right winger around here that under normal circumstances I would never admit to agreeing with, I think it was Ish but I've learned better than to accuse him of bestowing wisdom upon me.

The individual was speaking about terrorism at the time but it applies to anything that harms people. You do what you can to get it down to an acceptable level and then you ignore it. The question is whether or not we can agree that the current level of gun crime is acceptable. It's a bit dishonest in a general sense to talk about these mass shootings. Sure they happen but they are still quite rare.

One day America has to sit down and have a conversation about it and not now, the time for this conversation was yesterday. And with any luck in two months from now. But right now the "antigun crowd" (insofar as such an animal exists in the US) is talking about trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the "progun crowd" is terrified Obama has finally figured out how to get them onto those FEMA camps he's been planning since the summer of 1984. Everybody is too close to the situation to talk rationally right now and sadly the discussion will be tabled until the next time people are frazzled because that's just how humans operate.

Only if those apparent successes could be attempted under the U. S. legal system in harmony with the Second Amendment as currently upheld and interpreted by extant Supreme Court decisions.

We are not permitted to simply sweep away the Constitution in order to conduct social experiments derived from other cultures and legal systems.

You're not wrong legally but it seems like once you get to the point where the rubber hit the road the Constitution really is more of a collection of guidelines especially up until the the Supreme Court decides to step in and make a ruling.

I'm not suggesting we follow European gun laws, simply that Congress and the President especially if they see eye to eye seem to in practice have the ability to if not outright ignore the Constitution certainly find sufficient loopholes to claim "well we didn't technically do such and such, it was done by an outside agency that answers to us" or whatever bullshit they use.

 

[SweetSam42]

Charleston wasn't mental illness. It was racism and terrorism.

 

[Ishmael]

Only if those apparent successes could be attempted under the U. S. legal system in harmony with the Second Amendment as currently upheld and interpreted by extant Supreme Court decisions.

We are not permitted to simply sweep away the Constitution in order to conduct social experiments derived from other cultures and legal systems.

With very few exceptions gun crime and gun violence are on the rise world wide. So trying to import foreign laws is no guarantee at all. At the extremes, go look up the gun laws for Syria, or almost any South/Central American nation.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Just ban hand guns.

<thread/>

Of course, the only truly portable means of self-defense thereby reducing every law abiding citizen to victim status. Brilliant.

Ishmael

 

[PleasePeesMe]

I think most people

I doubt that anyone here is going to argue that we shouldn't make an effort to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable. The problem is how do you accomplish that?

The biggest part of the problem is that you are denying someone their constitutional rights based on the premise that they "might do something." In effect pronouncing guilt before the fact. (Which is what any ban does.)

If you want to propose an out and out ban, fine, start a thread on amending the constitution. For the purpose of this thread please restrict yourself to workable ideas as to how to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

So what's your idea?

Ishmael

would agree that the average citizen shouldn't have access to a thermonuclear device. Why is a fucking gun any different?

 

[Ishmael]

would agree that the average citizen shouldn't have access to a thermonuclear device. Why is a fucking gun any different?

I don't think thermonuclear weapons fall into the "personal defense" category.

Ishmael

 

[Pookie]

I don't think thermonuclear weapons fall into the "personal defense" category.

Ishmael

Putin might disagree.

 

[Ishmael]

Putin might disagree.

Can't wait 'til TSA checks his backpack.

Ishmael

 

[Pookie]

Can't wait 'til TSA checks his backpack.

Ishmael

Will they make him put his shirt back on first?

 

[Ishmael]

Charleston wasn't mental illness. It was racism and terrorism.

I think that as more facts come to light it will be found that he had some serious mental problems.

More to the point, you bet he was a racist. But racists exist the world over and come in all colors and genders. Very, very few act out their racists views with such premeditated violence. As far as terrorism goes, the use of that particular term has broadened over the years. Did he commit the act to further an agenda and spread fear or was his purpose merely to kill that which he clearly loathed? The former is clearly a terrorist, it is arguable as to whether the latter is a terrorist or merely a demented individual.

Carrying on from the above point I would argue that anyone that commits mass murder of innocents by ANY means can be said to be sane.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Will they make him put his shirt back on first?

Nuclear implants? *chuckle*

Ishmael

 

[Liar]

I don't think thermonuclear weapons fall into the "personal defense" category.

Ishmael

That's one of those definitions that gets fuzzy the longer you look at it. What's a reasonable limit for personal defense? Hand gun? Machine gun? Grenade launcher?

Or what will it mean in the future? Private nano swarm with smart micro missiles? Can I have a quadcopter drone with a turret following me around, connected to a panic button on my Apple Watch? Cause that would be kind of cool. Would that fall under "open carry"?

/nerd and proud

 

[Ishmael]

That's one of those definitions that gets fuzzy the longer you look at it. What's a reasonable limit for personal defense? Hand gun? Machine gun? Grenade launcher?

Or what will it mean in the future? Private nano swarm with smart micro missiles? Can I have a quadcopter drone with a turret following me around, connected to a panic button on my Apple Watch? Cause that would be kind of cool. Would that fall under "open carry"?

/nerd and proud

Technology is certainly going to bring with it some interesting dilemmas.

To your first paragraph. Grenades are categorized as 'artillery' and do not fall into the category of 'arms'. The same is true for any sort of crew served weaponry. As far as machine guns go, according to the ruling handed down in the case of US v. Miller it can be argued that full on assault rifles are protected for personal use by the constitution.

Ishmael