|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on Apr 19, 2024 17:06:28 GMT
I thought they were in favor of a database of mentally ill people to check before buying guns? It was the left that fought against this because of the stigma associated with it.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on Apr 19, 2024 17:19:32 GMT
My point is that taking the term 'absolutist' to it's literal extreme to question the individual's stance to avoid discussing the issue is objectively weak, counselor. Well, abbey1227 invited the issue by complaining about government infringement without any context as to the what is and is not a legitimate government infringement. I see. Next time, offer him a prospective description of what you understand constitutes infringement and allow him the opportunity to negotiate with it so both of you can be on the same page with what he's talking about. You may be understanding it according to refined legal expertise whereas he may mean in far more informally and colloquially...if you are the party who needs to know, and he is the party who can choose whether or not to inform you...it would be best to recognize you are the party to ask in good faith. Good faith being that you communicate your willingness to accept that his observations are valid if only you could see them more from his perspective. Which you failed to do by demanding an explicit definition of terms. This is appropriate in many circumstances that are not casual conversations. If that's what you wanted, you failed. If that's what you wanted to appear to want, you failed. Putting him on the spot like that carries an adversarial tone and is likely to be or contribute to an end you your participation in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by ofunknownorigins on Apr 19, 2024 17:28:29 GMT
You will NEVER get an honest conversation out of a gun nut. Their priority is the guns. Because criminals and tyrannies have them...honest people having them is more than a priority, it's a necessity. What about if that person has been in and out of mental hospitals recently?
|
|
|
Post by ofunknownorigins on Apr 19, 2024 17:30:30 GMT
I thought they were in favor of a database of mentally ill people to check before buying guns? It was the left that fought against this because of the stigma associated with it. That I’m not sure on but my understanding is nutjobs can still buy guns.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on Apr 19, 2024 17:37:12 GMT
Because criminals and tyrannies have them...honest people having them is more than a priority, it's a necessity. What about if that person has been in and out of mental hospitals recently? Can you provide more case info than that? Such as...WHY they have been in and out of mental hospitals recently? Look, it's this simple: No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. If someone is demonstrated as being a danger to self or others, courts specializing in providing Americans with due process in those circumstances already exist and they are already doing what you insist they have to start doing. The reality is that what you are asserting and the NRA is opposing is the elimination of that due process mechanism and replacing it with check and flags issued by an incomprehensive bureaucracy.
|
|
|
Post by ofunknownorigins on Apr 19, 2024 17:40:01 GMT
What about if that person has been in and out of mental hospitals recently? Can you provide more case info than that? Such as...WHY they have been in and out of mental hospitals recently? Look, it's this simple: No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. If someone is demonstrated as being a danger to self or others, courts specializing in providing Americans with due process in those circumstances already exist and they are already doing what you insist they have to start doing. The reality is that what you are asserting and the NRA is opposing is the elimination of that due process mechanism and replacing it with check and flags issued by an incomprehensive bureaucracy. Case example would be, say, the guy who shot up V Tech in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on Apr 19, 2024 18:00:30 GMT
Can you provide more case info than that? Such as...WHY they have been in and out of mental hospitals recently? Look, it's this simple: No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. If someone is demonstrated as being a danger to self or others, courts specializing in providing Americans with due process in those circumstances already exist and they are already doing what you insist they have to start doing. The reality is that what you are asserting and the NRA is opposing is the elimination of that due process mechanism and replacing it with check and flags issued by an incomprehensive bureaucracy. Case example would be, say, the guy who shot up V Tech in 2007. Excellent choice, that one is interesting. There are laws in Virginia that specify mental health circumstances that disqualify someone from purchasing firearms legally. But as I already said, the legislative text cannot provide due process. And depending on it failed everyone. Including the shooter who, for all the mental health history, did not appear to receive any meaningful or comprehensive care in spite of how much time he spent in front of mental health professionals. This is a good case for arguing against relying even more on the system. So the law failed. This is your basis for an argument to change it. Fine. But get over the tunnel vision. The laws declaring the area a gun free zone made it impossible for any law abiding citizen to return fire and possibly prevent dozens of victims from being shot. But that's not the one you want to change...even though that ill-conceived law was as much to blame for their deaths as the flawed mental health disqualifications did. What you are doing is literally traveling the slippery slope. One law wasn't good enough...so expand it. Someone else will die, because someone is always killing someone. So expand it again. If the only justification is a perfect storm of tragedy...there is no ground on earth that ISN'T Sloped and lubricated. SO the answer is no. Laws like this didn't work. You don't double down on things that don't work.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 20, 2024 12:43:04 GMT
Mine hasn't either...........but I've heard it's becoming the norm
If they ask, I'll invite them to the range with me.
Go all Jackal on them......... ask them to set up the targets downfield
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 20, 2024 12:48:41 GMT
If the Govt wasn't trying to infringe non-stop............there'd be no reason or excuse to grift
Define "infringe." And unless you advocate the legalization of howitzers, don't pretend that you are a 2A "absolutist."
I have stated that exact position many times in the past.
If you've got enough land that none of the shells land in my yard........WHY would I care if you've got a cannon or a Howitzer?
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 20, 2024 12:55:22 GMT
My point is that taking the term 'absolutist' to it's literal extreme to question the individual's stance to avoid discussing the issue is objectively weak, counselor. Well, abbey1227 invited the issue by complaining about government infringement without any context as to the what is and is not a legitimate government infringement.
are you suggesting there haven't been any newer laws/ regulations and ordinances passed over the last several decades?
They say the typical American can not get thru their day without breaking some law........ guns are not much different these days. For instance, a friend of mine has to respond with a 'No' that he is not buying a gun to resell it. Now why would he be restricted from buying anything and then turning around and selling it? Unless he is knowingly providing weapons to felons, what's the problem?
We had a case not so long ago in Wisconsin of precisely that, by the way. 27 weapons ended up in gang member hands. But the smart ass judge thought he was making a funny with "Guns don't kill people" remark as he gave the guy a slap on the wrist.
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 20, 2024 23:18:42 GMT
Well, abbey1227 invited the issue by complaining about government infringement without any context as to the what is and is not a legitimate government infringement.
are you suggesting there haven't been any newer laws/ regulations and ordinances passed over the last several decades?
They say the typical American can not get thru their day without breaking some law........ guns are not much different these days. For instance, a friend of mine has to respond with a 'No' that he is not buying a gun to resell it. Now why would he be restricted from buying anything and then turning around and selling it? Unless he is knowingly providing weapons to felons, what's the problem?
We had a case not so long ago in Wisconsin of precisely that, by the way. 27 weapons ended up in gang member hands. But the smart ass judge thought he was making a funny with "Guns don't kill people" remark as he gave the guy a slap on the wrist.
So, you favor zero arms restrictions whatsoever?
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 20, 2024 23:59:09 GMT
I believe it should be obvious that it depends on how "mentally ill" they are. Not everyone receiving benefits or seeking professional help is very seriously mentally ill. The people seeking help are probably not very ill at all. Remember Catch-22. If a person is psychotic I doubt they would have the freedom to abuse gun ownership anyway if they had one. So it comes down to how well we can predict who, between those extremes, should or should not have a gun. I think most people flatter ourselves on how well we can predict. I do understand the desire to make a responsible decision, but I expect there would be errors. I would hope that higher level mental health professionals (That's a lot of schooling right there.) would make appropriate judgements of cases. A problem there could be that it jeopardizes the doctor / patient relationship. And yet the government attempting to play doctor could be the worse problem. I believe government trying to play doctor with the abortion issue will prove to be a mistake. If it angers you that I have no easy answer, please understand that I have no easy answer because there isn't one. It would be great if we could simply ban guns at the slightest indication of a mental or social problem, to err on the side of caution. That however could be a very costly error.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 21, 2024 12:23:08 GMT
So, you favor zero arms restrictions whatsoever?
course not.
For instance, you rob someone using a gun? You lose your gun rights.
|
|
|
Post by DalekFred on Apr 21, 2024 12:42:24 GMT
If the Govt wasn't trying to infringe non-stop............there'd be no reason or excuse to grift "Some folks prefer not to see their children's heads blown off............therefore............Wayne LaPierre needs me to buy him *another* multi-million dollar vacation to the Virgin Islands." Yup, checks out.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 21, 2024 13:01:08 GMT
"Some folks prefer not to see their children's heads blown off............therefore............Wayne LaPierre needs me to buy him *another* multi-million dollar vacation to the Virgin Islands." Yup, checks out.
In the United States of Abortiomerica? We love seeing the meat train filled.
Are you claiming those school Gun Free Zones don't work?
|
|