Thoughts and Prayers

[mtangelsfan]

40 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’ve mentioned several times that I believe the 2nd amendment should be repealed.  

Go ahead and let the mentally challenged have guns also.  It’s a guaranteed constitutional right and we wouldn’t want to infringe their right to a gun on the basis of what they may do with it. 

 

Since we all know that the second amendment is not getting repealed any time soon, can we agree that since it is a constitutional right that due process must be given to take that right away?

If we can agree on that, then we can figure out that due process and get some good restrictions, especially on violent offenders.

[UndertheHalo]

25 minutes ago, floplag said:

Please stop exaggerating.  I said no such thing, in fact i said the contrary that i do support restrictions, but it needs to be based on fact, not assumptions and possibilities.   Its highly probably that teenage drivers, especially boys, will have at least one accident, do we ban them from driving?  

Your opinion on 2A is yours to have, but until that time comes, it is there and must be treated as such.   I dont agree personally, though i also dont think people need arsenals or open carry, or many other such things.

I’m exaggerating ? I used your exact premise. You’re the one referencing aids stigmatization in a gun discussion.  

But since you brought it up.  To be clear, I think people who have AIDS or HIV should be criminally prosecuted for hiding/not disclosing their condition to sexual partners.   Thanks for bringing the strawman. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

20 minutes ago, Adam said:

I agree

I can accept this honesty. 

[Blarg]

7 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’m exaggerating ? I used your exact premise. You’re the one referencing aids stigmatization in a gun discussion.  

But since you brought it up.  To be clear, I think people who have AIDS or HIV should be criminally prosecuted for hiding/not disclosing their condition to sexual partners.  

Should it be a felony or misdemeanor? Because California just downgraded it to the equivalent of spitting on a sidewalk. In Italy you get 24 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/italian-man-sentenced-24-years-infecting-dozens-women-hiv/

Edited November 8, 2017 by Blarg

[UndertheHalo]

12 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Should it be a felony or misdemeanor? Because California just downgraded it to the equivalent of spitting on a sidewalk. In Italy you get 24 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/italian-man-sentenced-24-years-infecting-dozens-women-hiv/

Definitely a felony.  It’s unfortunate and terrible legislation.  

I’m not a cheer leader guys.  I don’t agree with everything the democrats do.

[Adam]

20 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I can accept this honesty. 

Ditto. The stakes are obviously really high and if there is any issue that should require respect and honesty it's this one. 

[floplag]

43 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’m exaggerating ? I used your exact premise. You’re the one referencing aids stigmatization in a gun discussion.  

But since you brought it up.  To be clear, I think people who have AIDS or HIV should be criminally prosecuted for hiding/not disclosing their condition to sexual partners.   Thanks for bringing the strawman. 

Yes, i brought it up because its relevant.  You want to take away rights from people who have done no wrong or broken any laws on the basis of what they might do, its stigma, its denial of due process, and its wrong on every possible level.  The state of CA used exactly this to rescind the AIDS penalties due to the attached stigma those people face.  They didn't care about the public safety matter, only the stigma on those perpetrating it as it would discourage them from getting tested and getting help.  If you cant see how that's relevant here your not paying attention and blinded by your rage on the matter.  Strawman my ass, its fact.

I find it telling though that you still haven't answered the question.  I'll ask again, please define exactly what in your standards constitutes mental illness?   It seems clear that like most people you've grabbed onto this buzzword of mental illness without a clue how to define it. 

Mental illness can mean anything from depression to schizophrenia, to outright sociopathic psychosis.  Where do you draw that line?   and what other rights you feel they should be denied on the basis of said illness?   Don't even try to say none cause we both know once that door is open someone is going to walk thru it enthusiastically.  These things dont live in a vacuum, they set precedent.  

I will not support anything that holds people accountable for something they haven't done on the basis of what other people in a similar situation may have done, thats a door none of us want opened and virtually none of us could hold up to that standard.  That is to me as wrong as it can get.  Whats next, family history?  Your great grandfather excludes you?  

You want to talk about facts?  Restricting those with felony records of proven history of violence or other actions that indicate a predilection to violence, fine.. i'm right there with you.   But simply saying " oh you cant do this and so cause you may or may not do something in the future is as dystopian and asinine as it gets as far as im concerned whether we are talking about guns or literally anything else.   

[floplag]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

Since we all know that the second amendment is not getting repealed any time soon, can we agree that since it is a constitutional right that due process must be given to take that right away?

If we can agree on that, then we can figure out that due process and get some good restrictions, especially on violent offenders.

This is truth, and i fully support it.  

[UndertheHalo]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Yes, i brought it up because its relevant.  You want to take away rights from people who have done no wrong or broken any laws on the basis of what they might do, its stigma, its denial of due process, and its wrong on every possible level.  The state of CA used exactly this to rescind the AIDS penalties due to the attached stigma those people face.  They didn't care about the public safety matter, only the stigma on those perpetrating it as it would discourage them from getting tested and getting help.  If you cant see how that's relevant here your not paying attention and blinded by your rage on the matter.  Strawman my ass, its fact.

I find it telling though that you still haven't answered the question.  I'll ask again, please define exactly what in your standards constitutes mental illness?   It seems clear that like most people you've grabbed onto this buzzword of mental illness without a clue how to define it. 

Mental illness can mean anything from depression to schizophrenia, to outright sociopathic psychosis.  Where do you draw that line?   and what other rights you feel they should be denied on the basis of said illness?   Don't even try to say none cause we both know once that door is open someone is going to walk thru it enthusiastically.  These things dont live in a vacuum, they set precedent.  

I will not support anything that holds people accountable for something they haven't done on the basis of what other people in a similar situation may have done, thats a door none of us want opened and virtually none of us could hold up to that standard.  That is to me as wrong as it can get.  Whats next, family history?  Your great grandfather excludes you?  

You want to talk about facts?  Restricting those with felony records of proven history of violence or other actions that indicate a predilection to violence, fine.. i'm right there with you.   But simply saying " oh you cant do this and so cause you may or may not do something in the future is as dystopian and asinine as it gets as far as im concerned whether we are talking about guns or literally anything else.   

Ive answered the question 50 time Floplag.  Do you need it in caps ? I think anyone who’s been declared disabled due to clinically diagnosed mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.  Period.  I don’t give a shit about the specific condition.  If someone is not competent enough to have a bank account.  If they’re getting a government check because their mental problems prohibit them from getting a job.  I don’t think that it’s “denying them due process” to deny them a gun.  This isnt a fucking trial.  They have a mental illness.  It is what it is.  I disagree with you in the extreme that some massive infringement of their rights would be occurring.   

We accept infringements on rights for all kinds of things and that’s going to be my last point on this.  I’ve articulated myself extensively.  

I accept that you think gun ownership is a paramount holy right.  I accept that you think my position makes me an authoritarian monster.  We are so massively  ideologically separated on  this that we really don’t need to debate it anymore. 

And the aids thing is a strawman and a ridiculous one.  As if having a mental illness is the same as AIDs

Edited November 8, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Jason]

Those of you that are OK with repealing amendments in the Bill of Rights understand that once that ball gets rolling it won't stop right? Our wonderful elected officials will certainly target the others

[UndertheHalo]

I just don’t agree with that Jason.  The process to repeal any amendment is incredibly complicated.  It is damn near impossible.  If we ever got to a place where a plurality of Americans supported rescinding the 2nd amendment thus making it politically feasible.  I don’t think that would represent some magic repeal method for other amendments.  Also, and correct me if I’m wrong.  Is any amendment challenged like the 2nd ? One doesn’t immediately come to mind for me.

Anyway, it’s neither here nor there.  It’s not gonna happen. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Jason]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

I just don’t agree with that Jason.  The process to repeal any amendment is incredibly complicated.  It is damn near impossible.  If we ever got to a place where a plurality or Americans supported rescinding the 2nd amendment, I don’t think some magic repeal method will be unlocked.  

Anyway, it’s neither here nor there.  It’s not gonna happen. 

You underestimate the stupidity of the American voter and who they choose to represent them. 

[UndertheHalo]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

You underestimate the stupidity of the American voter and who they choose to represent them. 

Lol, I don’t think I do.  I don’t say it because I have faith in the discretion of the typical voter.  I say it because the system is difficult and people argue about everything.  I just don’t see it ever becoming politically viable for say the 1st amendment to be repealed (thank goodnesss) I don’t think 2nd amendment holds the same transcendent value as women’s sufferage.  It’s a product of its time.  The world is much different.   So in 20 or 30 years maybe our attitude on guns will have changed, maybe.  I don’t see the same happening for aforementioned rights. 

Anyway, the old white dudes from the revolution got that part right.  Which I’m sure we agree is a good thing. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Rico]

Previous acts of violence are a greater indicator of future violence than mental health issues are.  So I think we're focussing on the wrong thing.  It's not going to go over well, but IMO one conviction of domestic violence should be enough to lose your gun privileges.

[arch stanton]

It is enough but if it's not reported to the database it doesn't matter

[Tank]

On 11/7/2017 at 8:27 PM, Adam said:

Exactly. The last thing we need is a precedent for stripping people of constitutional rights.

Perhaps the question to ask is whether or not owning a gun should be a constitutional right.

[mtangelsfan]

7 hours ago, Tank said:

Perhaps the question to ask is whether or not owning a gun should be a constitutional right.

Well it is.  I would think that instead of hoping for something that won't happen for several decades the better path would be to work in the confines of what they are.

As of now they are a Constitutional right and should be handled that way.

They might be coming for one that effects you one day.

[Jason]

8 hours ago, Tank said:

Perhaps the question to ask is whether or not owning a gun should be a constitutional right.

Every human being has the right to self preservation so it has to be a right

[arch stanton]

I wish you guys the best of luck as you work to overturn the 2nd amendment but here's some other things to consider. It's not always best to try to resolve things at the 330 million person level

http://www.fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm

State participation in the NICS system is voluntary as the federal government cannot mandate state participation due to the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.^iv

In 2013, the firearms and ammunition industry investigated how many states were submitting prohibiting mental health and other disqualifying records to NICS. The industry obtained data from the FBI showing that at the end of 2012, far too many states failed to submit these records that established someone is prohibited from owning a firearm under current law. At that time, 19 states had made fewer than 100 records available and 12 of these had made fewer than 10 records available.^v

[floplag]

15 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ive answered the question 50 time Floplag.  Do you need it in caps ? I think anyone who’s been declared disabled due to clinically diagnosed mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.  Period.  I don’t give a shit about the specific condition.  If someone is not competent enough to have a bank account.  If they’re getting a government check because their mental problems prohibit them from getting a job.  I don’t think that it’s “denying them due process” to deny them a gun.  This isnt a fucking trial.  They have a mental illness.  It is what it is.  I disagree with you in the extreme that some massive infringement of their rights would be occurring.   

We accept infringements on rights for all kinds of things and that’s going to be my last point on this.  I’ve articulated myself extensively.  

I accept that you think gun ownership is a paramount holy right.  I accept that you think my position makes me an authoritarian monster.  We are so massively  ideologically separated on  this that we really don’t need to debate it anymore. 

And the aids thing is a strawman and a ridiculous one.  As if having a mental illness is the same as AIDs

Ill let you have the last word, its not that important to me, but the truly funny part is that were really not that far off, its just in the fine details we dont agree and the assumption of guilt without action.

[Tank]

5 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Well it is.  I would think that instead of hoping for something that won't happen for several decades the better path would be to work in the confines of what they are.

gun control isn't solving the problem, though. every time one of these mass shootings happens there are calls for new laws. but the problem remains because there are big cracks in the system and arguably the most powerful lobby in the country keeps pushing to hold back on some additional things that might actually help. so maybe the question needs a look as to whether or not guns should be allowed at all. the framers talked about a well-armed militia; the courts have interpreted that in ways that i don't think honor the spirit of that amendment.

 

5 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

As of now they are a Constitutional right and should be handled that way.

how? by doing what? what can be done to reduce the ever-growing amount of these horrific tragedies? @red321 had some good suggestions a couple of weeks ago. are any of our lawmakers willing to step away from the clutches of the NRA and do something reasonable?

5 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

They might be coming for one that effects you one day.

of this i have no doubt. freedom of speech and freedom of worship are my biggest concerns.

[Tank]

4 hours ago, Jason said:

Every human being has the right to self preservation so it has to be a right

but does it have to be a gun?

[arch stanton]

Check the link I posted above. The feds can’t compel the states to comply. It all has to be done at a lower level 

[Thomas]

I think the term "mentally ill" is being thrown around too casually in this thread. For one it stigmatizes those with these illnesses. But also the term is entirely too vague. Without hyperbole if you go to a mental health professional, you'll almost certainly be defined as having at the very least a mild categorization of some mental illness. An equivalent to the common cold perhaps but something. A college student suffering from mild anxiety and/or depression because of upcoming finals isn't I'm sure the context most people mean when saying mentally ill. Perhaps a better categorization for the much more severe (and hence dangerous) cases would be appropriate?

[mtangelsfan]

15 minutes ago, Tank said:

gun control isn't solving the problem, though. every time one of these mass shootings happens there are calls for new laws. but the problem remains because there are big cracks in the system and arguably the most powerful lobby in the country keeps pushing to hold back on some additional things that might actually help. so maybe the question needs a look as to whether or not guns should be allowed at all. the framers talked about a well-armed militia; the courts have interpreted that in ways that i don't think honor the spirit of that amendment.

 

how? by doing what? what can be done to reduce the ever-growing amount of these horrific tragedies? @red321 had some good suggestions a couple of weeks ago. are any of our lawmakers willing to step away from the clutches of the NRA and do something reasonable?

of this i have no doubt. freedom of speech and freedom of worship are my biggest concerns.

I agree.  Because we aren't talking about the root causes.  There is a vast difference between repealing the Second Amendment and some sensible gun restrictions.  

We have always had guns so what has changed?  Rapid firing guns have been around for decades, so why now?

Again, what has changed?