Another insane person with aa assault weapon.

Jarod said:
So what does absolute mean to you and how does due process come into play?

Do you believe the States have a right to limit firearms?

My experience with shotguns is that they are difficult to fire in a rapid succession after the first two shots. I personally do not believe an insane person should have any firearms.
Click to expand...

your personal beliefs don't trump the consitutional rights of others.
 
78jkeo-jpg.1183254
 
Jarod said:
Do you believe insane people should be allowed assault rifles? We could make what would be an imperfect system that would make it much harder for insane people to get such a gun.

First, what do you believe about the right to bear arms, where are the edges? Is it absolute? Do we include all "arms"? What are the limits and why?


I know these are hard questions, but they deserve to be addressed and would make a good starting point for what is possible.

(All of this said with the belief that addressing mental illness and public access to health care is the easier piece of this equation.)
Click to expand...

You qualify your “Do you believe …” statement with “insane people” and then use that loaded moniker “assault rifle.” What I believe is that the 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to possess firearms. What I believe is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. While I may (or may not) go as far as STY on my beliefs, we are very much on the same page when it comes to ownership of firearms. Much like Dutch Uncle and Rune, with whom I have disagreements in other political areas, but we are on the same page with the subject of gun ownership.

You asked about “the edges.” I refuse to try to identify any edges. Do you know why? Because when we identify the edges we have a tendency to start trimming them away, making different edges, and then we start trimming them away, making different edges…until the next thing you know gun ownership in this country would look very much like gun ownership in most European countries or Australia, which I contend is the end game of most political gun ownership restrictors (they’re really gun grabbers but I‘ll accommodate them by calling them what they think they are.)

Think about it, the three highlighted gun incidents this past week or so took place in a state where there are the most stringent (and I contend, unconstitutional) gun restrictions within the Unites States. So us freer states adopting their much more restrictive (and I contend, unconstitutional) gun policy would not stop such inane acts of violence. Which brings us back to STY’s question:

Originally posted by SmarterthanYou

how do you plan on doing that without interfering with the rights of all others?
Click to expand...
 
leaningright said:
You qualify your “Do you believe …” statement with “insane people” and then use that loaded moniker “assault rifle.” What I believe is that the 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to possess firearms. What I believe is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. While I may (or may not) go as far as STY on my beliefs, we are very much on the same page when it comes to ownership of firearms. Much like Dutch Uncle and Rune, with whom I have disagreements in other political areas, but we are on the same page with the subject of gun ownership.

You asked about “the edges.” I refuse to try to identify any edges. Do you know why? Because when we identify the edges we have a tendency to start trimming them away, making different edges, and then we start trimming them away, making different edges…until the next thing you know gun ownership in this country would look very much like gun ownership in most European countries or Australia, which I contend is the end game of most political gun ownership restrictors (they’re really gun grabbers but I‘ll accommodate them by calling them what they think they are.)

Think about it, the three highlighted gun incidents this past week or so took place in a state where there are the most stringent (and I contend, unconstitutional) gun restrictions within the Unites States. So us freer states adopting their much more restrictive (and I contend, unconstitutional) gun policy would not stop such inane acts of violence. Which brings us back to STY’s question:
Click to expand...

Scalia identified the edges for you in Heller. Which supports any state law that chooses to ban semiautomatic rifles.

There is a direct correlation between stricter state gun laws and lower gun death rates. You are free to demand your rights and debate this issue, but attempting to claim that strict gun laws are ineffective is a non-starter. Advance your argument, but stop pretending that your 'right' doesn't cost lives, because it does. Live with it, but stop pretending it isn't true.
 
Jarod said:
So what does absolute mean to you and how does due process come into play?
Click to expand...
Absolute means that there can be no restriction, limitation, or infringement UNLESS some act perpetrated by the citizen causes either criminal conviction or adjudication of mental illness. In those cases, DUE PROCESS OF LAW takes place so an determination can be made to either incarcerate said citizen or commit said citizen, thereby negating that right until such time as that citizen is reinstated in to society.

Jarod said:
Do you believe the States have a right to limit firearms?
Click to expand...
That depends entirely upon their particular state Constitution

Jarod said:
My experience with shotguns is that they are difficult to fire in a rapid succession after the first two shots.
Click to expand...
There are many brands of shotguns that are semi-automatic that can fire quite rapidly and with little issue over control.

Jarod said:
I personally do not believe an insane person should have any firearms.
Click to expand...
then that 'insane' person should not be in society, period.
 
Concart said:
Scalia identified the edges for you in Heller. Which supports any state law that chooses to ban semiautomatic rifles.

There is a direct correlation between stricter state gun laws and lower gun death rates. You are free to demand your rights and debate this issue, but attempting to claim that strict gun laws are ineffective is a non-starter. Advance your argument, but stop pretending that your 'right' doesn't cost lives, because it does. Live with it, but stop pretending it isn't true.
Click to expand...
No doubt since there is also a direct correlation between banning private automobiles and auto fatalities. "Leave it to the professionals!"

Over 32,000 lives could be saved each year by banning private auto ownership and/or limiting cars to one-horse power just like the Founders had.

Why do people need 150HP cars??? A galloping horse goes about 40MPH. Why do people need to go faster than in the days of the Founders? They can just leave for their destination earlier.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-estimates-traffic-deaths-2022-third-quarter
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has released its latest projections for traffic fatalities in 2022, estimating that 31,785 people died in traffic crashes in the first nine months of the year. This is a 0.2% decrease as compared to the 31,850 estimated fatalities during the same time in 2021.

Americans continue to drive more than during the height of the pandemic, with preliminary Federal Highway Administration data showing a 1.6% increase in vehicle miles traveled, or about 39 billion miles. As a result, the estimated fatality rate for the first nine months of 2022 decreased to 1.30 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, down from the projected rate of 1.32 fatalities during the same time in 2021.
Click to expand...
 
leaningright said:
You qualify your “Do you believe …” statement with “insane people” and then use that loaded moniker “assault rifle.” What I believe is that the 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to possess firearms. What I believe is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. While I may (or may not) go as far as STY on my beliefs, we are very much on the same page when it comes to ownership of firearms. Much like Dutch Uncle and Rune, with whom I have disagreements in other political areas, but we are on the same page with the subject of gun ownership.

You asked about “the edges.” I refuse to try to identify any edges. Do you know why? Because when we identify the edges we have a tendency to start trimming them away, making different edges, and then we start trimming them away, making different edges…until the next thing you know gun ownership in this country would look very much like gun ownership in most European countries or Australia, which I contend is the end game of most political gun ownership restrictors (they’re really gun grabbers but I‘ll accommodate them by calling them what they think they are.)

Think about it, the three highlighted gun incidents this past week or so took place in a state where there are the most stringent (and I contend, unconstitutional) gun restrictions within the Unites States. So us freer states adopting their much more restrictive (and I contend, unconstitutional) gun policy would not stop such inane acts of violence. Which brings us back to STY’s question:
Click to expand...

I think I understand your well thought out post, and appreciate the answer. But, you see, your refusal to acknowledge an "edge" makes it impossible to discuss "SmarterthanYou"'s question. It appears you do admit there is an edge.. and I would say then that you do not agree that the right is ABSOLUTE, and yes, that becomes a starting point for the discussion about how to keep certain weapons out of the hands of people, who I think we agree, should not have access to them. When you refuse to acknowledge a reality, that we agree certain people should not have access, then we are in a land of fiction where the discussion cannot take place.

The reality is that there are limits on who should have access to certain weapons designed to easily kill large groups of unarmed people. (No matter what you call them) Shying away from honest discussion betrays a intellectual dishonesty and fear of honest discussion.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Absolute means that there can be no restriction, limitation, or infringement UNLESS some act perpetrated by the citizen causes either criminal conviction or adjudication of mental illness. In those cases, DUE PROCESS OF LAW takes place so an determination can be made to either incarcerate said citizen or commit said citizen, thereby negating that right until such time as that citizen is reinstated in to society.


That depends entirely upon their particular state Constitution


There are many brands of shotguns that are semi-automatic that can fire quite rapidly and with little issue over control.


then that 'insane' person should not be in society, period.
Click to expand...

Ok, so using how you define absolute, we can make progress, how do we decide the standard for the due process? Is there somewhere short of incarceration where due process can result in restriction on gun ownership, if not why?

What constitutionally justifies the incarceration of or removal of rights of citizens? Is it whatever the government says? Could the government say, for example, if you are convicted of jaywalking you can no longer own a firearm? Basically, Where is the line on when due process can and cannot lead to firearm restrictions?
 
Jarod said:
Ok, so using how you define absolute, we can make progress, how do we decide the standard for the due process? Is there somewhere short of incarceration where due process can result in restriction on gun ownership, if not why?

What constitutionally justifies the incarceration of or removal of rights of citizens? Is it whatever the government says? Could the government say, for example, if you are convicted of jaywalking you can no longer own a firearm? Basically, Where is the line on when due process can and cannot lead to firearm restrictions?
Click to expand...

this why we have it as absolute, so fascists can't slow walk everyone's rights away, with their dumb "points" and "concerns".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Trump and Santos may be facing severe legal problems...which saying stupid shit often does. Beto keeps running for different offices in Texas and keeps losing because of his stupid shit.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Beto. If it were not for the Dems putting him up for gov last cycle we might have had a Dem governor in TX now. Especially after the stupid and ugly shit Abbot does.
 
Phantasmal said:
The majority of Texans don’t care about the quality of the candidates, they re-elected Patrick, Cruz and Abbott. All crooks.
Click to expand...

Yep, Beto ran against Abbot as well. And I don't think Cruz won by a landslide Any other Dem with good political instincts would have beat either MAGA.
 
Phantasmal said:
I guess you missed his addressing the subjects many times on the campaign trail.

https://betoorourke.com/issue/promote-gun-safety/

https://www.mentalhealthforus.net/candidate/beto-orourke/
Click to expand...

That's because mental health is an afterthought, the lesser priority. The first link doesn't even mention mental health but has a long laundry list of banning things.

The second link was an interview by a mental health group, not Beto's staff or election page: https://www.mentalhealthforus.net/about/platform/
One in 5 American adults – tens of millions of people – will experience mental illness or addiction in any given year. However, the current system is not meeting the needs of millions of Americans.


We envision a future in which:
  • mental health and addiction — including suicide and overdose prevention — are at the forefront of all policy conversations and improvement is prioritized at federal, state, and community levels;
  • comprehensive, holistic approaches to mental health are integrated into physical health care; and
  • our currently struggling systems are reformed to effectively care for and support the mental health of all Americans.
Click to expand...

My main point being that Democrats seek to ban guns first and treat mental health second...if at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top