United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Deleted member 2517]

@x SF med,


Mentally ill, should be found to be unfit by a judge, and when that is done, they should be put in a funny house until they are fit to be in society. If/when they are found fit, they should have their rights restored and unrestricted.

Everyone with a mental disability should be thrown into a mental institution? So someone with Autism or schizophrenia shouldn't be left with their families, but should be institutionalized? I hope- and honestly don't think- that is what you truly believe. It is something to think about though- someone who is high functioning, and/or hasn't committed any crime (ex. They go to a Psychologist in college and they are diagnosed with schizophrenia, it can be controlled with meds) do you just toss them in a hospital or psych ward or whatever, or do you keep them out, provide them their freedom and care they need while limiting (perhaps only temporarily) one specific right. Which sounds more logical?

 

[comrade-z]

Rights are not necessarily restored simply because you served your sentence, depending on the state - some states require that you petition if you want to get your right to vote back even after serving your sentence.

Here is an interesting fact, assuming we are going by the legal definitions of rape/sexual harassment, something like 10% of the male population in America would be put to death. Doesn't really change anything, but it does add some perspective to how widespread the problem is.

As an aside, let us remember that a judge ruling that someone is "mentally unfit to own a firearm" and "mentally unfit to be in society" are two *very* separate things. And that the "funny house" can sometimes be a traumatizing experience for those that are "less crazy" when they find themselves living with truly non-functional people for a period of time that is for someone else to decide.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Everyone with a mental disability should be thrown into a mental institution? So someone with Autism or schizophrenia shouldn't be left with their families, but should be institutionalized? I hope- and honestly don't think- that is what you truly believe. It is something to think about though- someone who is high functioning, and/or hasn't committed any crime (ex. They go to a Psychologist in college and they are diagnosed with schizophrenia, it can be controlled with meds) do you just toss them in a hospital or psych ward or whatever, or do you keep them out, provide them their freedom and care they need while limiting (perhaps only temporarily) one specific right. Which sounds more logical?

Everyone with a mental disability should be thrown into a mental institution? So someone with Autism or schizophrenia shouldn't be left with their families, but should be institutionalized? I hope- and honestly don't think- that is what you truly believe. It is something to think about though- someone who is high functioning, and/or hasn't committed any crime (ex. They go to a Psychologist in college and they are diagnosed with schizophrenia, it can be controlled with meds) do you just toss them in a hospital or psych ward or whatever, or do you keep them out, provide them their freedom and care they need while limiting (perhaps only temporarily) one specific right. Which sounds more logical?

I again feel that if that person cannot be trusted in society with a weapon, than they should not be in society. I understand your POV and the logic behind it. It sounds great for their family to care for them, until some other knuckle head decides that families who have a mentally ill person cannot have a gun b/c that mentally ill person might get a hold of that gun and go "Sandy Hook" or something.

I get my opinions are not popular, it doesn't change them.

Comrade Z, why would a judge rule that someone is unsafe to have a weapon and not remove them from society. If they want a gun, they will get one. If someone is really that crazy or ill that they cannot be trusted with a weapon, I don't want them in society. This idea that magically taking someones right away makes everyone safe, is nuts IMO.

I think there are many ways to deal with mental illness, ways to remove those who are untrustworthy from general society without locking them into a hospital.

 

[comrade-z]

Comrade Z, why would a judge rule that someone is unsafe to have a weapon and not remove them from society. If they want a gun, they will get one. If someone is really that crazy or ill that they cannot be trusted with a weapon, I don't want them in society. This idea that magically taking someones right away makes everyone safe, is nuts IMO.

I think there are many ways to deal with mental illness, ways to remove those who are untrustworthy from general society without locking them into a hospital.

Fair enough.

 

[Polar Bear]

74 pages of BS, Next...some of you are just not listening and just reading and being hard headed. Please read, really read and think about what you are posting. Yes my opinion of some has changed in this thread since you have shown zero ability to look outside your little box.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Im going to say this and than back away from the board for a while. I can come up with all types of rules that I personally think would be better for society as a whole. A few off the top of my head:

1) Punishment for adultery to include loss of joint property.
2) Mandatory civil/mil service upon becoming an adult.
3) death penalties for sexual assault, murder and large scale theft.
4) Sterilization for child abusers and neglect.
5) mandatory training before owning a gun.
6) mandatory duty to carry that gun and act in the defense of fellow citizen's.

I can go on and on, are they reasonable to me? You bet they are, however, are they reasonable to everyone? Nope. We are a nation of free people, free to live how we choose, until our actions infringe upon anothers liberty. People should be punished when they commit offenses against society and the liberty's of others. But making laws and restrictions against the masses due to the actions of a few, regardless how reasonable we may feel they are, is not right. This is why I take the stance I do, its easy for me to want to control others, its easy for me to want it my way. Its harder to accept that the freedom's I want belong to us all, and not the popularity of the time or the opinion of the current. I think it would be hypocritical of me to demand liberty for my self, while wanting to restrict others. Instead I choose to demand liberty for everyone, even the unpopular ones.

74 pages and I have not changed my stance, not b/c I don't listen or understand opinion's, but b/c I believe in freedom and I'm not going to sell those beliefs for false security and I'm not willing to trample the rights of people to suit my personal opinions. If that makes any of you feel "different" about me, so be it. I respect everyone on here, even when we strongly disagree about things. I hope that remains mutual.

 

[policemedic]

Intressting so children have freedom of speach and religion, gun ownership, 4th and 5th amendment rights? That doesn't seem to be the way it works inbthe school system, family protective services, or in the legal system criminal or civil. But then again if they do inbfact have those rights, than they should have all of them.

Is there a section of the Constitution, or an amendment thereto, that specifies its protections do not attach until one gains the age of majority?

Or are you suggesting that a police officer should be able to stop a child--without reasonable suspicion or probable cause--and search the child's person and effects, again without probable cause or a search warrant? Should that police officer be able to interview or interrogate that child without their parents and without benefit of counsel?

Does this mean you can't parent your kid as you see fit? Of course not. But the child possesses rights to protect him from the government.

Yes I think once the criminal has completed all obligation of sentence, they should be allowed to buy a gun. I think if they are not trustworthy enough, they should have never been released in the first place.

Obviously, I disagree with this.

 

[ZmanTX]

Yes I think once the criminal has completed all obligation of sentence, they should be allowed to buy a gun. I think if they are not trustworthy enough, they should have never been released in the first place.

:wall:
Are you serious? How many repeat offenders promised they'd stop committing crimes?

 

[JBS]

Just as an aside, I think suppressors for citizens home defense can be argued as reasonably needed- or perhaps better described as useful. If I am attacked by a few thugs on my property and decide to defend, why should I be subjected to the possibility of hearing loss?

I don't walk around with earpro all the time. Deafness as a result of defending myself is a kind of secondary long term assault on my well being thanks to no fault of my own. Shouldn't I be able to protect myself from hearing loss too?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Just as an aside, I think suppressors for citizens home defense can be argued as reasonably needed- or perhaps better described as useful. If I am attacked by a few thugs on my property and decide to defend, why should I be subjected to the possibility of hearing loss?

I don't walk around with earpro all the time. Deafness as a result of defending myself is a kind of secondary long term assault on my well being thanks to no fault of my own. Shouldn't I be able to protect myself from hearing loss too?

Well, you can possess one, given you go through the proper channels. Hunters have presented the same argument and can use suppressors in many states.

 

[policemedic]

Yep. In many states a suppressor, SBR or SBS is acquirable with some paperwork, patience, and a $200 tax stamp.

 

[pardus]

5) mandatory training before owning a gun.

So you are in favor of regulation and restriction of gun rights after all...

 

[Marine0311]

So you are in favor of regulation and restriction of gun rights after all...

I don't consider that unreasonable at all. Before you own a gun you are required to get training in many states.

 

[JBS]

Should be a State thing, in my opinion, since the residents of New York collectively feel different about firearms than the residents of Texas or Arizona do. Why be governed by a remote power, completely disconnected from daily life in your region?

 

[Marine0311]

Should be a State thing, in my opinion, since the residents of New York collectively feel different about firearms than the residents of Texas or Arizona do. Why be governed by a remote power, completely disconnected from daily life in your region?

I agree it should be a state level thing however if I had the magical power I would ensure that everyone go through training before owning a firearm.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

So you are in favor of regulation and restriction of gun rights after all...

On a personal level (as in what would I want if I was king for a day) yes. On a constitutional level, no, unless the 2A is amended.

Being that this is not the united kingdom of JAB, and that it is a Republic structured by a constitution with a bill of rights, that limits the governments power to restrict the peoples rights, I do not support gun control of any kind by the federal government.

I've made my points pretty clear, what I think is "reasonable or responsible" is pretty irrelevant, what is constitutional is more relevant.

ETA: JBS I agree 100% that states and even local government should have the power to decide their own rules for things such as gun control. As long as the do not restrict your ability to travel armed (ie pass through).

 

[RustyShackleford]

that states and even local government should have the power to decide their own rules for things such as gun control. As long as the do not restrict your ability to travel armed (ie pass through).

Not te states or local government. The people should have that power, not their elected mouth pieces. We have all witnessed what self-serving politicians do when given the chance.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Not te states or local government. The people should have that power, not their elected immouth pieces. We have all witnessed what self-serving politicians do when given the chance.

Yeah I agree, generally speaking most local/state governments are more in touch with the people and when they are not the people get rid of them quickly. In Texas the larger metro areas tend to be more left-wing than the rural areas, which are more right wing. I think states should set the rules for licensing and the like, but local gov should set rules specific to their communities.

I think some places Chicago, NYC, LA take it to extreme,

 

[Brill]

I don't consider that unreasonable at all. Before you own a gun you are required to get training in many states.

Or authorize military quals to meet that standard, if required, and if shown to reduce NDs that result in injury. (Most military are trained in firearms but quite a few NDs.). Does EVERY state require drivers training to get a license or just proficiency?

However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?

 

[0699]

I don't consider that unreasonable at all. Before you own a gun you are required to get training in many states.

Should there be required training before I give a speech in public, or join a church?

Serious question. Why should the execution of one right require training, but not others?