Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A sensible discussion on mass killings
Author Message
CAJUNNATION Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,689
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 75
I Root For: Western Civilization
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #21
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Passing a basic skills written test and live handling test for me is not unreasonable. Then I can get a nifty laminated card with my photo and a seller can swipe or scan it to see I'm OK.

If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process.

Agree with all of the above.



Quote:You really want to bring down the numbers, you need an affordable and accessible health care system. Want to cut homicides, then you have to do something about drug addiction because many of those homicides are related to control of distribution rights or the commission of crimes to fund addiction.

Because we're trying to guarantee everything to everybody, certain populations are excluded. Right now, that is mental health. This is a crisis. Until we guarantee the minimum, not the maximum and not single payer, to the general population, we will never be able to properly treat critical populations like the mentally ill. There should be a means tested public safety net and individual plans tailored after that by private sources.


Quote:We have taken the single phase approach to drugs. We are going to interdict as many as possible. Well basic economics come into play. Constraining the supply increases the cost which increases the profit per unit delivered and sold. This is the richest country in the world..... You can't price drugs out of use in the US.

You have to attack demand and that means treatment and the reality is treatment is hard to obtain and very expensive. It is cheaper to remain untreated.

Why not both? The vast majority of illegal drugs comes from the south. Build a wall and place the military along it and supply will go way, way down.

As for demand and treatment. Again, this is a critical population that has been neglected due to the current single payer, universal trends in healthcare.

Bottom line. We could severely restrict supply if we wanted to, and we could design a healthcare industry with the flexibility to treat critical populations, if we wanted to.

But, political, ideological PC BS prevents us.
03-05-2018 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #22
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 04:28 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Passing a basic skills written test and live handling test for me is not unreasonable. Then I can get a nifty laminated card with my photo and a seller can swipe or scan it to see I'm OK.

If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process.

Agree with all of the above.



Quote:You really want to bring down the numbers, you need an affordable and accessible health care system. Want to cut homicides, then you have to do something about drug addiction because many of those homicides are related to control of distribution rights or the commission of crimes to fund addiction.

Because we're trying to guarantee everything to everybody, certain populations are excluded. Right now, that is mental health. This is a crisis. Until we guarantee the minimum, not the maximum and not single payer, to the general population, we will never be able to properly treat critical populations like the mentally ill. There should be a means tested public safety net and individual plans tailored after that by private sources.


Quote:We have taken the single phase approach to drugs. We are going to interdict as many as possible. Well basic economics come into play. Constraining the supply increases the cost which increases the profit per unit delivered and sold. This is the richest country in the world..... You can't price drugs out of use in the US.

You have to attack demand and that means treatment and the reality is treatment is hard to obtain and very expensive. It is cheaper to remain untreated.

Why not both? The vast majority of illegal drugs comes from the south. Build a wall and place the military along it and supply will go way, way down.

As for demand and treatment. Again, this is a critical population that has been neglected due to the current single payer, universal trends in healthcare.

Bottom line. We could severely restrict supply if we wanted to, and we could design a healthcare industry with the flexibility to treat critical populations, if we wanted to.

But, political, ideological PC BS prevents us.

I'm skeptical that walking or driving an unguarded portion of the border is major drug path. Most of the fentanyl causing overdoses is apparently coming from China. Just easier to hide drugs in a shipping container arriving by ship or a truck going through inspection at the border than to rely on some schmuck carrying them if you are interested in volume.
03-05-2018 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #23
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 03:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  How about we try enforcing the laws and regulations that are already on the books before we add more laws and regulations to be ignored by the government?

If the government actually does it's job and enforces the laws already on the books you'll see a dramatic drop in firearms homicides. Will it stop them all? No. Nothing will.

Make government officials who fail to do their jobs open to criminal and civil consequences. If they know they can lose their freedom and everything they own perhaps they'll actually do their jobs in the future.

Figure out a way to make the judicial system realize that gun charges are not "throw away" charges in plea bargains. Far too often gun violations are the first charges dropped.

That's both "doing something" and it preserves the rights of law abiding citizens.

We have the highest incarceration rate in the industrial world by a wide margin so I'm not sure more sentencing can fix it unless we start flushing out the lower risk offenders into something else to make room.

The big church shooting in Texas could likely have been avoided if the Air Force had reported the guy to the database like they were supposed to but I've yet to see that there is a big number of people legally buying who shouldn't.

There are two sorts of prosecutors in the US. Elected and appointed. The appointed are in most states only Federal prosecutors who have dreams of running for a high level office.

You don't win over many voters throwing the book at a local alderman who forgot he had a loaded handgun with spare ammunition who tries to go through airport security. Nor do you win many friends by not dismissing the domestic abuse charge regarding the cops coming to a the local golf community when hubby gets drunk and rowdy with his wife and she doesn't want to press charges. You also don't win friends when you don't choose to divert or dismiss charges against their kid caught with a quantity of drugs that would be possession with intent for the kid with a public defender.
03-05-2018 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #24
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process. Today if I start hearing voices telling me to kill and I AGREE to inpatient treatment, I'm still eligible to buy, I only get flagged if I disagree to accept treatment and someone pursues an involuntary commitment through the courts.

We have thousands of people filling out paperwork declaring "Uncle Sam, I am too mentally ill to hold down a job. Please pay me out of my social security or give me SSI." None of these people are evaluated for gun possession unless involuntarily committed.

Driving is not a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

There has been a process to restrict the possession of firearms from the mentally ill since 1968. It does require a hearing before a judge, but as with the possibility of the removal of any rights this should be the case. Stripping someone of their Constitutional rights should be a hard process to prevent abuses. And there's no doubt in my mind that if your idea of a 1-800 number is instituted there will be massive abuses.
03-05-2018 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #25
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process. Today if I start hearing voices telling me to kill and I AGREE to inpatient treatment, I'm still eligible to buy, I only get flagged if I disagree to accept treatment and someone pursues an involuntary commitment through the courts.

We have thousands of people filling out paperwork declaring "Uncle Sam, I am too mentally ill to hold down a job. Please pay me out of my social security or give me SSI." None of these people are evaluated for gun possession unless involuntarily committed.

Driving is not a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

There has been a process to restrict the possession of firearms from the mentally ill since 1968. It does require a hearing before a judge, but as with the possibility of the removal of any rights this should be the case. Stripping someone of their Constitutional rights should be a hard process to prevent abuses. And there's no doubt in my mind that if your idea of a 1-800 number is instituted there will be massive abuses.

Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just what regulation and disciplining do you support?
03-05-2018 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #26
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process. Today if I start hearing voices telling me to kill and I AGREE to inpatient treatment, I'm still eligible to buy, I only get flagged if I disagree to accept treatment and someone pursues an involuntary commitment through the courts.

We have thousands of people filling out paperwork declaring "Uncle Sam, I am too mentally ill to hold down a job. Please pay me out of my social security or give me SSI." None of these people are evaluated for gun possession unless involuntarily committed.

Driving is not a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

There has been a process to restrict the possession of firearms from the mentally ill since 1968. It does require a hearing before a judge, but as with the possibility of the removal of any rights this should be the case. Stripping someone of their Constitutional rights should be a hard process to prevent abuses. And there's no doubt in my mind that if your idea of a 1-800 number is instituted there will be massive abuses.

Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just what regulation and disciplining do you support?

I hate copying and pasting something I've already posted but it's appropriate here:


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zachariah Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams


The intent of our Founding Fathers is clear
03-05-2018 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #27
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 10:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process. Today if I start hearing voices telling me to kill and I AGREE to inpatient treatment, I'm still eligible to buy, I only get flagged if I disagree to accept treatment and someone pursues an involuntary commitment through the courts.

We have thousands of people filling out paperwork declaring "Uncle Sam, I am too mentally ill to hold down a job. Please pay me out of my social security or give me SSI." None of these people are evaluated for gun possession unless involuntarily committed.

Driving is not a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

There has been a process to restrict the possession of firearms from the mentally ill since 1968. It does require a hearing before a judge, but as with the possibility of the removal of any rights this should be the case. Stripping someone of their Constitutional rights should be a hard process to prevent abuses. And there's no doubt in my mind that if your idea of a 1-800 number is instituted there will be massive abuses.

Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just what regulation and disciplining do you support?

I hate copying and pasting something I've already posted but it's appropriate here:


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zachariah Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams


The intent of our Founding Fathers is clear

I didn't ask about the founding fathers, I asked your thoughts.
03-06-2018 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #28
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-06-2018 12:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 10:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process. Today if I start hearing voices telling me to kill and I AGREE to inpatient treatment, I'm still eligible to buy, I only get flagged if I disagree to accept treatment and someone pursues an involuntary commitment through the courts.

We have thousands of people filling out paperwork declaring "Uncle Sam, I am too mentally ill to hold down a job. Please pay me out of my social security or give me SSI." None of these people are evaluated for gun possession unless involuntarily committed.

Driving is not a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

There has been a process to restrict the possession of firearms from the mentally ill since 1968. It does require a hearing before a judge, but as with the possibility of the removal of any rights this should be the case. Stripping someone of their Constitutional rights should be a hard process to prevent abuses. And there's no doubt in my mind that if your idea of a 1-800 number is instituted there will be massive abuses.

Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just what regulation and disciplining do you support?

I hate copying and pasting something I've already posted but it's appropriate here:


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zachariah Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams


The intent of our Founding Fathers is clear

I didn't ask about the founding fathers, I asked your thoughts.

I have a long and detailed history on here that shows my stance. The militia defense that is used by hoplophobes is just as predictable as someone saying "the Second Amendment only covered muskets" and it's just as wrong.

My belief is our Found Fathers started turning over in their graves with the Gun Control Act of 1934 and have only increased the speed of their rotation with every single erosion we have permitted since then.
03-06-2018 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #29
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-05-2018 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 03:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I start having seizures or my vision deteriorates my health care provider has an 800 number to call and my license is suspended. If I disagree, I can have a hearing to challenge the decision in any county in Arkansas and in some counties I can even have my choice between multiple locations. If I disagree with that decision, I can appeal to the circuit court.

If I'm being treated for hearing voices telling me to kill myself or kill other people or I become otherwise incapacitated to safely operate a firearm, there should be a similar process. Today if I start hearing voices telling me to kill and I AGREE to inpatient treatment, I'm still eligible to buy, I only get flagged if I disagree to accept treatment and someone pursues an involuntary commitment through the courts.

We have thousands of people filling out paperwork declaring "Uncle Sam, I am too mentally ill to hold down a job. Please pay me out of my social security or give me SSI." None of these people are evaluated for gun possession unless involuntarily committed.

Driving is not a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

There has been a process to restrict the possession of firearms from the mentally ill since 1968. It does require a hearing before a judge, but as with the possibility of the removal of any rights this should be the case. Stripping someone of their Constitutional rights should be a hard process to prevent abuses. And there's no doubt in my mind that if your idea of a 1-800 number is instituted there will be massive abuses.

Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just what regulation and disciplining do you support?

Such regulation and disciplining as do not infringe the right to bear arms, as the Amendment plainly states.
03-06-2018 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #30
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-02-2018 03:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:49 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Problem: There are too many mass murders. Some by gun. Some by bomb. Some by car. What is to be done?

Solution: ?

Wait a minute, I took a closer look at your commnet.

Are we sure there are "Too many mass murders?" Does the level of response correspond to the number of mass murders?

Most of us don’t have to address mass murders. If we take mass murder to mean = gun violence, then outside of big cities the murder rate is comparable with that of Japan. More or less, if you avoid the children of unwed parents, the illegal drug trade, gun free zones, and domestic difficulties, your odds of being mass murdered are almost zero, and single murdered are tiny.

But somehow, 38,000 Americans were killed by a firearm in 2016. And the number of injuries, some of which are severe is at least that high.

Now lets compare it to other countries with equal access to technology as the USA., say Australia or the UK, or Canada, or France. There's nothing (other than a law) stopping anyone in those countries printing a gun and using it. But in countries where guns are controlled....by and large....it just doesn't happen in any significant amount.

Now, why is that, you might ask?

I'd argue that the reason is access to firearms. When people in the USA get mad, or feel betrayed by their spouse, or get mad at school, or are desperate for cash, or are depressed.....guess what? If they're here in the USA, they have far easier access to guns than others in the developed world. So when a Aussie gets mad, he doesn't have a gun sitting there. And no, he doesn't even think to print one off, because the culture there doesn't venerate firearms and there's little familiarity with them. Its just not on his mind. He might get a thrill shooting a firearm when he goes on vacation in Thailand, but that's it. Its not just access to guns, but familiarity with it.

Solving mental illness is a good plan, but most people who commit crimes with firearms are judged legally competent to stand trial for a reason....they are mentally competent. They just got mad about something and had access to a gun before they could calm down. Or got depressed and had a gun nearby.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2018 07:13 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-09-2018 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,289
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #31
RE: A sensible discussion on mass killings
(03-09-2018 07:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 03:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:49 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Problem: There are too many mass murders. Some by gun. Some by bomb. Some by car. What is to be done?

Solution: ?

Wait a minute, I took a closer look at your commnet.

Are we sure there are "Too many mass murders?" Does the level of response correspond to the number of mass murders?

Most of us don’t have to address mass murders. If we take mass murder to mean = gun violence, then outside of big cities the murder rate is comparable with that of Japan. More or less, if you avoid the children of unwed parents, the illegal drug trade, gun free zones, and domestic difficulties, your odds of being mass murdered are almost zero, and single murdered are tiny.

But somehow, 38,000 Americans were killed by a firearm in 2016. And the number of injuries, some of which are severe is at least that high.

Now lets compare it to other countries with equal access to technology as the USA., say Australia or the UK, or Canada, or France. There's nothing (other than a law) stopping anyone in those countries printing a gun and using it. But in countries where guns are controlled....by and large....it just doesn't happen in any significant amount.

Now, why is that, you might ask?

I'd argue that the reason is access to firearms. When people in the USA get mad, or feel betrayed by their spouse, or get mad at school, or are desperate for cash, or are depressed.....guess what? If they're here in the USA, they have far easier access to guns than others in the developed world. So when a Aussie gets mad, he doesn't have a gun sitting there. And no, he doesn't even think to print one off, because the culture there doesn't venerate firearms and there's little familiarity with them. Its just not on his mind. He might get a thrill shooting a firearm when he goes on vacation in Thailand, but that's it. Its not just access to guns, but familiarity with it.

Solving mental illness is a good plan, but most people who commit crimes with firearms are judged legally competent to stand trial for a reason....they are mentally competent. They just got mad about something and had access to a gun before they could calm down. Or got depressed and had a gun nearby.

Access to guns has very little to do with it. We are just a very different society. There are countries with gun controls that have more gun violence than we do. There's a combination of mental health and alienation.

In any event, getting rid of 300 million guns is not going to happen. That's like pretending you can have every single driver on Monday on all the Houston freeways be courteous and not aggressive. The people who want guns will get them.
03-11-2018 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.