Walker on 1/26/2008 2:03:17 PM wrote:
Tigerlily-
Your ignorance of history and the Constitution become more and more clear each time you post. Keep it up.
|
tigerlilly on 1/26/2008 12:37:25 PM wrote:
scottrc, I'm with you - we know who should have guns and the 2nd amendment did not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry carry one. At the time of this amendment the land was "wild" no protection from police, etc. WE HAVE EVOLVED you Neanderthals. Common sense on this issue has left us. Rifles for hunting OK. Handguns not OK nor machine guns and oozies. Now we have to have guns because everyone else has guns even more powerful than the police. When are you guys going to stop making the gun an extension of your male "organ".
|
jwb5555 on 1/26/2008 11:38:17 AM wrote:
Sorry Daryl20. Didn't see your post; but have the same thoughts.
|
jwb5555 on 1/26/2008 11:35:20 AM wrote:
Any of you Idiots even stop to think that maybe the people with records of mental illness may hesitate to try to purchase a firearm due to the better checks at this time verses 2006.
I can't believe the comments about police being armed. Stop and think how many times they're called into problem situations.
What a bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!!!
|
daryl20 on 1/26/2008 8:57:55 AM wrote:
Less people denied due to mental health, could it be that those people just haven't tried to buy a gun? DUH!
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/10/2007 9:47:25 AM wrote:
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/10/2007 9:41:24 AM wrote:
Let's get back on topic.
According to scottrc, police officers need to have guns. I say this is not true. According to the Supreme Court, the police are under no obligation to protect civilians. You would then realize that the only reason police officers carry guns is for their own personal protection.
So, my question is this.
If police officers are so entitled to carry a gun for their own personal protection, then what makes them so much better than everyone else?
|
ziranthia on 5/10/2007 8:47:36 AM wrote:
"I'm 32 and RE-TI-RED.
Translation into the terms everyone else uses: "I'm 32 and chronically unemployed"
LOL!!! I love it! I agree with the translation. It sounds as though "Scott" (if that is even his name) has made some serious mistakes, and can no longer find employment. So why not just be "creative" and say "retired"? Scott wouldn't be the first person to do it. Nobody retires at 32. NOBODY.
|
justsomeguy on 5/9/2007 6:36:53 PM wrote:
Just because it is an amendment to our constitution, doesn't mean I have to agree it is a civil liberty. Many people much smarter than you or I are still debating the validity of that classification.
Not so much. The anti-gunners depend on a gross misreading of U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). It's called "outcome-based jurisprudence." They have a goal that they wish to achieve, and they ignore anything that gets in their way to achieve it. It's no different than Douglas Adams' "proof" that there is no life in the Universe....it's entertaining, but laughable. But fortunately, the "chickens are coming home to roost" on that, and the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment is on the legal ropes.
|
justsomeguy on 5/9/2007 6:30:22 PM wrote:
I'm 32 and RE-TI-RED.
Translation into the terms everyone else uses: "I'm 32 and chronically unemployed". ;)
|
justsomeguy on 5/9/2007 5:58:49 PM wrote:
who needs a gun? no ordinary citizen NEEDS a gun. Police officers, trained officials, military... they NEED guns.
I suggest you read up on who the Militia is. I especially suggest you read George Mason's comments of who the Militia is, as his definition specifically excludes everyone you mention, and includes everyone else.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/9/2007 3:57:49 PM wrote:
The simple truth is, I got in at AOL when there was 80,000 users, and left when there was 35,000,000.
No wonder you have a gun. You screw over that many poor customers and you're bound to need it one day.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/9/2007 3:55:17 PM wrote:
scottrc said: "who needs a gun? no ordinary citizen NEEDS a gun. Police officers, trained officials, military... they NEED guns. Do you NEED a car? No."
The majority of police officers will likely never use their firearm in the line of duty.
How can you possibly say, as a generalization, that police officers need guns?
|
ziranthia on 5/9/2007 3:47:35 PM wrote:
Thanks for the laugh! I needed that. I really did. As for the traffic; it really doesn't bother me, because I drive a Bentley. Have a good one!
|
scottrc on 5/9/2007 3:29:35 PM wrote:
Yeah, but if I was lying I would make something up much better than that. ;) The simple truth is, I got in at AOL when there was 80,000 users, and left when there was 35,000,000. You do the math for even the lowliest of employees. Try that while you're on your loooong commute home in all that traffic, and while I'm sitting in my backyard eating dinner tonight.
|
ziranthia on 5/9/2007 3:16:20 PM wrote:
ANYONE can lie, sugar.
|
scottrc on 5/9/2007 3:13:15 PM wrote:
Like you know anything. ;) honey, I'm 32 and RE-TI-RED. yep I failed. Keep dreamin'
|
ziranthia on 5/9/2007 1:50:34 PM wrote:
Scott, do you NEED to post your opinion on this board? No ordinary person does. Even you. It sounds to me, that you are bitter because you failed to make a life for yourself in Northern Virginia, and had to return to some sort of safe harbor. As a result, you spew venon at these nice people. Maybe you should look inward before dishing out insults. Just a suggestion. Have a nice day!
|
scottrc on 5/9/2007 1:11:17 PM wrote:
who needs a gun? no ordinary citizen NEEDS a gun. Police officers, trained officials, military... they NEED guns. Do you NEED a car? No.
|
scottrc on 5/9/2007 1:08:32 PM wrote:
Just because it is an amendment to our constitution, doesn't mean I have to agree it is a civil liberty. Many people much smarter than you or I are still debating the validity of that classification. The Constitution is not solely "civil liberties" it provides lots of other rights, rules, and laws that our country goes by. Some get removed for being archaic and stupid (Prohibition) and some get added as needed. I and many others prefer to believe the 2nd amendment needs amending.
And I did give my proposed definition of mentally ill with regards to prohibiting the purchase of guns about 7 times below. Hence why I said nobody is reading. . of course im not a doctor. i think they should be the ones defining it. not me.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/9/2007 12:32:35 PM wrote:
scottrc,
I still would appreciate reading your answers to my questions. You stated that too many people in America have guns and don't need them.
I was hoping you could define who does and does not need a gun?
Most police officers go their entire career without ever using their gun in the line of duty. One could argue that police don't need guns, either, and that they carry them simply because they want to. Is this a valid point?
What makes them so special? Are no police officers mentally ill?
Oh, that's right.. we still haven't defined mentally ill yet, have we?
|
GeorgiaBoy on 5/9/2007 10:03:18 AM wrote:
....but I do agree with you on the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. This will no doubt be a difficult task to accomplish. I work in the Mental Health field...my primary job is to evaluate individuals...much like Cho...to determine whether or not they are a danger to self and or others and are in need of inpatient treatment. Once I make that initial determination ( provided I have obtained a TDO--Temporary Detention Order), a hearing must be held within 72 hours by a Special Justice who makes the final decision of whether or not an individual is committed, voluntarily admitted, or released from the hearing, based on a mental health evaluation and the individuals current behavior.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 5/9/2007 9:57:23 AM wrote:
"Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Gee Scottrc, what part of the 2nd Amendment do you not understand?
|
scottrc on 5/9/2007 9:44:53 AM wrote:
Nope, sorry. I don't believe the right to own a gun is a civil liberty. I believe the right to defend one's self is a civil liberty. But I don't necessarily agree that means people should have the ability to purchase the weapons they are purchasing to accomplish said task. All people, including the mentally ill have the right to defend themselves. But they can't determine right from wrong more often than the rest of society, and thus should be limited in their ability to acquire firearms. Thats the end of my point. I have no more patience to debate this point with people who simply want to defend the right to own guns instead of the true point in which we discuss how to keep deadly weapons out of the mentally ill's hands.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 9:55:48 PM wrote:
You aren't living in reality. The question was simple, would it be harder? Of course it would.
I disagree. It's completely illegal to buy pot in Virginia. Yet, if I were so inclined, which I am not, I can find and buy pot far quicker and easier than I could legally buy a gun. Why is that? Because prohibition doesn't work. And I've yet to hear of a drug dealer that requires background checks to buy an illegal substance.
It's already completely illegal for a felon to possess a firearm in Virginia, much less purchase one. That doesn't seem to even slow them down from buying one on the black market.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 8:26:31 PM wrote:
No problem here with racial profiling. It's simply a matter of applying statistics to help narrow down the search.
I've never seen a black person with a mullet.
If someone were to say "the guy that robbed me had a mullet, that's all I remember" it would be likely to guess that the suspect is not black.
You can say this because statistically, it is more likely.
"The guy called me a gringo."
Okay, he's not black, likely Latino.
Do you know this for certain? Based on that information, of course not. But, based on that information, this is most likely the case.
I guess it is possible, though, for a black guy with a mullet to call you a gringo.
|
Walker on 5/8/2007 8:07:13 PM wrote:
Really? So you dont think it would make it harder?
You aren't living in reality. The question was simple, would it be harder? Of course it would.
The Albanians you are mentioning are ISLAMIC Males, a couple of them WERE middle eastern as well. Coincidence? hmmmmm
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 7:31:26 PM wrote:
Given the irrefutable fact that 98% of the world's terrorist acts are committed by Islamic Males of Middle eastern origin, could it possibly be a safe bet that the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will be committed by an Islamic Male of Middle Eastern origin? Should we watch them MORE or should we look at caucasion grandmothers as well, so the PC police dont get their panties in a bunch?
What about the Albanians?
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 7:30:19 PM wrote:
If the state of Virginia didn't allow the poor little helpless "mentally ill" victim Cho to buy a gun because he was a fruitcake, would it have been harder for him to get one a gun and kill 32 people?
Yes.
Really? I seem to recall that the same argument was used for both alcohol and marijuana. When they completely banned booze, booze consumption went up, and the resulting violence was so bad that they had to repeal Prohibition. As for pot, it's illegal to possess or use. How hard is it to get pot illegally?
Prohibition has never worked. When somebody wants something, if they want it badly enough and are willing to pay for it, they WILL get it. The only people prohibition remotely inconveniences are the law-abiding.
|
Walker on 5/8/2007 7:08:45 PM wrote:
Just finished reading the posts up to now.....you guys are nuts. Common sense has surely gone by the wayside.
Questions:
If the state of Virginia didn't allow the poor little helpless "mentally ill" victim Cho to buy a gun because he was a fruitcake, would it have been harder for him to get one a gun and kill 32 people?
Yes.
Given the irrefutable fact that 98% of the world's terrorist acts are committed by Islamic Males of Middle eastern origin, could it possibly be a safe bet that the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will be committed by an Islamic Male of Middle Eastern origin? Should we watch them MORE or should we look at caucasion grandmothers as well, so the PC police dont get their panties in a bunch?
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:56:50 PM wrote:
Bottom line.....do you want your uncle who has bouts of depression and anger AND has been diagnosed as being MENTALLY ILL to have a gun?
Shouldn't it depend on the actual facts? If the hypothetical uncle's "mental illness" is an irrrational fear of legumes, and he's never been violent, why should he lose his rights?
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:54:12 PM wrote:
Oh, and BTW: I don't think (but I'm not sure) that either or the "PROFESSIONALS" in Cho's case who disagreed before the Special Justice were being paid by Cho.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:51:56 PM wrote:
People who are deemed mentally unstable by PROFESSIONALS who are accredited and licensed. Parsing words gets us nowhere.
According to the article which I quoted below, the "PROFESSIONALS" were unable to agree on Cho. Psychiatry isn't an exact science, and you can find an "accredited and licensed" psychiatrist to say damned near anything if you look hard enough and pay them enough.
|
Walker on 5/8/2007 6:47:15 PM wrote:
"Labeled by whom?"
Justsomeguy-
People who are deemed mentally unstable by PROFESSIONALS who are accredited and licensed. Parsing words gets us nowhere.
Bottom line.....do you want your uncle who has bouts of depression and anger AND has been diagnosed as being MENTALLY ILL to have a gun?
Obvious answer, of course not.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:44:24 PM wrote:
The constitution guarantees our freedom of speech, but it also limits our ability to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
There are times that "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is appropriate....like when the theater is actually on fire.
|
Walker on 5/8/2007 6:42:30 PM wrote:
I agree abortion bombers are technically terrorists as well, so I guess we should check all white males hanging outside of abortion clinics. No problem.
Abortions don't happen on planes or ports, yet. So until they do we can rule out white males at those spots, fair?
I know we are off track, but racial profiling is the ultimate "DUH" when dealing with security.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:40:21 PM wrote:
I am saying people who go to the hospital for long stays or people who are committed involuntarily (as the article said) with serious problems do not have the mental capacity to own a handgun.
According to the Times, "The next day, after Cho was evaluated by a community services board worker and an independent doctor -- who differed on whether he was a danger to himself or others, and on whether he required hospitalization -- the special justice released him with the order to attend outpatient treatment." So even the mental health "professionals" disagreed. What then?
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:26:44 PM wrote:
People who racially profile everyone because of 9/11 are stupid.
And people who wish to deny people of their civil liberties because of an illness are equally stupid.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:24:30 PM wrote:
(Con't)
Do you see any problem with your interpretation now?
You can't pick and choose which civil liberties are "solid" and which civil liberties can be disposed of because you don't happen to like them.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:21:42 PM wrote:
I do not look at gun ownership as a civil liberty. It may be specifically declared in the constitution and warped to fit our current needs... But in my opinion, they are tools that require their owner to exhibit a level of moral conduct and responsibility before being used in the correct fashion.
OK. Let's take your view of our civil liberties, and apply it to the rest of the Bill of Rights, and see where we end up. Specifically, let's take your statement in bold, and apply that to Freedom of Speech and the Free Press. Apply your test to the anti-war left, and media outlets like the Times. Using your test, they should be stripped of their civil liberties for their immoral conduct in attacking our country in time of war.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 6:16:05 PM wrote:
I am not about stripping people of their civil liberties, specifically the SOLID civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc..
Are you suggesting that the right of the people enumerated in the Second Amendment is somehow NOT a "solid" civil liberty? It seems to be spelled out with sufficient clarity so that all but the most die-hard illiterate would understand what it means. It's a right. It belongs to the people. And it shall not be infringed, even a little bit. I suggest you look up the word "infringe" in the dictionary, since you don't seem to understand what it means.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 5:24:55 PM wrote:
the constitution guarantees our freedom of speech, but it also limits our ability to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater
This is correct... but it doesn't limit your ability to use the word "fire" in other circumstances.
Similarly, the constitution should limit what you can and can't do with a gun. Fine. You can't commit murder with it. You can't rob a bank with it. You can't use it to eat your salad... fine with that, too.
However, maybe we should prevent mentally ill people from visiting the movie theater. The chemical imbalances may prevent them from knowing when it is and is not appropriate to yell "fire."
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 5:21:42 PM wrote:
I certainly think too many people in America have guns that don't need them...
Would you mind defining who needs a gun and who does not?
You said yourself that you own a gun. Do you need it?
I have a couple... do I need them?
George Bush, does he need a gun? Do his Secret Service agents need a gun?
Does security at Valley View Mall need a gun?
Does a patron at Valley View Mall need a gun (VV Mall is a gun-free zone, by the way, but that's not the point here, even though the violence at Valley View Mall might confuse the point a bit)?
scottrc... who exactly need a gun and who doesn't? Once you define that, maybe we can start discriminating based on that information as well.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 5:15:59 PM wrote:
justsomeguy,
Are you referring to Advanced Delusionary Schizophrenia with Involuntary Narcissistic Rage? hehe
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 5:12:53 PM wrote:
scottrc said: "Point out to me where making guns readily available to mentally ill patients is a good idea."
Maybe we should first define what is considered to be mentally ill.
Depression? Stress? Alcoholism? Prescription Drug Addiction? Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
|
scottrc on 5/8/2007 5:08:13 PM wrote:
I am not about stripping people of their civil liberties, specifically the SOLID civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.. The constitution guarantees our freedom of speech, but it also limits our ability to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. I don't want to strip anyone of their civil liberties as our government has been doing the past 6 years. I just don't believe your argument is sufficient enough to claim that firearm ownership is such a distinction. With regards to middle easterners, I'm sure there are plenty of xenophobic ignorant people in this valley that are prejudiced against people that aren't white christians. I'm not one of them. People who racially profile everyone because of 9/11 are stupid.
|
scottrc on 5/8/2007 5:00:21 PM wrote:
I do not look at gun ownership as a civil liberty. It may be specifically declared in the constitution and warped to fit our current needs... But in my opinion, they are tools that require their owner to exhibit a level of moral conduct and responsibility before being used in the correct fashion. When talking about the severely mentally ill, the choices made between right and wrong become blurred due to chemical imbalances and impulse control. This is the core of my argument. I certainly think too many people in America have guns that don't need them, and too many irresponsible people have them. Thats why I am a gun-owner AND I advocate for tougher laws to restrict gun sales to the irresponsible. (cont'd)
|
scottrc on 5/8/2007 4:56:16 PM wrote:
First off, you are not mentioning the distinction i made below about the difference between people with minor mental illnesses and major ones. I am not advocating that people who go to see a counselor for depression or OCD get put in a federal registry. I am saying people who go to the hospital for long stays or people who are committed involuntarily (as the article said) with serious problems do not have the mental capacity to own a handgun. To this point, no one has satisfactorily countered this point. All the pro-gun and consequences-be-damned type people have come out of the wood work claiming "civil liberties!" It's funny when those same people blast the ACLU. cont'd)
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 4:46:47 PM wrote:
I'm not infringing on rights,
The only way what you advocate would not infringe upon people's rights is if nobody has any right in the first place. You are trying to abrogate an entire class of people's Constitutionally enumerated rights, without even true due process of law.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 4:42:14 PM wrote:
I'm a little hesitant about the part about middle easterners...
Based upon your other posts, it seems like you have no problem denying people their civil liberties based upon their being labeled as one thing or another that they have no control over, even if they don't pose an actual danger. Why is this any different? If it's OK to discriminate against the mentally ill for things they didn't do, why isn't it OK to discriminate against middle easterners for things they didn't do?
I completely oppose discrimination based upon membership in a group. You support it when speaking about the mentally ill. So what distinction do you make between middle easterners and the mentally ill to justify this?
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 4:34:28 PM wrote:
Should Mentally Incapable people be able to own guns? No. Debate all you want every other fringe subject. You can not seriously say it is ok for a patient to come out of psychiatric care without a criminal record, and go purchase a gun.
"There you go again." Why on earth should somebody with a non-dangerous form of mental illness be stripped of their civil liberties? There's a HUGE difference between somebody suffering from OCD and somebody who is a paranoid delusional schizophrenic with violent tendencies, yet both are mentally ill. Additionally, I'd point out that it was as recently as the DSM-III in 1974 that homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness. Wanna talk about a "soft science"? There you go.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 4:26:35 PM wrote:
what I meant before was that people labeled "mentally ill" should be required to see a professional WHEN they decide to buy a weapon.
That professional would give the green light as to whether they purchase a weapon legally.
Labeled by whom? If your neighbor thinks you're mentally ill, should they report you to the State, and should that report alone be enough to strip you of your civil liberties? And what kind of "professional" are you talking about? Some would consider Sarah Brady to be a "professional". Should she be able to order you to be stripped of your civil liberties?
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 4:23:25 PM wrote:
Crap, i missed that line in the bible that says Thou shalt have firearms.
Are you suggesting that there is no bedrock of civil liberties/human rights that are "self-evident"?
I'm not a Christian, but am pretty sure that there's a line in the New Testament that says something about selling a cloak and buying a sword...
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 4:20:54 PM wrote:
You cannot debate the issue. you only want to turn this into a personal crusade so you will not be prohibited from purchasing a gun.
Come back when you can actually debate.
It's so sad that all you have are ad hominem attacks to go on.
|
scottrc on 5/8/2007 2:44:35 PM wrote:
I'm not infringing on rights, merely pointing out you are not an intelligent debater.
You are merely a party-line pundit who can't take a topic and come up with a point about it and defend it. Instead you hide behind other rhetoric to disguise your lack of having a point.
Point out to me where making guns readily available to mentally ill patients is a good idea. That's what this board is about. It's not about your so called "god given" rights... which by the way is still the most hilarious thing I've read all week.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 2:35:15 PM wrote:
Thank you, scottrc. We appreciate your deciding that what we have to say isn't important enough to continue discussion.
Please tune in tomorrow as scottrc explains how he plans to infringe on your first amendment rights.
By the way, here is a pretty decent article:
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55366
|
scottrc on 5/8/2007 2:00:07 PM wrote:
Crap, i missed that line in the bible that says Thou shalt have firearms.
lol, we have reached the end of this argument, you have lost. You cannot debate the issue. you only want to turn this into a personal crusade so you will not be prohibited from purchasing a gun.
Come back when you can actually debate.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 1:26:52 PM wrote:
scottrc,
If you read carefully, it's not even a right that was granted to us by the framers. It is a God given right. They simply stated that the right would not be infringed upon by the government.
Nowhere did they actually grant us the right.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/8/2007 1:23:11 PM wrote:
scottrc said: "You know, we test people to see if they are responsible and competent enough to drive a car, (or fly a plane). I see no reason why we shouldn't have the same test for firearms ownership. I certainly didn't pass any when I bought my gun."
Maybe so.. but, like it or not, there is a difference. The second amendment guarantees that your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I'm still looking, but I have not found the one that refers to driving a car. I'll let you know if I come across it.
|
scottrc on 5/8/2007 12:29:57 PM wrote:
Walker, that i agree with as well. Any precautions taken are better than the current system, which has more holes than an entire loaf of swiss cheese.
I'm a little hesitant about the part about middle easterners... I think terrorism is terrorism regardless of race and color. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists, and most of them are white and christian.
|
Walker on 5/8/2007 11:58:43 AM wrote:
Just to reiterate...what I meant before was that people labeled "mentally ill" should be required to see a professional WHEN they decide to buy a weapon.
That professional would give the green light as to whether they purchase a weapon legally.
Clearly I am less concerned with individual liberties than public safety. I also believe that security should focus MORE on "middle eastern looking" people at airports, ports, etc.
What you all are saying, basically, is that someone who has been determined to have a mental defect is "normal" or no different than you or I.
In this, you are wrong, mental illness isn't normal. It may affect many, many people in different degrees but it isn't normal.
|
scottrc on 5/8/2007 9:21:05 AM wrote:
Keep going away from the point as much as you want. Keep distracting from the point of this topic.... you only strengthen my side.
Should Mentally Incapable people be able to own guns? No. Debate all you want every other fringe subject. You can not seriously say it is ok for a patient to come out of psychiatric care without a criminal record, and go purchase a gun.
You asked for a solution, I gave it. Test the level of responsibility just like we test the level of responsibility for many other things in life. But I suppose in your alternate reality, we should all be carrying guns because you never know when the boogiemen are gonna come out of the woodwork, awww crap!
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 12:50:54 AM wrote:
It's about responsibility, not about what a bunch of people 200+ years ago thought about to protect our country from invaders.
I suggest you go back to the books, and reread what the purpose of the Militia was. The Founding Fathers had just fought a war against the Crown, the legal government of the Colonies. It was a war precipitated by the British Army' attempt to seize private arms at Concorde and Lexington, lest they revolt. The entire purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the Government never was never able to gain a monopoly on the use of force, and that the ultimate power was retained by the citizenry, not by the State. Arguing that we can now throw out our civil liberties because they're old is preposterous.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 12:43:00 AM wrote:
While I think the majority of gun-owners ARE responsible. It is far too easy for irresponsible ones to acquire one, through legitimate AND illegitimate means.
So what is your solution? Imagine we banned them, and rounded up all guns not in government hands. Would that solve the problem? One only has to look at either Prohibition or the "War on Drugs" to see that the unintended consequences are worse than the original problem. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that we COULD round up all guns, there would quickly be a black market for guns, along with the inevitable violence that would bring. Additionally, I'd remind you that after Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" began, public abuse of those substances INCREASED.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 12:37:19 AM wrote:
Comparing it to a drivers license, while only somewhat similar, does the same thing. Driving tests and licensing rules mostly prohibit irresponsible drivers from driving.
Where, exactly, is there an enumerated right to drive in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? I've read it many, many times, and have never seen even a suggestion that such a right exists.
|
justsomeguy on 5/8/2007 12:34:21 AM wrote:
You may argue that its a constitutional right, but it certainly wasn't envisioned by the framers like this.
It's as much a Constitutional Right as any other Constitutional Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Read the Second Amendment. In it, the word "Right" is used. It's a right that applies not to the State or even to the militias, but to the "people".
And while the weapons of today certainly weren't envisioned by the Founding Fathers, neither were things like television and the Internet. If you choose to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to only things that were in existence when it was ratified, the only "Freedom of the Press" would extend to documents produced on a manual printing press.
|
scottrc on 5/7/2007 2:16:05 PM wrote:
(cont'd)
Comparing it to a drivers license, while only somewhat similar, does the same thing. Driving tests and licensing rules mostly prohibit irresponsible drivers from driving. (obviously not all... but those people are doing so against the law.)
I want the right to bear arms just as much as any party-line gun toting NRA member. I just want to make sure that only responsible people are able to bear them, and not every crazy just out of the looney bin. It's about responsibility, not about what a bunch of people 200+ years ago thought about to protect our country from invaders.
|
scottrc on 5/7/2007 2:10:20 PM wrote:
Just because its constitutional doesn't mean it's right. Thats why they AMEND the constitution, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. You may argue that its a constitutional right, but it certainly wasn't envisioned by the framers like this. It was to protect the country from insurgency. But that's another debate.
I am simply suggesting that gun-ownership is something that should be afforded by responsible owners. While I think the majority of gun-owners ARE responsible. It is far too easy for irresponsible ones to acquire one, through legitimate AND illegitimate means.
|
boater on 5/7/2007 2:03:15 PM wrote:
Other than his incessant penchant for raising taxes (more of a democrat disease, not necessarily a character fault Kaine's per se), I am really beginning to like this governor.
|
justsomeguy on 5/7/2007 1:32:45 PM wrote:
You know, we test people to see if they are responsible and competent enough to drive a car, (or fly a plane). I see no reason why we shouldn't have the same test for firearms ownership. I certainly didn't pass any when I bought my gun.
You're not REALLY suggesting we require people to pass a test before they exercise a Constitutionaly-enumerated civil liberty, are you? Given what SCOTUS has said about literacy tests and poll taxes for voting, somehow I don't quite think that what you advocate is even REMOTELY Constitutional. In fact, I'm quite sure that it would be Unconstitutional as hell. Thank you for playing, please try again.
|
justsomeguy on 5/7/2007 1:29:15 PM wrote:
You can post every minor crime / stabbing / car jacking here for 3 months and it will not equal one day's worth in any major city. This is as safe a town as any other.
That's odd. I thought Roanoke City ranked second in the state last year regarding serious crime, beating out places like Portsmouth, Hampton, and Petersburg.
|
scottrc on 5/7/2007 12:58:51 PM wrote:
I know it wasn't asked either, but I also support people being unable to have a driver's license if they are unstable too. And excessively old people. And actually anyone under 18. And people who don't know the left lane is for passing and not cruising. Really I think we're far too liberal with giving out driver's licenses. But that's a whole different ballgame! ;)
|
scottrc on 5/7/2007 12:55:18 PM wrote:
Sorry, I was up in NoVA and PA buying lots of beer supplies for my homebrew operation the last few days.
You can post every minor crime / stabbing / car jacking here for 3 months and it will not equal one day's worth in any major city. This is as safe a town as any other. If that girl had been carrying a gun, its at least 50/50 that someone would have ended up dead. Nobody would have won there. It's a dumb argument.
You know, we test people to see if they are responsible and competent enough to drive a car, (or fly a plane). I see no reason why we shouldn't have the same test for firearms ownership. I certainly didn't pass any when I bought my gun.
|
ziranthia on 5/7/2007 9:49:09 AM wrote:
"WHO would possibly need to defend themselves here in Roanoke. This certainly isn't Northern Virginia..."
Speak for yourself, RoanokeSince80!
|
bikerjohn on 5/7/2007 9:16:27 AM wrote:
No, no no. I read in the newspaper that profiling is a bad thing.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/6/2007 5:19:25 PM wrote:
scottrc,
Where'd you go? I ask again... WHO would possibly need to defend themselves here in Roanoke. This certainly isn't Northern Virginia...
www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/115805
|
justsomeguy on 5/6/2007 2:31:48 AM wrote:
It only takes one mentally ill person to slip through and waste 30 people (or more) as we learned recently. If we can help prevent it, let's do so.
Right. And on 9/11, it only took 19 people to kill 3,000 with a few airplanes. Does that mean that all air service should be cancelled nation-wide?
When you start denying people of their civil liberties because of the actions of somebody else, it is inevitable that there will eventually be negative results. And remember: just because you're deemed to be mentally ill doesn't mean you've actually committed a violent act. What this does is essentially the same as convicting all women of prostitution simply because they have the "necessary equipment".
|
justsomeguy on 5/6/2007 2:27:48 AM wrote:
I think, as a rule, it'd be best if people with known mental problems should NOT be allowed to buy guns. They need to be evaluated by a mental health professional FIRST.
Uh, they ARE. Here's the problem: Once you're on the "mentally ill" list, that's it, you're on it permanently. So if you're adjudicated mentally defective at 15, with a lower burden of proof than in a criminal case, you've lost your rights PERMANENTLY. If you've been adjudicated mentally defective and the doctors decide that you really are NOT mentally defective, it's too bad, you've still lost your rights, and can't get them back. See the problem?
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/4/2007 7:28:55 PM wrote:
It also only takes one mentally ill person to kill 30 people with a car. Maybe they shouldn't drive, either.
|
Walker on 5/4/2007 5:11:26 PM wrote:
I think, as a rule, it'd be best if people with known mental problems should NOT be allowed to buy guns. They need to be evaluated by a mental health professional FIRST.
I dont like their freedoms being taken away either, but tough s--t. It only takes one mentally ill person to slip through and waste 30 people (or more) as we learned recently. If we can help prevent it, let's do so.
|
justsomeguy on 5/4/2007 1:10:28 PM wrote:
So, Kaine is working to criminalize mental illness. What's the problem? (this is sarcasm, for those who are sarcasm-impared out there) We live in a Brave New World, people, where a person can be stripped of their civil liberties (which is what we're talking about here) without having committed a crime or even being found to be mentally ill beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are charged with a felony, you have certain rights, like a trial by jury, the burden of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to appeal, before you can be stripped of your rights. If you're mentally ill, not so much. Yay Governor Kaine!!! NOT.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/3/2007 10:34:10 AM wrote:
I have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder). I constantly check locks, money, my glasses, doors, everything. I also constantly check to make sure my gun is where it is supposed to be as well as in the condition in which I know it should be (loaded, unloaded, whatever).
Does this make me dangerous? I don't think so. But it is a mental thing, and I have seen a doctor about it, too.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/3/2007 10:32:13 AM wrote:
scottrc,
I agree. Those who are involuntarily committed should not be able to possess a firearm.
that is the case as it stands right now. However, Governor Kaine has not said that it is final, as he is still appointing a committee to look into the matter.
If it could remain set with involuntary commitment, great. I'm with you on that.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/3/2007 10:30:28 AM wrote:
scottrc,
This didn't happen in Roanoke, either...
www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/115546
|
meggilyweggily on 5/2/2007 7:53:51 PM wrote:
I AM mentally ill -- I have chronic depression which is often life threatening -- and I have no desire to own a gun, nor do I see why anyone else would want one, but it's a given right. I am concerned about the "slippery slope" affect here -- first outlaw guns for people who were forced to get psychiatric help, then for anyone who ever got voluntary psychiatric help. So many people who are ignorant about mental illness assume mentally ill people are all dangerous to others (in fact they're statistically less likely to be violent than the general population) and that anyone who ever sees a psychiatrist must be "psycho" or "crazy."
|
scottrc on 5/2/2007 6:16:50 PM wrote:
What's your point? Crime exists because people exist. Try looking at the news in a major city. Crime completely dwarfs ours, even per capita. This is a safe town by comparison to others and it isn't because of carrying guns.
You can keep trying to get away from the point all you want, you are only distracting from the truth. The Mentally Ill do not have the capacity to hold the responsibility of owning a gun. I challenge you to find an opinion of any board certified psychiatrist or psychologist who says otherwise. And when I say Mentally Ill, I refer to those involuntarily committed who have serious problems.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/2/2007 6:02:11 PM wrote:
Don't click the link, the site screwed it up... copy and paste and enjoy.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/2/2007 6:01:15 PM wrote:
This message board does a terrible job of parsing links: http://urlx.org/roanoke.com/3c172
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/2/2007 6:00:17 PM wrote:
scottrc,
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-113967
Enjoy the reading. Clearly, there is no reason to need to protect yourself in Roanoke, especially compared to NoVA.
|
scottrc on 5/2/2007 4:39:00 PM wrote:
My point was that comparing killing people with guns and killing people with cars is one of the stupidest comparisons to be made. It's very poor debate tactics. Since it was made clear at this point he's not going to just make gun purchasing impossible for everyone who seeks psychiatric help on their own, that means you're saying people who are involuntarily committed for whatever mental illness should be able to purchase guns. Why is that a good or safe idea? Are you mentally ill yourself and need to shoot the demons that chase you? Having moved here from NoVA, i see no need for ANYONE to carry weaponry around this town. And dont say there's no crime because people do. That wouldn't be true either.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/2/2007 2:27:34 PM wrote:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/115424
Looks as though a gun was found in a Roanoke school today. Seems impossible to me, since the signs outside the school, at least at my son's school read "Gun-Free School Zone". Maybe they need to post a similar sign at this school.
The sign prevents this type of thing from occurring at Mountain View Elementary.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/2/2007 2:24:50 PM wrote:
scottrc,
What does this have to do with specifically carrying into a building or under a coat?
Are you saying that as long as it is carried outside it is a different situation? Or simply outside of your clothing?
I carry a gun about 90% of the time (the other 10% being when I am somewhere where it is not permitted). Sometimes it is under my clothing, other times it is not.
Sometimes in a building, sometimes not.
I don't see your point.
|
bikerjohn on 5/2/2007 7:10:57 AM wrote:
There were 347 alcohol related traffic fatalities in 2005. It seems that would be a better place to focus an effort to protect the public.
|
meggilyweggily on 5/2/2007 6:41:47 AM wrote:
GeorgiaBoy, quoting from the article:
"The order does not affect people who voluntarily get psychiatric treatment, though Kaine said that issue will be explored further by an eight-member panel he appointed to dissect the Tech shootings."
I am concerned about this and perceive it as a threat to ban gun ownership for anyone who seeks psychiatric treatment.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 5/1/2007 9:10:08 PM wrote:
Hey meggily, just where did you see or hear someone 'threaten' to ban gun ownership for those 'who seek voluntary help' as well? That 'threat' was never mentioned in the news...better check your facts.
|
scottrc on 5/1/2007 9:01:21 PM wrote:
Obviously it's not as black and white as it seems, and when I say mentally Ill, I mean people who are seriously ILL. Not people with mild psychiatric conditions. But of course the greedy pro-gun rights people don't care about anyone but themselves and their ability to shoot their guns. You'd think that all the people up in arms about their guns being taken away are all mentally ill criminals or something. It's not like it will be impossible. sheesh.
|
scottrc on 5/1/2007 8:56:48 PM wrote:
hey Roanoker, when you can carry 2 cars under your coat into a building, then we'll talk about banning them. Until then your argument is invalid. It's just ignorant to say "yeah let's let the mentally ill be able to purchase guns." Sorry. There is no rebuttal for this.
|
meggilyweggily on 5/1/2007 7:54:22 PM wrote:
Speaking as someone with mental illness myself (I've suffered depression most of my life and have been suicidal before): What I'm concerned about is them threatening to also ban gun ownership for people who seek help on their own. A lot of people who voluntarily seek psychiatric help aren't really that sick, and the mental illness stigma is so great already -- why make it worse? Say your wife dies, and your grief is so intense that you decide to go to a counselor, should that make you inelligible to own a gun? I worry that fewer truly needy people would ask for help if they changed the law like they're saying to. I'm actually not a big fan of gun ownership, it's just the principle of the thing.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 5/1/2007 3:28:13 PM wrote:
scottrc,
History is just that... history. Maybe someone with a history of mental illness shouldn't own cookware, either. Knives are very dangerous weapons when they are in the hands of a criminal.
Then again, cars kill a lot of people, too. As a matter of fact, so do baseball bats. However, last time I checked, I didn't hear anyone claiming that we should prevent people from driving to baseball games, mentally ill or not.
|
scottrc on 5/1/2007 1:33:50 PM wrote:
i dont know why people are up in arms about this. if you have a history of mental illness, you shouldn't be owning a gun. It's not that complex of an issue. I'm all for gun ownership and protection... but this is a no-brainer.
|
Travelguy on 5/1/2007 9:54:56 AM wrote:
I don't think Gov. Kaines' actions will mean anything to gun advocates in Virginia. It is merely a symbolic gesture to satisfy some who feel Virginia's gun laws are too liberal.
Gun Control on a national level is a dead issue in the upcoming Presidential election.
No democrat wants to go up against the NRA and do anything to lose their chances of a certain win in November, 2008.
|
astanley on 5/1/2007 7:56:44 AM wrote:
Cho has already made it difficult in SW VA and now our choice to firearms is going to be taken away because of it? Well, not for everyone but for those that may have entered a mental facility. We do have to forgive him but I can't forget this person for what has happened. Now because of his actions others may lose the choice of wanting protection in their homes. Not everyone enters a mental facility because their mental. There are other situations such as addictions to gambling. Some may have entered because of drug use and although they weren't theirselves then doesn't mean their not normal now. There are people out there that will never step foot into a mental hospital and will have the opportunity to purchase a gun and commit crime.
|
