If you don't want guns don't buy them?

[Soggy in NOLA]

do you think judges are more equipped than doctors to make medical judgments? i'd think not. and they'd be just as likely to have their own opinions. and I certainly wouldn't want some NRA shill making those decisions.

so again, what's the appropriate answer? solve the problem since I think we can all agree that people who shouldn't have guns get them.

A doctors or bureaucrats opinion doesn't meet the definition of due process, a judges opinion does. You can't take away constitutional rights without due process.

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

If a doctor feels a patient is a threat to themselves or others they have a legal responsibility to report that finding to legal authorities, if they do, their liability ends there. It is up to the legal system to make the final judgment.

In a lot of jusrisdictions, it starts with the Coroner.

And you point would be...............?

That's where you go if you think a person may be a harm to himself or others. You start the process with the Coroner.

That was it.

 

[Arianrhod]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

I already said... criminal history... mental illness as a start. isn't that an objective standard?

Mental illness.....

And yet the far left says being right wing is being mentally ill.

Not hard to tell where this is going.

And the far right, as represented by Ted Cruz and more than a few posters here, believe all criminals are leftists, and PredFan immediately zeroed in on criminals and ignored every other category of people who shouldn't have guns.

Combine the two, and where do you think that would be going?

 

[Contumacious]

pedophiles shouldn't own guns because they have committed crimes against another person. fair enough?

i'm not laughing and I did answer. I was sort of expecting someone to ask that.

Any Felon is denied the right to own firearms. If convicted of pedophile I assume that is a felony. If not then YOU need to change the laws.

not if their neighbor sells them the gun or a straw man buys it for them.

If the neighbor is aware the person is a felon, it's already illegal to sell to him, strawman purchases are already illegal.

BULLSHIT.

WHEN THE MOTHERFUCKERS FINALLY OUTLAW FIREARMS YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY THEM FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR OR THE BLACKMARKET.


.

Can't happen without a constitutional amendment, and that won't happen either.

YEAH, RIGHT.


DREAM ON.


WATCH AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A MAJORITY OF 5 LIBERAL/FASCISTS JUSTICES SIT ON THE BENCH.


.

 

[PredFan]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

I already said... criminal history... mental illness as a start. isn't that an objective standard?

We already have that, it's called background checks. Who decides what is mental illness? Liberalism is a mental
Illness, should we not let them have guns?

really? if you sell a gun to your neighbor there's a background check?

that would be "no".

if you buy a gun at a gun show in Tennessee, there are background checks?

that would be a "no".

and the problem is, those guns then infect our society. i'll point out that most mass shootings are done with legal weapons. so we're doing something wrong.

it's funny... this is the only area in which the rightwing says not to legislate yet you all are perfectly happy to obstruct my rights in every possible way.

If I sell my gun to a neighbor then no, there are no background checks and there shouldn't be in that case.

All gun shows I've ever been to, and I go to one each and every month, always have background checks. You cannot buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.

Finally, you are also wrong, I am totally against regulation, especially of rights. Name a right that you have that I want to take from you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

I already said... criminal history... mental illness as a start. isn't that an objective standard?

Mental illness.....

And yet the far left says being right wing is being mentally ill.

Not hard to tell where this is going.

And the far right, as represented by Ted Cruz and more than a few posters here, believe all criminals are leftists, and PredFan immediately zeroed in on criminals and ignored every other category of people who shouldn't have guns.

Combine the two, and where do you think that would be going?

Not towards a situation where "mental health" is a criteria.

We already have the inmates in charge of the asylum. Do we really want them doing more ?

 

[OKTexas]

A doctors or bureaucrats opinion doesn't meet the definition of due process, a judges opinion does. You can't take away constitutional rights without due process.

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

So you would allow a NON Judge to determine the ability of someone to have a right protected by the Constitution removed because you are scared? Why not allow cops to determine guilt in crimes, I mean they catch the guys doing it and the Judge is not a cop, they depend on expert testimony for that. Same thing.

funny... you would have a judge determine if a woman is fit to make decisions about her own body and follow a doctors advice.

i would think a judge should only be involved if someone IS denied a gun. then maybe they should have the right to challenge the medical determination or the determination of whatever authority might have denied them a gun.

but in the first instance? again, most people with mental illness don't ever get that illness adjudicated, as you know.

So you believe in the concept of guilty until proven innocent, I thought that was antithetical to our justice system. But you also want to disadvantage the law abiding because the legal system fails, that makes a lot of sense, NOT!

not quite sure how keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is finding them guilty until proven innocent.

You want to deny them constitutional rights with NO legal finding, then have them resort to the justice system to get them back, what would you call it? How about we just throw you in jail for no adjudicated reason and make you hire a lawyer and sue to get out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

So you would allow a NON Judge to determine the ability of someone to have a right protected by the Constitution removed because you are scared? Why not allow cops to determine guilt in crimes, I mean they catch the guys doing it and the Judge is not a cop, they depend on expert testimony for that. Same thing.

funny... you would have a judge determine if a woman is fit to make decisions about her own body and follow a doctors advice.

i would think a judge should only be involved if someone IS denied a gun. then maybe they should have the right to challenge the medical determination or the determination of whatever authority might have denied them a gun.

but in the first instance? again, most people with mental illness don't ever get that illness adjudicated, as you know.

So you believe in the concept of guilty until proven innocent, I thought that was antithetical to our justice system. But you also want to disadvantage the law abiding because the legal system fails, that makes a lot of sense, NOT!

not quite sure how keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is finding them guilty until proven innocent.

It's isn't.

No one is advocating due process rights be abridged or abandoned – only those afforded their comprehensive right to due process are placed in the FBI's NICS database, only those who have been adjudicated a felon or mentally ill are designated a prohibited person, and those denied pursuant to a NICS background check have the right to appeal.

Jillian IS in fact advocating that doctors not Judges decide who is and is not allowed their second amendment rights. Her response to a day in court was, maybe ( MAYBE?) they could have a day in court AFTER their rights are stripped away and they want to pay for it.

 

[OKTexas]

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

So you would allow a NON Judge to determine the ability of someone to have a right protected by the Constitution removed because you are scared? Why not allow cops to determine guilt in crimes, I mean they catch the guys doing it and the Judge is not a cop, they depend on expert testimony for that. Same thing.

funny... you would have a judge determine if a woman is fit to make decisions about her own body and follow a doctors advice.

i would think a judge should only be involved if someone IS denied a gun. then maybe they should have the right to challenge the medical determination or the determination of whatever authority might have denied them a gun.

but in the first instance? again, most people with mental illness don't ever get that illness adjudicated, as you know.

So you believe in the concept of guilty until proven innocent, I thought that was antithetical to our justice system. But you also want to disadvantage the law abiding because the legal system fails, that makes a lot of sense, NOT!

not quite sure how keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is finding them guilty until proven innocent.

It's isn't.

No one is advocating due process rights be abridged or abandoned – only those afforded their comprehensive right to due process are placed in the FBI's NICS database, only those who have been adjudicated a felon or mentally ill are designated a prohibited person, and those denied pursuant to a NICS background check have the right to appeal.

It is when you advocate that everyone taking a particular pill is denied their rights as she has, without due process.

 

[PredFan]

We already have that, it's called background checks. Who decides what is mental illness? Liberalism is a mental
Illness, should we not let them have guns?

really? if you sell a gun to your neighbor there's a background check?

that would be "no".

if you buy a gun at a gun show in Tennessee, there are background checks?

that would be a "no".

and the problem is, those guns then infect our society. i'll point out that most mass shootings are done with legal weapons. so we're doing something wrong.

it's funny... this is the only area in which the rightwing says not to legislate yet you all are perfectly happy to obstruct my rights in every possible way.

which ones were with legal guns?

i'm pretty sure the answer is all of them... from Dylan klebold to dylann roof (maybe we shouldn't name kids Dylan) to Aurora to this lowlife who just committed the terror attack on the planned parenthood in Colorado.

All of them obtained their weapons legally?

go check.. feel free.

Then that basically means that gun control does not work.

 

[Arianrhod]

If I sell my gun to a neighbor then no, there are no background checks and there shouldn't be in that case.

And if your neighbor shoots somebody with it and the police ask him where he got the gun, will you cry big crocodile tears about how "you didn't know he'd do something like that" or will you get defensive and say "nothing I did was illegal"?

 

[Arianrhod]

So you would allow a NON Judge to determine the ability of someone to have a right protected by the Constitution removed because you are scared? Why not allow cops to determine guilt in crimes, I mean they catch the guys doing it and the Judge is not a cop, they depend on expert testimony for that. Same thing.

funny... you would have a judge determine if a woman is fit to make decisions about her own body and follow a doctors advice.

i would think a judge should only be involved if someone IS denied a gun. then maybe they should have the right to challenge the medical determination or the determination of whatever authority might have denied them a gun.

but in the first instance? again, most people with mental illness don't ever get that illness adjudicated, as you know.

So you believe in the concept of guilty until proven innocent, I thought that was antithetical to our justice system. But you also want to disadvantage the law abiding because the legal system fails, that makes a lot of sense, NOT!

not quite sure how keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is finding them guilty until proven innocent.

It's isn't.

No one is advocating due process rights be abridged or abandoned – only those afforded their comprehensive right to due process are placed in the FBI's NICS database, only those who have been adjudicated a felon or mentally ill are designated a prohibited person, and those denied pursuant to a NICS background check have the right to appeal.

It is when you advocate that everyone taking a particular pill is denied their rights as she has, without due process.

What about people who get shot? Where's their due process?

 

[PredFan]

funny... you would have a judge determine if a woman is fit to make decisions about her own body and follow a doctors advice.

i would think a judge should only be involved if someone IS denied a gun. then maybe they should have the right to challenge the medical determination or the determination of whatever authority might have denied them a gun.

but in the first instance? again, most people with mental illness don't ever get that illness adjudicated, as you know.

So you believe in the concept of guilty until proven innocent, I thought that was antithetical to our justice system. But you also want to disadvantage the law abiding because the legal system fails, that makes a lot of sense, NOT!

not quite sure how keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is finding them guilty until proven innocent.

It's isn't.

No one is advocating due process rights be abridged or abandoned – only those afforded their comprehensive right to due process are placed in the FBI's NICS database, only those who have been adjudicated a felon or mentally ill are designated a prohibited person, and those denied pursuant to a NICS background check have the right to appeal.

It is when you advocate that everyone taking a particular pill is denied their rights as she has, without due process.

What about people who get shot? Where's their due process?

They don't get due process and that is part of the reason it is illegal to shoot people. But you don't take away the rights of others without due process (because it too is illegal) just because someone somewhere might use that right against someone else.

 

[OKTexas]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

I notice you skipped right over the nutters, the spouse abusers, and the pedophiles. I wonder why?

There are already laws in place addressing all of them, next.

 

[PredFan]

Just last Black Friday, a record number of background checks were conducted on gun buyers. That of course means more guns in the hands of Americans. We all have to get together and stand as one against the oppression of our government and it's desire to strip us of our rights. There are quite obviously too many of us to stop.

 

[PredFan]

@skullpilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't? How do you plan to keep guns away from criminals? Pass a law? Criminals always obey laws right?

I already said... criminal history... mental illness as a start. isn't that an objective standard?

Mental illness.....

And yet the far left says being right wing is being mentally ill.

Not hard to tell where this is going.

And the far right, as represented by Ted Cruz and more than a few posters here, believe all criminals are leftists, and PredFan immediately zeroed in on criminals and ignored every other category of people who shouldn't have guns.

Combine the two, and where do you think that would be going?

Look moron, you are an illiterate idiot. Those people I skipped over? Spouse abusers, felons, etc. THEY ARE CRIMINALS YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

 

[PredFan]

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

So you would allow a NON Judge to determine the ability of someone to have a right protected by the Constitution removed because you are scared? Why not allow cops to determine guilt in crimes, I mean they catch the guys doing it and the Judge is not a cop, they depend on expert testimony for that. Same thing.

funny... you would have a judge determine if a woman is fit to make decisions about her own body and follow a doctors advice.

i would think a judge should only be involved if someone IS denied a gun. then maybe they should have the right to challenge the medical determination or the determination of whatever authority might have denied them a gun.

but in the first instance? again, most people with mental illness don't ever get that illness adjudicated, as you know.

So you believe in the concept of guilty until proven innocent, I thought that was antithetical to our justice system. But you also want to disadvantage the law abiding because the legal system fails, that makes a lot of sense, NOT!

not quite sure how keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is finding them guilty until proven innocent.

You want to deny them constitutional rights with NO legal finding, then have them resort to the justice system to get them back, what would you call it? How about we just throw you in jail for no adjudicated reason and make you hire a lawyer and sue to get out.

I am sure that she is fine with that.

 

[OKTexas]

A doctors or bureaucrats opinion doesn't meet the definition of due process, a judges opinion does. You can't take away constitutional rights without due process.

see, I understand what you're saying in a due process sense. I do. but don't you think that extends the process? and, realistically, if someone suffers from mental illness, they're not going to a doctor because of their political affiliation, so I would expect the doctor to give an accurate assessment. (btw, what I do think is that no doctor is going to want to give a gun to a questionable person, not because of politics, but because of liability issues).

If a doctor feels a patient is a threat to themselves or others they have a legal responsibility to report that finding to legal authorities, if they do, their liability ends there. It is up to the legal system to make the final judgment.

In a lot of jusrisdictions, it starts with the Coroner.

And you point would be...............?

That's where you go if you think a person may be a harm to himself or others. You start the process with the Coroner.

That was it.

That's not necessarily true, doctors can report patients if they think they might harm themselves or other to legal authorities before they actually hurt anyone.

 

[PredFan]

If I sell my gun to a neighbor then no, there are no background checks and there shouldn't be in that case.

And if your neighbor shoots somebody with it and the police ask him where he got the gun, will you cry big crocodile tears about how "you didn't know he'd do something like that" or will you get defensive and say "nothing I did was illegal"?

No, I don't cry, that is something you left wing pansies do.

If on the very odd chance that that happens I will be very shocked and troubled, but I will stand on my rights and the fact that I didn't do anything illegal. I personally would never sell a gun to anyone whom I didn't know. My biggest concern is if I give a gun to a child of mine that I have to go to a gun store to run a background check and pay them money to do so. It's stupid, it infringes on my 2nd Amendment rights, and is unnecessary government intrusion into private life.

 

[OKTexas]

Any Felon is denied the right to own firearms. If convicted of pedophile I assume that is a felony. If not then YOU need to change the laws.

not if their neighbor sells them the gun or a straw man buys it for them.

If the neighbor is aware the person is a felon, it's already illegal to sell to him, strawman purchases are already illegal.

BULLSHIT.

WHEN THE MOTHERFUCKERS FINALLY OUTLAW FIREARMS YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY THEM FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR OR THE BLACKMARKET.


.

Can't happen without a constitutional amendment, and that won't happen either.

YEAH, RIGHT.


DREAM ON.


WATCH AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A MAJORITY OF 5 LIBERAL/FASCISTS JUSTICES SIT ON THE BENCH.


.

If it gets to that point the country will be finished anyway. I don't see the people sitting idly by.

 

[OKTexas]

funny... you would have a judge determine if a woman is fit to make decisions about her own body and follow a doctors advice.

i would think a judge should only be involved if someone IS denied a gun. then maybe they should have the right to challenge the medical determination or the determination of whatever authority might have denied them a gun.

but in the first instance? again, most people with mental illness don't ever get that illness adjudicated, as you know.

So you believe in the concept of guilty until proven innocent, I thought that was antithetical to our justice system. But you also want to disadvantage the law abiding because the legal system fails, that makes a lot of sense, NOT!

not quite sure how keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is finding them guilty until proven innocent.

It's isn't.

No one is advocating due process rights be abridged or abandoned – only those afforded their comprehensive right to due process are placed in the FBI's NICS database, only those who have been adjudicated a felon or mentally ill are designated a prohibited person, and those denied pursuant to a NICS background check have the right to appeal.

It is when you advocate that everyone taking a particular pill is denied their rights as she has, without due process.

What about people who get shot? Where's their due process?

You could ask the same if someone is beaten to death, doesn't alter the fact that the criminal is entitled to due process before their rights are restricted, same applies to the law abiding people whether they take a pill or not.