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

[OKTexas]

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?

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

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.

Except Jillian wants them and therapists and other noisy bodies to be able to just declare them unhinged, for those people to then lose their rights and have to pay their own money to go to Court to have them judged accurate.

 

[OKTexas]

unfettered gun ownership is no one's right.

Wrong. It's all Americans right.

Serious question Jill: Why should Pedophiles NOT own guns? Should they NOT defend themselves?

Prediction: You'll just laugh and not answer.

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.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

@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?

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

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.

You do know you can buy off a doctor as fast as you can buy off a judge, so let not pretend that a doctor clearance is going to fix the problem we face.

Also Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and Tsanrnaev brothers did not need guns to wreak havoc on the general population and neither did the 9-11-2001 hijackers, so how do we stop those types of people?

Before you write what does my question have to do with your OP, well it is the fact that mentally disturbed individuals will find ways to kill, and you can remove all the guns from humanity, but in the end the Human Race is built to kill each other for some damn reason.

I know how simplistic right?

Well it is because you can have a nutter walk into a doctor office and pay the doctor to write that they are mentally fit to obtain a gun, and poof here we go again with another mass shooting, so what do you do then?

Make sure the Doctor is only a government official?

Can bribe them too, and believe those that usually have government jobs are easier to bribe.

So as much as I get pissed off when I see another mass shooting the reality is there is not much that can be done. The laws on the books are doing very little to curb the mass killings, and adding more laws to ineffective laws is just pointless to me.

But feel free to tell me how I am incorrect and I will still tell you that you are just wasting your time because reality is never a good friend with those that are idealists!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

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.

Except Jillian wants them and therapists and other noisy bodies to be able to just declare them unhinged, for those people to then lose their rights and have to pay their own money to go to Court to have them judged accurate.

Yep.. and she mentions antidepressants... not everybody on antidepressants is homicidal.. or suicidal.. Hell, if there taking them, there's a good chance their not.

Of course, her litmus test would be if you have a (D) or an (R) next to your name.

 

[Contumacious]

unfettered gun ownership is no one's right.

Wrong. It's all Americans right.

Serious question Jill: Why should Pedophiles NOT own guns? Should they NOT defend themselves?

Prediction: You'll just laugh and not answer.

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.


.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

unfettered gun ownership is no one's right.

Wrong. It's all Americans right.

Serious question Jill: Why should Pedophiles NOT own guns? Should they NOT defend themselves?

Prediction: You'll just laugh and not answer.

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.

Yep, it's like buying liquor for minors.

 

[BluesLegend]

@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?

Criminals refuse to obey gun laws but gun control advocates refuse to discuss this. Why? Because they don't care, they are targeting law abiding citizens with their gun control laws.

 

[Claudette]

The gun is the tool and the person using it is the weapon.

Kinda hard to ban people.

A person with the mindset to use a gun for anything other than personal protection will use it and since they can't ban guns perhaps they should start killing the weapons. The people.

Of course that will never happen. Its easier to make more gun laws and give legal gun owners as much red tape as they can throw at them.

Oh and there are more than enough laws on the books pertaining to owning a gun.

 

[OKTexas]

If they are decided in court, and not just using the word of some anti-gun doctor or an arbitrary decision by some bureaucrat.

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).

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!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Skull Pilot 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 to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

And the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right, where prohibiting felons and the mentally ill, for example, from coming into possession of firearms, as well as placing "conditions and qualifications" concerning the sale of firearms, such as background checks, is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

There is no 'right' to possess any weapon or firearm so desired.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and the prohibition of specific types of firearms – such as AR platform rifles – are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

There may be those who don't like the case law, there may be those who disagree with the case law, but as a fact of Constitutional law the above and other restrictions comport with the Second Amendment right.

 

[Zander]

Gun control = Like fishing in a barrel for criminals, killers, and Fascist dictators

 

[jillian]

Gun control = Like fishing in a barrel for criminals, killers, and Fascist dictators

yokie dokie.

 

[jillian]

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).

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Skull Pilot 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 to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

And the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right, where prohibiting felons and the mentally ill, for example, from coming into possession of firearms, as well as placing "conditions and qualifications" concerning the sale of firearms, such as background checks, is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

There is no 'right' to possess any weapon or firearm so desired.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and the prohibition of specific types of firearms – such as AR platform rifles – are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

There may be those who don't like the case law, there may be those who disagree with the case law, but as a fact of Constitutional law the above and other restrictions comport with the Second Amendment right.

She has argued in this thread that one should NOT have a day in court to be denied firearms rights. I notice you ignored that.

 

[Politico]

Lets face reality here. The only way to rid the world of gun crime is to ban ALL GUNS. Ban everything involved with them. When that is settled, we can get started with knives, swords, spears and fertilizer.
Deal?

That would be as shitty a reality as the tv show on AMC.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 mean you did not insist that we should strip judges from determining who is and is not sane enough to own firearms?

 

[OKTexas]

inconvenience is not an issue. no one has a right against inconvenience in purchasing a weapon when there is a societal interest.

Is that true?

Tell me "Counselor"... what legal principle legitimately infringes upon the convenience of the citizen to purchase a firearm, to which they are otherwise Constitutionally entitled?

I'm intrigued...

(Reader, you'll want to pay attention here... shit's about to get real)

Mr fucktard, sir:

We have EQUAL RIGHTS?


Which right authorizes you to investigate to see if I am qualified to bear arms?

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"


.

me, personally? none.

the government? has every right to investigate you to make sure you're not a risk. and, again, even the wingiest of the wingers said, in Heller, that reasonable regulation is permissible. the extent of that regulation is what is up for grabs.

but why would you think the government couldn't examine your record to make sure you're not a wackjob before they put a gun in your hands. (the fact that reading your posts on this messageboard might give them all the reason they need to decline your request is a whole other story).

You miss the point as usual, crooks aren't going to go through legal channels to purchase weapons.. they don't now.

and murderers are still going to commit murder but we don't throw up our hands and say not to legislate against killing people.

Except you don't want to require an overt act to disqualify people form having guns, that's required to convict someone of murder.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.