There is no catastrophe so ghastly that we will reform our gun laws

[RKMBrown]

Just as lowering the speed limit did not put a stop to all highway deaths, just as inspecting fruits and vegetables did not eradicate salmonella from out food supply, just as curbing hazardous emissions from smoke stacks did not eliminate all air pollution, back ground checks will not prevent every mad man from obtaining a gun.

But no one can deny that speed limits save lives, food inspections make our food supply safer and limiting emissions made our air measurably cleaner. Couldn't the gun community concede that back ground checks could help REDUCE the number of mass shootings at the hands of the insane? Every measure taken cannot be seen strictly through the lens of 'infringement' or 'ineffectiveness'. If indeed the gun is a benign object used by the insane to wreak havoc, shouldn't we take greater precautions to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and the insane?

It's not about strictly seeing this through the lenses of infringement and ineffectiveness. It's about cost-benefit analysis.

Cost: First the obvious: Doctor-patient privelage (or at least the illusion of it that's left to us by Obamacare) is gone. Bye bye

More importantly. . .

Once the precedent is set that the "mentally ill" are disallowed from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, it not only implies a precedent for that particular amendment, but also a precedent that one's mental state becomes a potential criteria by which constitutional rights can be summarily denied. Let that sink in. Mental state (or some bureaucrat's determination of one's mental state!) becomes a potential criteria by which constitutional rights can be summarily denied.

Mentally ill, insane, unstable. . . these are pretty subjective terms and open to a lot of interpretation. On top of that, the psychological field as a whole isn't a static thing. Knowledge of the human brain and psyche is still growing and new psychological terms are still being coined. We'd be making the concession that some person or some governing body would necessarily be in charge of deciding which conditions were enough reason to deny someone a constitutional right, and in charge of defining these conditions for legal purposes.

The entire idea of the Bill of Rights is to protect specific rights from the intrusions of our own government. The cost of what you suggest is the setting of a precedent that the government from which we protect these rights can define psychological conditions based on which to deny us those very rights.

Like it or not, what you're describing is way, -way- bigger than guns.

Benefit: Less diagnosed crazies would be able to acquire their guns legally. This wouldn't actually stop the P2P gun sales and trades, it would just necessitate taking out of the light of day those transactions made by people who couldn't or wouldn't fit the bill for a background check. Those crazies who currently get their guns through legal P2P trades and sales would still mostly get their guns, just the transactions wouldn't be legal. But some of those transactions wouldn't happen! !

So, in theory, if this were in effect since Kip Kinkle, you'd be able to stop -some- of the mass shootings perpetrated by crazies who were both diagnosed -and- acquired their firearms legally and personally. Without those guns, I'm certain that not all of them would have found some alternative method of murdering lots of people. As long as you force someone whose boiling over with homicidal urges to use melee weapons or engineer explosives, they'll probably abandon those violent desires and go join the Peace Corps.

But hey, if we can save a couple dozen people by shitting all over the Constitution, go for it. I don't need my rights. Warm fuzzy fuzzy child worship for the win! Lock me up if you have to, just keep those little cuties safe and cozy!

So the gun is benign. No more dangerous than a paper weight or a home made pipe bomb or a baking dish. It's the operator of these implements that poses the real danger to public health and safety.

But we cannot even make an inroad to prevent the mentally frazzled from obtaining the tools they use to create tragedy. We are essentially saddled with a suicide pact due to the second amendment. We cannot infringe upon the rights of the mentally disturbed, but we can forget about the rights of the victims to pursue happiness, to live life, to enjoy liberty.

The gun lovers are calling the tune. More guns. Guns for everyone. Guns for the crazies without a second thought.

Is it any wonder why then the gun lovers go through all sorts of rhetorical gymnastics to rationalize, excuse and ignore the problem with gun violence? There just are no solutions coming from the gun lovers. It's time we start to ignore them in the name of public safety. Constitution be damned. It's not meant to tie us to an anchor of gun metal and cast us overboard in a sea of blood and violence.

How many conservatives in this thread have to agree with restricting access to guns by crazies before you shut your lying pie hole?

How many rhetorical gymnastics have you just used to rationalize being a lying piece of shit that misrepresents everything every conservative has said on this issue?

 

[P@triot]

Yes, your Contitutional rights can be restricted with ... due process of law. A convicted felon had their rights removed by definition with due process. The problem with this is that a convicted felon trying to buy a gun should have their asses thrown back in jail. But the liberals don't want to do that either. That isn't really their concern, it's about doing everything they can to limit all sales.

Well, that should come back to personal responsibility and due process. Drinking should not be a defense for shooting someone, but I'm not sure how you say their right to a gun is removed when they are drinking. As for mentally handicapped or impaired, again it needs to come back to due process. It needs to be restricted in court, not by the legislature.

Apparently they are also obsessed with shooting people. At least that's what they keep telling us.

Well it's illegal to drive on public road when drunk right? I've got no problem with coming up with laws that make the left feel like they are doing something. Why not a law against using / carrying / owning a gun when you are seriously mentally incapacitated, certifiably insane etc.? Isn't that why mentally unstable people are put in straight jackets? We put these people on the street and let them own guns? I see no reason to defend the right of the certifiably insane to carry weapons.

we have a law that says it is illegal to drive drunk. if you do you pay the price.

we have a law that says it is illegal to kill someone with a gun. if you do, you pay the price.

We don't have laws restricting legal drivers from the types of cars they own, horsepower, capacity, how fast they can go, color, how much the ylook like a race car. so why do we have restrictive laws on legal gun owners?

The short answer? Because liberals are irrational creatures who allow emotion to override logic. They fear guns (despite having no experience with them) but love automobiles (despite the fact that automobiles cause significantly more deaths every year than firearms do).

 

[Skull Pilot]

To be clear, I'm not saying "Guns cause suicides! Melt them all down and use the slag to make memorial statues!" I'm just saying there's strong evidence that making suicide less convenient cuts down on people making that call. Most of us, I think, already want guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, in case they irrationally turn those guns on others. I'm making the case that if we also stop clinically depressed people from getting guns easily, less of them will get those guns and turn them on themselves.

And just how do you propose to do that?

Aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private medical records that is?

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not about strictly seeing this through the lenses of infringement and ineffectiveness. It's about cost-benefit analysis.

Cost: First the obvious: Doctor-patient privelage (or at least the illusion of it that's left to us by Obamacare) is gone. Bye bye

More importantly. . .

Once the precedent is set that the "mentally ill" are disallowed from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, it not only implies a precedent for that particular amendment, but also a precedent that one's mental state becomes a potential criteria by which constitutional rights can be summarily denied. Let that sink in. Mental state (or some bureaucrat's determination of one's mental state!) becomes a potential criteria by which constitutional rights can be summarily denied.

Mentally ill, insane, unstable. . . these are pretty subjective terms and open to a lot of interpretation. On top of that, the psychological field as a whole isn't a static thing. Knowledge of the human brain and psyche is still growing and new psychological terms are still being coined. We'd be making the concession that some person or some governing body would necessarily be in charge of deciding which conditions were enough reason to deny someone a constitutional right, and in charge of defining these conditions for legal purposes.

The entire idea of the Bill of Rights is to protect specific rights from the intrusions of our own government. The cost of what you suggest is the setting of a precedent that the government from which we protect these rights can define psychological conditions based on which to deny us those very rights.

Like it or not, what you're describing is way, -way- bigger than guns.

Benefit: Less diagnosed crazies would be able to acquire their guns legally. This wouldn't actually stop the P2P gun sales and trades, it would just necessitate taking out of the light of day those transactions made by people who couldn't or wouldn't fit the bill for a background check. Those crazies who currently get their guns through legal P2P trades and sales would still mostly get their guns, just the transactions wouldn't be legal. But some of those transactions wouldn't happen! !

So, in theory, if this were in effect since Kip Kinkle, you'd be able to stop -some- of the mass shootings perpetrated by crazies who were both diagnosed -and- acquired their firearms legally and personally. Without those guns, I'm certain that not all of them would have found some alternative method of murdering lots of people. As long as you force someone whose boiling over with homicidal urges to use melee weapons or engineer explosives, they'll probably abandon those violent desires and go join the Peace Corps.

But hey, if we can save a couple dozen people by shitting all over the Constitution, go for it. I don't need my rights. Warm fuzzy fuzzy child worship for the win! Lock me up if you have to, just keep those little cuties safe and cozy!

So the gun is benign. No more dangerous than a paper weight or a home made pipe bomb or a baking dish. It's the operator of these implements that poses the real danger to public health and safety.

But we cannot even make an inroad to prevent the mentally frazzled from obtaining the tools they use to create tragedy. We are essentially saddled with a suicide pact due to the second amendment. We cannot infringe upon the rights of the mentally disturbed, but we can forget about the rights of the victims to pursue happiness, to live life, to enjoy liberty.

The gun lovers are calling the tune. More guns. Guns for everyone. Guns for the crazies without a second thought.

Is it any wonder why then the gun lovers go through all sorts of rhetorical gymnastics to rationalize, excuse and ignore the problem with gun violence? There just are no solutions coming from the gun lovers. It's time we start to ignore them in the name of public safety. Constitution be damned. It's not meant to tie us to an anchor of gun metal and cast us overboard in a sea of blood and violence.

How many conservatives in this thread have to agree with restricting access to guns by crazies before you shut your lying pie hole?

How many rhetorical gymnastics have you just used to rationalize being a lying piece of shit that misrepresents everything every conservative has said on this issue?

Let's review:

The OP states that there is no catastrophic ghastly enough to institute real reform to our gun laws. The gun lovers maintain that guns are benign, sweet little things that only cause harm when used by criminals and the mentally ill. Fine. Let's then assume that the gun lovers are correct. Wouldn't it then be prudent to make sure that the mentally frazzled don't get their hands on the benign gun and turn it into a weapon? According to the gun lovers, such controls, even for the mentally I'll constitute an infringement of the rights of the mentally ill.

Meanwhile massacres by gun are happening in schools, theaters, churches, shopping centers, restaurants and college campuses. What about Sandy Hook? Ask the folks fed to the gills with the blood of innocent children. Gee, that's a tough one reply the gun lovers. But still the gun lovers offer NO solutions to the plague of gun violence. Instead, the gun lovers feebly try to rationalize the gun culture and the wide spread availability of weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

I'm a lying piece of shit?!? What is the gun lover it a myopic, heartless fiend bent on keeping his weapons and lusting after more of them on our streets? What is the solution to gun violence? We cannot restrict them, we cannot check to ensure the mentally ill can't get them. We cannot ban certain weapons. We cannot institute any measures to stem the tide of blood and mayhem. Ask the gun lover and you will hear nothing but rhetorical gyrations all in a narrow minded agenda that assures more massacres will indeed happen.

The OP is right. There is no catastrophic grizzly enough to change one gun lover's closed, myopic mind.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the gun is benign. No more dangerous than a paper weight or a home made pipe bomb or a baking dish. It's the operator of these implements that poses the real danger to public health and safety.

But we cannot even make an inroad to prevent the mentally frazzled from obtaining the tools they use to create tragedy. We are essentially saddled with a suicide pact due to the second amendment. We cannot infringe upon the rights of the mentally disturbed, but we can forget about the rights of the victims to pursue happiness, to live life, to enjoy liberty.

The gun lovers are calling the tune. More guns. Guns for everyone. Guns for the crazies without a second thought.

Is it any wonder why then the gun lovers go through all sorts of rhetorical gymnastics to rationalize, excuse and ignore the problem with gun violence? There just are no solutions coming from the gun lovers. It's time we start to ignore them in the name of public safety. Constitution be damned. It's not meant to tie us to an anchor of gun metal and cast us overboard in a sea of blood and violence.

How many conservatives in this thread have to agree with restricting access to guns by crazies before you shut your lying pie hole?

How many rhetorical gymnastics have you just used to rationalize being a lying piece of shit that misrepresents everything every conservative has said on this issue?

Let's review:

The OP states that there is no catastrophic ghastly enough to institute real reform to our gun laws. The gun lovers maintain that guns are benign, sweet little things that only cause harm when used by criminals and the mentally ill. Fine. Let's then assume that the gun lovers are correct. Wouldn't it then be prudent to make sure that the mentally frazzled don't get their hands on the benign gun and turn it into a weapon? According to the gun lovers, such controls, even for the mentally I'll constitute an infringement of the rights of the mentally ill.

Meanwhile massacres by gun are happening in schools, theaters, churches, shopping centers, restaurants and college campuses. What about Sandy Hook? Ask the folks fed to the gills with the blood of innocent children. Gee, that's a tough one reply the gun lovers. But still the gun lovers offer NO solutions to the plague of gun violence. Instead, the gun lovers feebly try to rationalize the gun culture and the wide spread availability of weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

I'm a lying piece of shit?!? What is the gun lover it a myopic, heartless fiend bent on keeping his weapons and lusting after more of them on our streets? What is the solution to gun violence? We cannot restrict them, we cannot check to ensure the mentally ill can't get them. We cannot ban certain weapons. We cannot institute any measures to stem the tide of blood and mayhem. Ask the gun lover and you will hear nothing but rhetorical gyrations all in a narrow minded agenda that assures more massacres will indeed happen.

The OP is right. There is no catastrophic grizzly enough to change one gun lover's closed, myopic mind.

Puhlease.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders.

But maybe you can tell me how you plan to keep crazies and criminals from getting guns without violating anyone's rights?

 

[Nosmo King]

How many conservatives in this thread have to agree with restricting access to guns by crazies before you shut your lying pie hole?

How many rhetorical gymnastics have you just used to rationalize being a lying piece of shit that misrepresents everything every conservative has said on this issue?

Let's review:

The OP states that there is no catastrophic ghastly enough to institute real reform to our gun laws. The gun lovers maintain that guns are benign, sweet little things that only cause harm when used by criminals and the mentally ill. Fine. Let's then assume that the gun lovers are correct. Wouldn't it then be prudent to make sure that the mentally frazzled don't get their hands on the benign gun and turn it into a weapon? According to the gun lovers, such controls, even for the mentally I'll constitute an infringement of the rights of the mentally ill.

Meanwhile massacres by gun are happening in schools, theaters, churches, shopping centers, restaurants and college campuses. What about Sandy Hook? Ask the folks fed to the gills with the blood of innocent children. Gee, that's a tough one reply the gun lovers. But still the gun lovers offer NO solutions to the plague of gun violence. Instead, the gun lovers feebly try to rationalize the gun culture and the wide spread availability of weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

I'm a lying piece of shit?!? What is the gun lover it a myopic, heartless fiend bent on keeping his weapons and lusting after more of them on our streets? What is the solution to gun violence? We cannot restrict them, we cannot check to ensure the mentally ill can't get them. We cannot ban certain weapons. We cannot institute any measures to stem the tide of blood and mayhem. Ask the gun lover and you will hear nothing but rhetorical gyrations all in a narrow minded agenda that assures more massacres will indeed happen.

The OP is right. There is no catastrophic grizzly enough to change one gun lover's closed, myopic mind.

Puhlease.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders.

But maybe you can tell me how you plan to keep crazies and criminals from getting guns without violating anyone's rights?

So we have a bit more of that rhetorical gymnastics: there aren't enough mass shootings to be concerned about, so why bother.

Universal back ground checks. Expanded data base acquisition so ANYONE found to be mentally disturbed can never obtain a weapon. If you are so concerned about the rights of a nut case being denied a semi automatic, where's your concern for the rights of children and other innocents as they lie on a coroner's table?

 

[Vigilante]

Without guns, we would not be here!....Live with it!

 

[Nosmo King]

Without guns, we would not be here!....Live with it!

yeah. Sure. Where's the well regulated militia? Is it a bunch of your beer buddies in a Dodge Durango playing Army?

Just more of that well worn rhetorical gymnastics. Anything to deny gun violence and the deaths of innocents. How utterly pathetic.

 

[Vigilante]

Without guns, we would not be here!....Live with it!

yeah. Sure. Where's the well regulated militia? Is it a bunch of your beer buddies in a Dodge Durango playing Army?

Just more of that well worn rhetorical gymnastics. Anything to deny gun violence and the deaths of innocents. How utterly pathetic.

Yes, I guess subversives that are afraid of men that believe in the Constitution would think that way.... I believe back then you would have been called a TORY!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Just as lowering the speed limit did not put a stop to all highway deaths, just as inspecting fruits and vegetables did not eradicate salmonella from out food supply, just as curbing hazardous emissions from smoke stacks did not eliminate all air pollution, back ground checks will not prevent every mad man from obtaining a gun.

But no one can deny that speed limits save lives, food inspections make our food supply safer and limiting emissions made our air measurably cleaner. Couldn't the gun community concede that back ground checks could help REDUCE the number of mass shootings at the hands of the insane? Every measure taken cannot be seen strictly through the lens of 'infringement' or 'ineffectiveness'. If indeed the gun is a benign object used by the insane to wreak havoc, shouldn't we take greater precautions to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and the insane?

It's not about strictly seeing this through the lenses of infringement and ineffectiveness. It's about cost-benefit analysis.

Cost: First the obvious: Doctor-patient privelage (or at least the illusion of it that's left to us by Obamacare) is gone. Bye bye

More importantly. . .

Once the precedent is set that the "mentally ill" are disallowed from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, it not only implies a precedent for that particular amendment, but also a precedent that one's mental state becomes a potential criteria by which constitutional rights can be summarily denied. Let that sink in. Mental state (or some bureaucrat's determination of one's mental state!) becomes a potential criteria by which constitutional rights can be summarily denied.

Mentally ill, insane, unstable. . . these are pretty subjective terms and open to a lot of interpretation. On top of that, the psychological field as a whole isn't a static thing. Knowledge of the human brain and psyche is still growing and new psychological terms are still being coined. We'd be making the concession that some person or some governing body would necessarily be in charge of deciding which conditions were enough reason to deny someone a constitutional right, and in charge of defining these conditions for legal purposes.

The entire idea of the Bill of Rights is to protect specific rights from the intrusions of our own government. The cost of what you suggest is the setting of a precedent that the government from which we protect these rights can define psychological conditions based on which to deny us those very rights.

Like it or not, what you're describing is way, -way- bigger than guns.

Benefit: Less diagnosed crazies would be able to acquire their guns legally. This wouldn't actually stop the P2P gun sales and trades, it would just necessitate taking out of the light of day those transactions made by people who couldn't or wouldn't fit the bill for a background check. Those crazies who currently get their guns through legal P2P trades and sales would still mostly get their guns, just the transactions wouldn't be legal. But some of those transactions wouldn't happen! !

So, in theory, if this were in effect since Kip Kinkle, you'd be able to stop -some- of the mass shootings perpetrated by crazies who were both diagnosed -and- acquired their firearms legally and personally. Without those guns, I'm certain that not all of them would have found some alternative method of murdering lots of people. As long as you force someone whose boiling over with homicidal urges to use melee weapons or engineer explosives, they'll probably abandon those violent desires and go join the Peace Corps.

But hey, if we can save a couple dozen people by shitting all over the Constitution, go for it. I don't need my rights. Warm fuzzy fuzzy child worship for the win! Lock me up if you have to, just keep those little cuties safe and cozy!

So the gun is benign. No more dangerous than a paper weight or a home made pipe bomb or a baking dish. It's the operator of these implements that poses the real danger to public health and safety.

But we cannot even make an inroad to prevent the mentally frazzled from obtaining the tools they use to create tragedy. We are essentially saddled with a suicide pact due to the second amendment. We cannot infringe upon the rights of the mentally disturbed, but we can forget about the rights of the victims to pursue happiness, to live life, to enjoy liberty.

The gun lovers are calling the tune. More guns. Guns for everyone. Guns for the crazies without a second thought.

Is it any wonder why then the gun lovers go through all sorts of rhetorical gymnastics to rationalize, excuse and ignore the problem with gun violence? There just are no solutions coming from the gun lovers. It's time we start to ignore them in the name of public safety. Constitution be damned. It's not meant to tie us to an anchor of gun metal and cast us overboard in a sea of blood and violence.

When did I say the gun is benign? No more dangerous than a paper weight, PIPE BOMB, or baking dish?

I seem to recall that a home made pipe bomb took out quiet a few folks at this marathon out in Boston sometime in the recent past. In fact, "home made" bombs (I.E.D.s) are responsible for a pretty fair number of deaths, worldwide. Just ask those guys who got deployed in Afghanistan. Lots of people getting offed with baking dishes these days, or paperweights, since apparently they represent the category of danger that a pipe bomb falls into? And your implication is that -I'm- the one making weird comparisons? Lol!

Next up, suicide pact? Really!? Go get some numbers and back that one up, genius. What are the stats on the number of people killed yearly by gun violence perpetrated by legal gun owners who acquired their guns after being diagnosed with potentially violent mental conditions? I'll even let you take all the liberty you want with defining potentially violent mental conditions. You can have clinical depression, Aspergers, Adult ADHD if you want it lol. Then see if you can't reverse engineer your way to figuring out how far down the list of causes of death in this country that stat lies, and, JUST FOR SHITS AND GIGGLES, tell me just how long we've got until our society is "suicided" by this epidemic of violent death.

Next, it's not about -not- infringing on the rights of the mentally disturbed. It's about who you allow to define mentally disturbed. You put politicians in charge of that definition, and how long do you think it'll take until the party in power decides to define mentally disturbed as anyone who regularly accesses media and literature promoting opposing viewpoints? If there was a foolproof way to make sure that only the true crazies and criminally insane didn't have access to firearms, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, there is no foolproof method for this, and the room for abusive and unfair implementation of restriction, coupled with the precedent that would be set for the government to deny constitutional rights to people it defines as mentally disturbed, are -way- more than I'd be willing to trade to implement an attempt at preventing a nominal portion of a cause of death that isn't particularly high ranking to begin with. We'd be better off banning high fructose corn syrup, if we're gonna start trading our rights for the sake of our lives.

The fact that you're willing to trade the constitution to prevent a few dozen deaths per year is fuckin hilarious, tho. Personally, when it comes to -my- guns, and -my- ability to use them to defend -my-self and -my- family, I am 100 percent unwilling to allow a bureaucrat to have the potential ability to deny me that right, regardless of how many kids the crazies killed this year in shooting sprees. Statistically, you're already pretty safe from being a shooting victim of a legal gun owner who purchsed their firearm after being diagnosed as mentally unstable. If you don't feel safe, then your feelings be damned. I'll take the Constitution 10 times out of 10 over your feelings of safety

The Constitution is not meant to tie us to an anchor of gun metal and throw us into a sea of violence, you are correct. Coincidentally, the Second Amendment isn't doing that, no matter how hyperbolic you are in your rhetoric.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's review:

The OP states that there is no catastrophic ghastly enough to institute real reform to our gun laws. The gun lovers maintain that guns are benign, sweet little things that only cause harm when used by criminals and the mentally ill. Fine. Let's then assume that the gun lovers are correct. Wouldn't it then be prudent to make sure that the mentally frazzled don't get their hands on the benign gun and turn it into a weapon? According to the gun lovers, such controls, even for the mentally I'll constitute an infringement of the rights of the mentally ill.

Meanwhile massacres by gun are happening in schools, theaters, churches, shopping centers, restaurants and college campuses. What about Sandy Hook? Ask the folks fed to the gills with the blood of innocent children. Gee, that's a tough one reply the gun lovers. But still the gun lovers offer NO solutions to the plague of gun violence. Instead, the gun lovers feebly try to rationalize the gun culture and the wide spread availability of weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

I'm a lying piece of shit?!? What is the gun lover it a myopic, heartless fiend bent on keeping his weapons and lusting after more of them on our streets? What is the solution to gun violence? We cannot restrict them, we cannot check to ensure the mentally ill can't get them. We cannot ban certain weapons. We cannot institute any measures to stem the tide of blood and mayhem. Ask the gun lover and you will hear nothing but rhetorical gyrations all in a narrow minded agenda that assures more massacres will indeed happen.

The OP is right. There is no catastrophic grizzly enough to change one gun lover's closed, myopic mind.

Puhlease.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders.

But maybe you can tell me how you plan to keep crazies and criminals from getting guns without violating anyone's rights?

So we have a bit more of that rhetorical gymnastics: there aren't enough mass shootings to be concerned about, so why bother.

Universal back ground checks. Expanded data base acquisition so ANYONE found to be mentally disturbed can never obtain a weapon. If you are so concerned about the rights of a nut case being denied a semi automatic, where's your concern for the rights of children and other innocents as they lie on a coroner's table?

So you want to subpoena people's medical records in order for them to buy a weapon they have a legal right to?

In short you want to violate the 4th amendment which requires cause for a warrant.

And your emotional arguments hold no water with me.

People die every day from every imaginable cause and I don't see you all wound up about that.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Let's review:

The OP states that there is no catastrophic ghastly enough to institute real reform to our gun laws. The gun lovers maintain that guns are benign, sweet little things that only cause harm when used by criminals and the mentally ill. Fine. Let's then assume that the gun lovers are correct. Wouldn't it then be prudent to make sure that the mentally frazzled don't get their hands on the benign gun and turn it into a weapon? According to the gun lovers, such controls, even for the mentally I'll constitute an infringement of the rights of the mentally ill.

Meanwhile massacres by gun are happening in schools, theaters, churches, shopping centers, restaurants and college campuses. What about Sandy Hook? Ask the folks fed to the gills with the blood of innocent children. Gee, that's a tough one reply the gun lovers. But still the gun lovers offer NO solutions to the plague of gun violence. Instead, the gun lovers feebly try to rationalize the gun culture and the wide spread availability of weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

I'm a lying piece of shit?!? What is the gun lover it a myopic, heartless fiend bent on keeping his weapons and lusting after more of them on our streets? What is the solution to gun violence? We cannot restrict them, we cannot check to ensure the mentally ill can't get them. We cannot ban certain weapons. We cannot institute any measures to stem the tide of blood and mayhem. Ask the gun lover and you will hear nothing but rhetorical gyrations all in a narrow minded agenda that assures more massacres will indeed happen.

The OP is right. There is no catastrophic grizzly enough to change one gun lover's closed, myopic mind.

Puhlease.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders.

But maybe you can tell me how you plan to keep crazies and criminals from getting guns without violating anyone's rights?

So we have a bit more of that rhetorical gymnastics: there aren't enough mass shootings to be concerned about, so why bother.

Universal back ground checks. Expanded data base acquisition so ANYONE found to be mentally disturbed can never obtain a weapon. If you are so concerned about the rights of a nut case being denied a semi automatic, where's your concern for the rights of children and other innocents as they lie on a coroner's table?

The concern isn't for the psycho who can't get his gun. The concern is for the many safe gun owners who will be denied access, by the potential for abusive implementation of restriction, the potential for incompetent implementation, and the added cost of whatever psychological and background checking that'll be required for each firearm purchase. Add a legal psych eval check to ammo purchases at current prices and you'll price everybody so far out of the market that they won't be able to practice enough to acquire the proficience to call themselves responsible gun owners.

There's also concern for setting the precedent of denying people constitutional rights because the government deemed them mentally unstable.

The concern for the victims lies in the laws against murder and assault as well as the stiff penalties for those convicted of breaking those particular laws. To help ensure that a human being's right to life isn't stepped on by another human being, we impose harsh punishments on those who do tread thusly.

The concern for the victims also lies in the concern for them losing their gun rights and their ability to effectively take charge of their own self preservation in the event of, say, a home invasion, rather than having to call the cops and hope against the odds that the clean-up crew actually shows up before the mess takes place. Not everybody's big and tough enough to fight off life's bullies with strength of arm. I say don't fuck with the common man's fighting chance.

It's not about gun violence not being enough to bother, it's about the belief that what you're proposing trades too much for too little. If that makes me heartless, fuck it, I'm heartless.

 

[rightwinger]

Without guns, we would not be here!....Live with it!

yeah. Sure. Where's the well regulated militia? Is it a bunch of your beer buddies in a Dodge Durango playing Army?

Just more of that well worn rhetorical gymnastics. Anything to deny gun violence and the deaths of innocents. How utterly pathetic.

I think all of our gun owners should be forced to join a well regulated militia or lose their right to bear arms

The security of a free state demands it

 

[rightwinger]

Puhlease.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders.

But maybe you can tell me how you plan to keep crazies and criminals from getting guns without violating anyone's rights?

So we have a bit more of that rhetorical gymnastics: there aren't enough mass shootings to be concerned about, so why bother.

Universal back ground checks. Expanded data base acquisition so ANYONE found to be mentally disturbed can never obtain a weapon. If you are so concerned about the rights of a nut case being denied a semi automatic, where's your concern for the rights of children and other innocents as they lie on a coroner's table?

So you want to subpoena people's medical records in order for them to buy a weapon they have a legal right to?

In short you want to violate the 4th amendment which requires cause for a warrant.

And your emotional arguments hold no water with me.

People die every day from every imaginable cause and I don't see you all wound up about that.

I think that people under certain psychotic medications or reported by psychiatric professionals give up their rights to bear arms. They be told take your meds, turn in your guns, turn in your drivers license or be committed to an institution

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm a lying piece of shit?!? What is the gun lover it a myopic, heartless fiend bent on keeping his weapons and lusting after more of them on our streets? What is the solution to gun violence? We cannot restrict them, we cannot check to ensure the mentally ill can't get them. We cannot ban certain weapons. We cannot institute any measures to stem the tide of blood and mayhem. Ask the gun lover and you will hear nothing but rhetorical gyrations all in a narrow minded agenda that assures more massacres will indeed happen.

The OP is right. There is no catastrophic grizzly enough to change one gun lover's closed, myopic mind.

the solution is not gun control which has failed miserable to do anything whatsoever to lower homicides.

You rant and rave about the gun owner all the while demanding measures that solve literally NOTHING. They accomplish nothing whatsoever. The 'gun lover' is not the one with the myopic and closed mind - you are. YOU are the one proposing the same ideas that failed. YOU are the one demanding changes that do not have results and YOU are the one ignoring the facts to push an agenda that does not solve any problems.

And you have the balls to claim it is everyone else that is myopic and close minded.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So we have a bit more of that rhetorical gymnastics: there aren't enough mass shootings to be concerned about, so why bother.

Universal back ground checks. Expanded data base acquisition so ANYONE found to be mentally disturbed can never obtain a weapon. If you are so concerned about the rights of a nut case being denied a semi automatic, where's your concern for the rights of children and other innocents as they lie on a coroner's table?

So you want to subpoena people's medical records in order for them to buy a weapon they have a legal right to?

In short you want to violate the 4th amendment which requires cause for a warrant.

And your emotional arguments hold no water with me.

People die every day from every imaginable cause and I don't see you all wound up about that.

I think that people under certain psychotic medications or reported by psychiatric professionals give up their rights to bear arms. They be told take your meds, turn in your guns, turn in your drivers license or be committed to an institution

So how many psych professionals would have to agree that someone was crazy before we start stripping rights?

Anyone who manages to make it to a PHD in psychology is immediately given the power to unilaterally decide whether or not a person is fit to exercise constitutional freedoms?

Since we're on the gun topic, here, let's put this into perspective.

A gun is simply power. The power to kill or maim. This power can be used for good, as a tool to defend someone from undue killing or maiming by using the same tactic to subdue an attacker.

This power can also be used to unduly kill or maim someone. Due to that potential, your solution is that there be less guns. Less available power.

You want to do this by giving psychologists and politicians the -power- to decide which people get to exercise their constitutional rights. This power can potentially be used for good, to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who intends to use it for, say, a mass shooting. Or this power can be used to unduly strip someone of their constitutional rights.

With the power of a firearm, misuse can be disincentivized simply by inflicting harsh punishments on people who misuse the power of their firearm by unduly killing or maiming someone with it.

With the power of discretion over who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, similarly disincentivizing misuse would require proving that an incorrect designation of mental instability was intentional, and until technology develops that can unerringly read thoughts, that's simply not possible.

Essentially, I find this amusing: You have a problem with a power that can have its misuse effectively regulated, and a power to which every individual in our nation, even those who weren't born into the advantageous socio-economic conditions that produce college grads, has access.

Your proposed solution is to grant a power who's misuse is practically impossible to regulate, to a select few individuals who had the economic and social advantages that facilitate PHD's. I thought you lefties were supposed to be populists and in favor of good regulations. Why do you want to trade universally accessible power who's misuse is always apparent and easy to regulate, for power who's misuse is easy to hide, concentrated further into the hands of the priveleged?

Only in the case of gun control will you find populists willing to concede that college kids should decide which of the impoverished are mentally stable enough to practice their rights.

 

[rightwinger]

So you want to subpoena people's medical records in order for them to buy a weapon they have a legal right to?

In short you want to violate the 4th amendment which requires cause for a warrant.

And your emotional arguments hold no water with me.

People die every day from every imaginable cause and I don't see you all wound up about that.

I think that people under certain psychotic medications or reported by psychiatric professionals give up their rights to bear arms. They be told take your meds, turn in your guns, turn in your drivers license or be committed to an institution

So how many psych professionals would have to agree that someone was crazy before we start stripping rights?

Anyone who manages to make it to a PHD in psychology is immediately given the power to unilaterally decide whether or not a person is fit to exercise constitutional freedoms?

Since we're on the gun topic, here, let's put this into perspective.

A gun is simply power. The power to kill or maim. This power can be used for good, as a tool to defend someone from undue killing or maiming by using the same tactic to subdue an attacker.

This power can also be used to unduly kill or maim someone. Due to that potential, your solution is that there be less guns. Less available power.

You want to do this by giving psychologists and politicians the -power- to decide which people get to exercise their constitutional rights. This power can potentially be used for good, to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who intends to use it for, say, a mass shooting. Or this power can be used to unduly strip someone of their constitutional rights.

With the power of a firearm, misuse can be disincentivized simply by inflicting harsh punishments on people who misuse the power of their firearm by unduly killing or maiming someone with it.

With the power of discretion over who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, similarly disincentivizing misuse would require proving that an incorrect designation of mental instability was intentional, and until technology develops that can unerringly read thoughts, that's simply not possible.

Essentially, I find this amusing: You have a problem with a power that can have its misuse effectively regulated, and a power to which every individual in our nation, even those who weren't born into the advantageous socio-economic conditions that produce college grads, has access.

Your proposed solution is to grant a power who's misuse is practically impossible to regulate, to a select few individuals who had the economic and social advantages that facilitate PHD's. I thought you lefties were supposed to be populists and in favor of good regulations. Why do you want to trade universally accessible power who's misuse is always apparent and easy to regulate, for power who's misuse is easy to hide, concentrated further into the hands of the priveleged?

Only in the case of gun control will you find populists willing to concede that college kids should decide which of the impoverished are mentally stable enough to practice their rights.

YES

To keep it simple, I believe our society should do everything in its power to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No loopholes, no bullshit

Our recent massacres have demonstrated that

 

[Vigilante]

I think that people under certain psychotic medications or reported by psychiatric professionals give up their rights to bear arms. They be told take your meds, turn in your guns, turn in your drivers license or be committed to an institution

So how many psych professionals would have to agree that someone was crazy before we start stripping rights?

Anyone who manages to make it to a PHD in psychology is immediately given the power to unilaterally decide whether or not a person is fit to exercise constitutional freedoms?

Since we're on the gun topic, here, let's put this into perspective.

A gun is simply power. The power to kill or maim. This power can be used for good, as a tool to defend someone from undue killing or maiming by using the same tactic to subdue an attacker.

This power can also be used to unduly kill or maim someone. Due to that potential, your solution is that there be less guns. Less available power.

You want to do this by giving psychologists and politicians the -power- to decide which people get to exercise their constitutional rights. This power can potentially be used for good, to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who intends to use it for, say, a mass shooting. Or this power can be used to unduly strip someone of their constitutional rights.

With the power of a firearm, misuse can be disincentivized simply by inflicting harsh punishments on people who misuse the power of their firearm by unduly killing or maiming someone with it.

With the power of discretion over who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, similarly disincentivizing misuse would require proving that an incorrect designation of mental instability was intentional, and until technology develops that can unerringly read thoughts, that's simply not possible.

Essentially, I find this amusing: You have a problem with a power that can have its misuse effectively regulated, and a power to which every individual in our nation, even those who weren't born into the advantageous socio-economic conditions that produce college grads, has access.

Your proposed solution is to grant a power who's misuse is practically impossible to regulate, to a select few individuals who had the economic and social advantages that facilitate PHD's. I thought you lefties were supposed to be populists and in favor of good regulations. Why do you want to trade universally accessible power who's misuse is always apparent and easy to regulate, for power who's misuse is easy to hide, concentrated further into the hands of the priveleged?

Only in the case of gun control will you find populists willing to concede that college kids should decide which of the impoverished are mentally stable enough to practice their rights.

YES

To keep it simple, I believe our society should do everything in its power to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No loopholes, no bullshit

Our recent massacres have demonstrated that

When all guns are gone, what do you do with all the knife deaths that will replace guns?.....Currently murders by both are quite close!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I think that people under certain psychotic medications or reported by psychiatric professionals give up their rights to bear arms. They be told take your meds, turn in your guns, turn in your drivers license or be committed to an institution

So how many psych professionals would have to agree that someone was crazy before we start stripping rights?

Anyone who manages to make it to a PHD in psychology is immediately given the power to unilaterally decide whether or not a person is fit to exercise constitutional freedoms?

Since we're on the gun topic, here, let's put this into perspective.

A gun is simply power. The power to kill or maim. This power can be used for good, as a tool to defend someone from undue killing or maiming by using the same tactic to subdue an attacker.

This power can also be used to unduly kill or maim someone. Due to that potential, your solution is that there be less guns. Less available power.

You want to do this by giving psychologists and politicians the -power- to decide which people get to exercise their constitutional rights. This power can potentially be used for good, to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who intends to use it for, say, a mass shooting. Or this power can be used to unduly strip someone of their constitutional rights.

With the power of a firearm, misuse can be disincentivized simply by inflicting harsh punishments on people who misuse the power of their firearm by unduly killing or maiming someone with it.

With the power of discretion over who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, similarly disincentivizing misuse would require proving that an incorrect designation of mental instability was intentional, and until technology develops that can unerringly read thoughts, that's simply not possible.

Essentially, I find this amusing: You have a problem with a power that can have its misuse effectively regulated, and a power to which every individual in our nation, even those who weren't born into the advantageous socio-economic conditions that produce college grads, has access.

Your proposed solution is to grant a power who's misuse is practically impossible to regulate, to a select few individuals who had the economic and social advantages that facilitate PHD's. I thought you lefties were supposed to be populists and in favor of good regulations. Why do you want to trade universally accessible power who's misuse is always apparent and easy to regulate, for power who's misuse is easy to hide, concentrated further into the hands of the priveleged?

Only in the case of gun control will you find populists willing to concede that college kids should decide which of the impoverished are mentally stable enough to practice their rights.

YES

To keep it simple, I believe our society should do everything in its power to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No loopholes, no bullshit

Our recent massacres have demonstrated that

I disagree that recent massacres have demonstrated that we should trade away "everything necessary" to prevent a few dozen deaths per year.

 

[rightwinger]

So how many psych professionals would have to agree that someone was crazy before we start stripping rights?

Anyone who manages to make it to a PHD in psychology is immediately given the power to unilaterally decide whether or not a person is fit to exercise constitutional freedoms?

Since we're on the gun topic, here, let's put this into perspective.

A gun is simply power. The power to kill or maim. This power can be used for good, as a tool to defend someone from undue killing or maiming by using the same tactic to subdue an attacker.

This power can also be used to unduly kill or maim someone. Due to that potential, your solution is that there be less guns. Less available power.

You want to do this by giving psychologists and politicians the -power- to decide which people get to exercise their constitutional rights. This power can potentially be used for good, to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who intends to use it for, say, a mass shooting. Or this power can be used to unduly strip someone of their constitutional rights.

With the power of a firearm, misuse can be disincentivized simply by inflicting harsh punishments on people who misuse the power of their firearm by unduly killing or maiming someone with it.

With the power of discretion over who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, similarly disincentivizing misuse would require proving that an incorrect designation of mental instability was intentional, and until technology develops that can unerringly read thoughts, that's simply not possible.

Essentially, I find this amusing: You have a problem with a power that can have its misuse effectively regulated, and a power to which every individual in our nation, even those who weren't born into the advantageous socio-economic conditions that produce college grads, has access.

Your proposed solution is to grant a power who's misuse is practically impossible to regulate, to a select few individuals who had the economic and social advantages that facilitate PHD's. I thought you lefties were supposed to be populists and in favor of good regulations. Why do you want to trade universally accessible power who's misuse is always apparent and easy to regulate, for power who's misuse is easy to hide, concentrated further into the hands of the priveleged?

Only in the case of gun control will you find populists willing to concede that college kids should decide which of the impoverished are mentally stable enough to practice their rights.

YES

To keep it simple, I believe our society should do everything in its power to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No loopholes, no bullshit

Our recent massacres have demonstrated that

When all guns are gone, what do you do with all the knife deaths that will replace guns?.....Currently murders by both are quite close!

There is no evidence that once guns are not available that knives replace them in either murder or suicide

And NO......knife murders are nowhere close to the number of gun murders