Using "Mental Illness" as a cop-out for Mass shootings

[SassyIrishLass]

Look, moron the sooner you realize I think you're an idiot and are most likely the last person on this forum I'd take serious the better off you will be. Learn that and live it. Now stop bothering me with your BS

Oh, FatIrishSow, I know you just enjoy the whoopings I inflict on your lack of logic and poor research skills.

Go bug someone else you deluded old fool

 

[JoeB131]

You mean like the maobama administration running guns to Mexico with impunity? Criminals do shit like that, they tend to ignore laws both here and Mexico.

Did Obama personally drive those weapons down? Or did the ATF just fail to effectively track weapons that were already in the wind?

 

[JoeB131]

Facts:
An estimated 1,400 weapons were lost by the ATF in Mexico. Two of the missing weapons linked to the operation turned up at the Arizona murder scene of United States Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

So lost by the ATF, NOT Obama and HOlder Perosnally.

And only 1400 out of some 250,000 weapons that cross the border every year.

And weapons "turned up" a crime scene, but no proof that they shot Brian Terry.

 

[OKTexas]

[

All this talk and no links, I wonder why.

I don't do links unless I feel like doing them.

I also don't read them unless I feel like reading them.

So you're spewing baseless BS because you feel like it. No wonder people think you're a real joke.

 

[OKTexas]

You mean like the maobama administration running guns to Mexico with impunity? Criminals do shit like that, they tend to ignore laws both here and Mexico.

Did Obama personally drive those weapons down? Or did the ATF just fail to effectively track weapons that were already in the wind?

The inept dear leader just provided cover for the DOJ and his inept pal holder. You can't have federal officials instructing people to violate federal law and no one go to jail. That's exactly what we got with this lawless administration because he knew the commies in the senate would never vote to impeach his ass.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Disir]

District of Columbia v Heller made it perfectly clear that regulating (restrictions) firearms is within the Constitution.

What you will never see is a psychological evaluation for gun ownership. You won't see it. Not now and not ever.

Secondly, the mental health crisis is a major deal. It doesn't have to be connected to this one case. The sentence here:
I get really really tired of hearing the phrase “mental illness” thrown around as a way to avoid saying other terms like “toxic masculinity,” “white supremacy,” “misogyny” or “racism.”

indicates a complete disconnect from reality. Nobody is avoiding the term racism or white supremacy unless you have zero access to a tv, the internet, or a radio. In fact, when you hear right wingers use those terms (to show they are all fair and balanced) then you aren't paying attention.

Chu has simply kicked out another worthless commentary that solves nothing.

No prison because everyone is a victim of the drug war. No mental health hospitals for long or life term care because some jack ass has decided that it will destroy rights. FFS, nobody do anything and bitch some more.

I don't think anyone has a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or felons. The NRA is actually supporting that very thing. But when laws are made that affect 99 percent of law abiding citizens and attempt to restrict their constitutional right is where the line is drawn.

LaPierre does not support tracking private sales. At all. He has never made any type of push to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and I have never read anything or seen any comment about any type of accountability from the manufacturers that are letting things slide through the back door. This guy hadn't been convicted of a felony so he was able to buy his own.

But, my point wasn't geared towards gun rights or the lack thereof. It's my irritation at another commentary that aids and abets a big circle jerk and is written by someone that has an audience that will pat him on the back instead of taking it to........Stormfront to actually confront that type of shit. Or bother researching anything at all. Or writing anything of substance.

 

[Disir]

I'm not getting your interpretation of "DC vs Heller" .

District of Columbia lost. I realize that they say that the Second can't be interpreted as not unlimited but the Heller case did limit what regulations the government could put in place.

It's here:
III

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Or the easy peasy route:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[westwall]

Okay, no guns for you.

How about "No guns for anyone who doesn't have a damned good reason for having one".

Like every other civilized country does.

I'm a U.S. citizen. That's all the reason I need to have one. Thanks!

 

[blackhawk]

When we have a terrorist bombing we blame the bomber not the bomb when someone is killed by a drunk driver we blame the driver not the car when someone is killed with a gun we blame the gun not the shooter. There is some very strange logic at work here.

 

[JoeB131]

So you're spewing baseless BS because you feel like it. No wonder people think you're a real joke.

no i'm stating facts you guys are unable to refute, link or no link.

thanks for playing.

The inept dear leader just provided cover for the DOJ and his inept pal holder. You can't have federal officials instructing people to violate federal law and no one go to jail. That's exactly what we got with this lawless administration because he knew the commies in the senate would never vote to impeach his ass.

I seem to remember Bush and Ashcroft and Gonzalez refusing to comply with all sorts of requests for information, and your side not saying boo bout it.

Clearly, if you guys had evidence that this was anything other than some low-level agents running a botched operation, you'd have filed impeachment by now.

 

[JoeB131]

When we have a terrorist bombing we blame the bomber not the bomb when someone is killed by a drunk driver we blame the driver not the car when someone is killed with a gun we blame the gun not the shooter. There is some very strange logic at work here.

Well, actually, we don't "blame" the gun, but talking about making them harder to get is a good idea.

Hey, what we do is that we have toughened up the DUI Laws, lowered the limit on blood alcohol levels to pretty much mouthwash grade, passed laws holding bars responsible if they overserve their customers. Because that's what you do to correct a problem.

When someone like Timothy McVeigh makes a bomb out of fertilizer, we put in new controls over the sales of fertilizers.

we have a mass shooting by a guy who had no business ever owning a gun, and the usual response is to make gun laws looser! that's fucking insane.

 

[Wildman]

How about kiss my ass?

and mine too

OR

........

 

[Wildman]

So the Newtown shooter the Aurora shooter the Gabby Giffords shooter this guy none of them had mental problems?

can the mentally sick really plan their attacks to kill others ?

i say NO, they are fully in control of their mental condition, e.g., J. Hinkley

did any of the nut cases in "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest" commit mass murder ?

 

[blackhawk]

When we have a terrorist bombing we blame the bomber not the bomb when someone is killed by a drunk driver we blame the driver not the car when someone is killed with a gun we blame the gun not the shooter. There is some very strange logic at work here.

Well, actually, we don't "blame" the gun, but talking about making them harder to get is a good idea.

Hey, what we do is that we have toughened up the DUI Laws, lowered the limit on blood alcohol levels to pretty much mouthwash grade, passed laws holding bars responsible if they overserve their customers. Because that's what you do to correct a problem.

When someone like Timothy McVeigh makes a bomb out of fertilizer, we put in new controls over the sales of fertilizers.

we have a mass shooting by a guy who had no business ever owning a gun, and the usual response is to make gun laws looser! that's fucking insane.

I have never heard anyone suggest making gun laws looser. If you can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed without infringing on the rights of responsible law abiding gun owners I'm all for it so far no one has.

 

[JoeB131]

I have never heard anyone suggest making gun laws looser. If you can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed without infringing on the rights of responsible law abiding gun owners I'm all for it so far no one has.

You haven't. The NRA wants to increase concealed carry, get rid of local gun bans like we have in Chicago, allow for "open carry" in some states, and a lot of other craziness.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I have never heard anyone suggest making gun laws looser. If you can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed without infringing on the rights of responsible law abiding gun owners I'm all for it so far no one has.

You haven't. The NRA wants to increase concealed carry, get rid of local gun bans like we have in Chicago, allow for "open carry" in some states, and a lot of other craziness.

How are those "local gun ban" laws working out in Chicago...LMAO

 

[JoeB131]

How are those "local gun ban" laws working out in Chicago...LMAO

They'd work just fine if the Gun Industry wasn't continuing to flood the city with guns.

For instance, a police survey found that 20% of guns recovered in Crimes in Chicago all came from ONE GUN SHOP in River Forest.

 

[JWBooth]

I have never heard anyone suggest making gun laws looser. If you can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed without infringing on the rights of responsible law abiding gun owners I'm all for it so far no one has.

You haven't. The NRA wants to increase concealed carry, get rid of local gun bans like we have in Chicago, allow for "open carry" in some states, and a lot of other craziness.

Chicago, now there is a case example of the success of gun control laws.
The only folks there who are following them are the victims.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How are those "local gun ban" laws working out in Chicago...LMAO

They'd work just fine if the Gun Industry wasn't continuing to flood the city with guns.

For instance, a police survey found that 20% of guns recovered in Crimes in Chicago all came from ONE GUN SHOP in River Forest.

LOL You'll never stop anyone that wants a gun from obtaining one. That's a libtard fallacy. But keep on whining, it's fun to watch