The Fez
Analog Millennial
See what happens when you start playing fast and loose with rights?
Last edited:
The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues
- Thread starter Hacker15e
- Start date
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
When I go vote in a booth somewhere (or a computer or mail in)...... no one dies. And especially no one dies en mass.
See the difference?
The Fez
Analog Millennial
I think a lot of Gore voters, the anti-Iraq war movement, and a lot of dead Iraqis would vehemently disagree with that statement.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Asinine stupidity...
Guess we ought to line this lady up and shoot her in your F'd up little reality. http://www.cbs46.com/story/19571808/pd-teen-steals-moms-car-hits-kills-waterbury-man
Whatever political/justice system you grew up under must have left some screwed up impression for you to think something as stupid as what you proposed would be either constitutional, ethical, or equitable under the law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
That's the FDE option from Daniel defense. Note sure how they mix it though
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
It's called liability and I can see a case to be made. Just don't use cars as an equivalent example to guns. Last big car example was on the Vegas strip and it killed 1 and injured 30 others. A gun, as you very well know, would have had a far worse outcome.
Your personal attacks on my background, the country I'm from are irrelevant and no amounts of personal insult heaving on your end makes any difference to the topic at hand.
But if you want to go there, when a leading candidate from your party (I assume you are Republican based on your posts here) says that we should ban Muslims and then shoots upwards to the #1 position for Republican candidates, I'd say that also qualifies something "as stupid as what you proposed would be either constitutional, ethical, or equitable under the law." And yet he rode to #1 ever since that comment. So what does that tell you about your party's base?
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Talkin about the United States. Not a 3rd world country with a fake 'democracy' we installed and then left.
The Fez
Analog Millennial
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
You haven't committed a crime until you commit a crime. More laws won't stop somebody who is already in the process of breaking the law.
Violates hipa, would be shot down in court as discriminatory. Your rights are not subject to you mental well being.
There already is - negligent homicide. It has been used for cases exactly like her. Murder requires direct participation and acting as an integral part of the act. Further, civil liability for wrongful death gives an avenue for monetary incentive to lock up your guns
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
Is that the new "fear" word? "Human hunting?" Regardless, how is marching everyone out, hands up any different than how you are going to be treated if you have an armed incident on board and the police take everyone off. You may be in uniform, but you are still going to be treated just like everyone else until they can positively ID you.
See, this is the core problem with gun controllers. They have no clue as to the laws already on the books. Those laws already exist, no need to propose the same law again. The cry of, "Something, anything, must be done." Well, how about enforcing the laws already on the books. You talk of the NRA and gun lobby of blocking legislation, yet, I don't see them advocating for the non enforcement of laws already on the books. Maybe, while we're at it, we enforce the DUI/DWI laws a little more effectively too.
pullup
Homewrecker
pullup
Homewrecker
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Your gun rights should be subject to your well being. It's insane the country can't move in a direction to address that. That's the whole point of these arguments. Because what we have now isn't working.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
I generally agree but the only problem I have with that is that we have a habit in this country of labeling people mentally ill for the sole reason that they don't conform to some small portion of what normal really is.
I still don't believe guns and access to guns are the problem OR the solution.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
"human hunting" was the last thing James Huberty told his wife he was going to do before he walked into the McDonalds in San Ysidro, CA and proceeded to use a shotgun, uzi, and a handgun to kill 20+ people and injure many others. Men, women, children, and even babies.
You're right, I understand the police response because frankly they don't know who the "good guys" are and who the "bad guy(s)" are. So we all get treated the same because some guy with a gun decided to go shot up the place/people.
It's ineffective. Minor criminal libality in which one pays a fine or have to suffer through probation is nothing. Get long term jail sentences going, then maybe people start changing their behavior.
And yes absolutely DUI/DWI should be enforced effectively too. Too many innocent drivers/passengers are killed on the road because some dumb-(rearend) was driving drunk.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Yes, great point, and I admit that. Which is why I proposed above to have a uniform standard that applies to *everybody* without regard to location, race, religion, political view, sexual orientation, or this individual's personal belief on any of those things. It can't be too hard to define normal, or at the least, what is really non-normal. I think most people would agree all these mass shooters like Lanza, Cho, the Oregon school, Columbine, they were far from 'normal.'
Part of the problem falls on the parents, too. Like the Oregon shooter, the parent didn't even know their kid owned a gun. Not that it changes anything, but shows the disconnect between the generations. If parents raised kids with the love, support, and being there for them, most kids wouldn't grow up to resent/hate others and have a want to hurt others. But, then there's the mental chemical imbalance in which some things just misfire, and without proper medication, this person WILL have an episode. And one can only hope there is no gun around when that happens.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Well, if you want some sort of mental/psychological evaluation for pilots, ok, but so as long as there is a clear, defined path of what is to be expected, have one uniform standard that applies for everybody, and have a recourse available in case the diagnosis/doctor was incorrect.
And btw, the Germanwings FO saw several doctors and they deemed him bad enough that he shouldn't be working. There were also plenty of warnings in his flight training period, too. IMO Lufthansa Corp will be held liable big time for this failure to stop him.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
An estimated 61.5 million Americans with some form of mental disease.
Rather than help you folks, we're just going to slap restrictions on you because I'm afraid.
As I said above, limiting rights due to mental illness wouldn't stand up for more than a second in court, unless you could already prove them to be a danger to society.
Seriously, go after the gang members and low income minorities. If we are going to discriminate, we might as well discriminate against those who are really the root problems with proven track records of violence and criminal activity.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I think the problem lies in our very attitude toward mental illness and the care of those who need it, and preventative care of each and every person. It's not a procedural problem but a philosophical one.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
Yes... Simply slapping the label of mentally ill on a prospective gun owner can have serious consequences for that person. They won't be able to hold security clearances, likely any DOT regulated job, or federal job for that matter. It would reach far beyond owning a gun.
The honest reality is that mental illness =\= predisposition to commit violence. Violent acts committed by most people undergoing treatment for mental diseases fall in line with the number of "normal" people who commit these acts.
There is no way to administer a test and then say ," you sir are going to kill people, no gun for you". The mind is not cut and dry like that.
Sadly, the reality is that most "normal" gun crime is committed by people who can be tied to similar social-economic groups. If you look at the epicenter a for gun crime, it will commonly correspond to areas with a recent (last 20 years) steep economic depression, massive job loss rates, high unemployment rates. These areas see a higher than normal amount of drug use and dependency, elevated violent crime rates, and usually lots of gang activity. Fortunately, the news generally doesn't give a rats ass about gang bangers killing gang bangers, so these shooting make the stats but not the news.
Fix the economy in these areas, bring the jobs back and guess what? Drug use goes down. Violent crime goes down, gun crime goes down. When people are worried about putting food on the table, keeping the heat on, and just surviving - "laws" really don't matter.