Gun Control, Mental healthcare, big brother... thread

[donkiez]

Um that's what I've said. More regulation after regulation has been put on trying to solve the illegal distribution and even legal abuse of these medications.

So how will regulations really stop criminals from purchasing guns or even using other means of weapons? You think they care about laws?

you are talking in circles, Part of the pharma fix is not more regulation, its treatment and education. Just like outlawing guns is not going to fix the problem. Both instruments are valuable in society but just like guns you cant have a Oxycontin free for all at every corner market....... shit I just thought of a freedom idea, open a store called Oxy's and AR's. Get both of your fixes in one spot... Hell Ill even put in a drive through.

 

[magnifier661]

you are talking in circles, Part of the pharma fix is not more regulation, its treatment and education. Just like outlawing guns is not going to fix the problem. Both instruments are valuable in society but just like guns you cant have a Oxycontin free for all at every corner market....... shit I just thought of a freedom idea, open a store called Oxy's and AR's. Get both of your fixes in one spot... Hell Ill even put in a drive through.

BINGO!!!!! Instead of demanding more regulations on guns, maybe we should solve the problem with education and treatment.

 

[e_blazer]

So here's what I don't understand about our politicians: why is it with something like gun control both sides just double down on their talking points instead of looking to actually do something meaningful? GOP assholes...are there really absolutely no changes that could be made to gun regulations that would help make it a bit harder for the lunatics to get weapons. No, it won't solve everything, but some reasonable changes might help a bit. Democrat assholes...can you at least stop pretending that gun legislation is the total solution and talk about some moves that might get the lunatics some help before they do some crazy shit like UCC? No, it won't solve everything but getting crazy people some treatment might help a bit. Good grief, get a frickin' clue, idiots.

 

[donkiez]

So here's what I don't understand about our politicians: why is it with something like gun control both sides just double down on their talking points instead of looking to actually do something meaningful? GOP assholes...are there really absolutely no changes that could be made to gun regulations that would help make it a bit harder for the lunatics to get weapons. No, it won't solve everything, but some reasonable changes might help a bit. Democrat assholes...can you at least stop pretending that gun legislation is the total solution and talk about some moves that might get the lunatics some help before they do some crazy shit like UCC? No, it won't solve everything but getting crazy people some treatment might help a bit. Good grief, get a frickin' clue, idiots.

We've entered a stage of politics where being moderate means your weak and makes you concede more than the other side. Personally I blame Ted Cruz

The other part is money. Guns are big fucking money with huge lobbyists. Any regulation hurts the bottom line. If you think any of these companies care about freedoms are safety then you are sadly mistaken. Its all money and they play the gun debates to sell more guns. Legal gun sales soar every time there is a shooting, and just the word Obama sends dollar signs to the eyes of guns and ammo dealers. The sadly ironic part is that the freedom crowd who proclaiming their gun rights are actually the ones being played by the gun companies and they eat it up hook line and sinker (see sheeple for more information). Dont believe me? Look up gun ownership vs sales, less and less people are buying guns but more and more guns are being bought by fearmongered freedom fighters who are more afraid of imaginary nazi Obama than they are of the real everyday threat that is prevalent in our lives.

 

[e_blazer]

We've entered a stage of politics where being moderate means your weak and makes you concede more than the other side. Personally I blame Ted Cruz

The other part is money. Guns are big fucking money with huge lobbyists. Any regulation hurts the bottom line. If you think any of these companies care about freedoms are safety then you are sadly mistaken. Its all money and they play the gun debates to sell more guns. Legal gun sales soar every time there is a shooting, and just the word Obama sends dollar signs to the eyes of guns and ammo dealers. The sadly ironic part is that the freedom crowd who proclaiming their gun rights are actually the ones being played by the gun companies and they eat it up hook line and sinker (see sheeple for more information). Dont believe me? Look up gun ownership vs sales, less and less people are buying guns but more and more guns are being bought by fearmongered freedom fighters who are more afraid of imaginary nazi Obama than they are of the real everyday threat that is prevalent in our lives.

I read your post and I see Democratic talking points and zilch about getting help for the crazies. Mags can chime in now with the GOP talking points and zilch about passing even minimal laws to regulate access to guns by the crazies. And so the yin and yang of dysfunctional politics continues with each side chasing their opponents' equally useless tails, with the sole point of making sure that THEIR people get elected to continue the useless pattern.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I proposed we use New Hampshire's gun laws. They have one of the fewest gun violence rates per capita in the country.

Is that b/c of the laws, or one of the following demographics, or ...?
-94% white
-7th highest per capita income (nation's lowest poverty rate at 8%--Hess, Alexander E.M. (October 6, 2014). "The 10 states with the best quality of life". Yahoo Finance)
-Highly educated (highest SAT/ACT scores in nation--"The IQ-Trapper". V-weiss.de. VOLKMAR WEISS. May 30, 2009)

 

[donkiez]

I read your post and I see Democratic talking points and zilch about getting help for the crazies. Mags can chime in now with the GOP talking points and zilch about passing even minimal laws to regulate access to guns by the crazies. And so the yin and yang of dysfunctional politics continues with each side chasing their opponents' equally useless tails, with the sole point of making sure that THEIR people get elected to continue the useless pattern.

You've only read that one post then. My central theme is increased mental health care access and I view it as more important than any regulation that wont be passed. So part of the problem you are stating is you, you are not listening to the whole story and then complaining about peoples stance in a limited context of discussion.

 

[e_blazer]

You've only read that one post then. My central theme is increased mental health care access and I view it as more important than any regulation that wont be passed. So part of the problem you are stating is you, you are not listening to the whole story and then complaining about peoples stance in a limited context of discussion.

True, I was going by that one post. You don't actually expect me to read 15 pages of this nonsense, do you?

 

[Denny Crane]

We've entered a stage of politics where being moderate means your weak and makes you concede more than the other side. Personally I blame Ted Cruz

The other part is money. Guns are big fucking money with huge lobbyists. Any regulation hurts the bottom line. If you think any of these companies care about freedoms are safety then you are sadly mistaken. Its all money and they play the gun debates to sell more guns. Legal gun sales soar every time there is a shooting, and just the word Obama sends dollar signs to the eyes of guns and ammo dealers. The sadly ironic part is that the freedom crowd who proclaiming their gun rights are actually the ones being played by the gun companies and they eat it up hook line and sinker (see sheeple for more information). Dont believe me? Look up gun ownership vs sales, less and less people are buying guns but more and more guns are being bought by fearmongered freedom fighters who are more afraid of imaginary nazi Obama than they are of the real everyday threat that is prevalent in our lives.

Or "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" and any concession is a real violation of good principles.

 

[donkiez]

Or "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" and any concession is a real violation of good principles.

blah blah blah, nuclear weapons blah blah blah.

Principles are great an all but so is rational thinking and compromise, especially since we all have to live in this reality that we create.

 

[e_blazer]

Or "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" and any concession is a real violation of good principles.

Because the weaponry today is exactly the same as it was in our forefathers' time and it wouldn't make sense to revisit this issue in light of the changing technology of killing?

 

[Denny Crane]

Is that b/c of the laws, or one of the following demographics, or ...?
-94% white
-7th highest per capita income (nation's lowest poverty rate at 8%--Hess, Alexander E.M. (October 6, 2014). "The 10 states with the best quality of life". Yahoo Finance)
-Highly educated (highest SAT/ACT scores in nation--"The IQ-Trapper". V-weiss.de. VOLKMAR WEISS. May 30, 2009)

Doesn't matter to me.

Minimal gun control legislation and minimal firearm deaths is proof positive those things aren't needed.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because the weaponry today is exactly the same as it was in our forefathers' time and it wouldn't make sense to revisit this issue in light of the changing technology of killing?

The words are the words. They didn't change meaning since the founding of the nation.

If gun control activists want to do something, pass a constitutional amendment.

I fully believe the founders strongly felt that a free people should have unfettered access to guns.

 

[donkiez]

True, I was going by that one post. You don't actually expect me to read 15 pages of this nonsense, do you?

I did, its actually very entertaining. Im just not gong to outline my whole political stance in every statement, but I try to be as consistent as possible. Also its very easy to get sucked into a rat hole discussion point.

I might be going a little overboard but its an important subject and its hard to get through the standard drilled in republican talking points. Obama sucks, good guys vs bad guys, arm everyone, my rights. All of those are gun industry terms used to give people talking points so we argue and dont talk about what we can really do, because when we have that discussion it costs them money.

 

[Denny Crane]

I did, its actually very entertaining. Im just not gong to outline my whole political stance in every statement, but I try to be as consistent as possible. Also its very easy to get sucked into a rat hole discussion point.

I might be going a little overboard but its an important subject and its hard to get through the standard drilled in republican talking points. Obama sucks, good guys vs bad guys, arm everyone, my rights. All of those are gun industry terms used to give people talking points so we argue and dont talk about what we can really do, because when we have that discussion it costs them money.

Shall not be infringed. Your premise starts with "may be infringed."

It has nothing to do with talking points, the NRA, or republicans.

 

[donkiez]

Shall not be infringed. Your premise starts with "may be infringed."

It has nothing to do with talking points, the NRA, or republicans.

And the well regulated militia part?

Arguing semantics is ignoring the problem.

 

[e_blazer]

Shall not be infringed. Your premise starts with "may be infringed."

It has nothing to do with talking points, the NRA, or republicans.

The key part of the Second Amendment that typically gets overlooked in these discussions is the initial clause stating, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,". In United States vs Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit access to weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". That certainly gives reasonable grounds for governmental registration and background checks (access) to certain types of weapons. I'd be willing to stipulate that everyone can have free access to a musket.

 

[barfo]

I fully believe the founders strongly felt that a free people should have unfettered access to guns.

That's nice. They also felt that it was ok to own slaves, so maybe we need to think for ourselves rather than read the constitution like it is the bible.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The key part of the Second Amendment that typically gets overlooked in these discussions is the initial clause stating, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,". In United States vs Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit access to weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". That certainly gives reasonable grounds for governmental registration and background checks (access) to certain types of weapons. I'd be willing to stipulate that everyone can have free access to a musket.

And the well regulated militia part?

Arguing semantics is ignoring the problem.

SCOTUS ruled on that, and it's not what you wish it to be.

 

[magnifier661]

That's nice. They also felt that it was ok to own slaves, so maybe we need to think for ourselves rather than read the constitution like it is the bible.

barfo

so what do you propose? What changes, in your opinion, need to be made on guns?

 

[Denny Crane]

That's nice. They also felt that it was ok to own slaves, so maybe we need to think for ourselves rather than read the constitution like it is the bible.

barfo

They passed an amendment to eliminate slavery.

 

[julius]

They passed an amendment to eliminate slavery.

Well, the writers of the Constitution didn't.

But the reason they passed an amendment (besides the fact that thats the POINT of amendments, you can amend them), was because they realized that things had changed and that they needed to update it instead of sticking their heads in the ground and saying "neener neener neener..I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

 

[donkiez]

SCOTUS ruled on that, and it's not what you wish it to be.

Great a SCOTUS ruling. So that means abortions and Obamacare for everyone right?

That ruling does not talk about the term milita and its seems to complicate the matter more than define anything other than the right to keep and bear arms in your house to protect yourself, which is reasonable. Its the who, what, how many, how they get it, destruction capability that are in question. This ruling does not legalize nukes or allow mentally ill people access to weapons so it already includes some common sense and reasonable thinking.

 

[e_blazer]

SCOTUS ruled on that, and it's not what you wish it to be.

That case affirms the applicability of second amendment rights to state and local governments and is cast in the light of weapons necessary for self protection. It doesn't reverse the finding in US vs Miller that the government has the right to limit access to weapons that exceed militia or self defense needs. No reasonable person argues that individuals shouldn't have access to tanks, RPGs, fully-automatic weapons, and so on. It seems to me that limitations on the number of rounds a weapon can shoot without reloading could be reasonably enforced. I've got nothing against a constitutional amendment, but in today's political world I think we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, the writers of the Constitution didn't.

But the reason they passed an amendment (besides the fact that thats the POINT of amendments, you can amend them), was because they realized that things had changed and that they needed to update it instead of sticking their heads in the ground and saying "neener neener neener..I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

They provided the mechanism to amend.

If you want to change how guns are treated, amend the constitution.

 

[Denny Crane]

Great a SCOTUS ruling. So that means abortions and Obamacare for everyone right?

That ruling does not talk about the term milita and its seems to complicate the matter more than define anything other than the right to keep and bear arms in your house to protect yourself, which is reasonable. Its the who, what, how many, how they get it, destruction capability that are in question. This ruling does not legalize nukes or allow mentally ill people access to weapons so it already includes some common sense and reasonable thinking.

The term militia is now irrelevant. That's what the ruling means. The ruling specifically overturned a gun ban law in Illinois.

Pass an amendment if you want to INFRINGE.

 

[Denny Crane]

That case affirms the applicability of second amendment rights to state and local governments and is cast in the light of weapons necessary for self protection. It doesn't reverse the finding in US vs Miller that the government has the right to limit access to weapons that exceed militia or self defense needs. No reasonable person argues that individuals shouldn't have access to tanks, RPGs, fully-automatic weapons, and so on. It seems to me that limitations on the number of rounds a weapon can shoot without reloading could be reasonably enforced. I've got nothing against a constitutional amendment, but in today's political world I think we all know that's not going to happen.

If it's not going to happen in today's political world, then it's not meant to be. The whole point of the amendment process is to get significant consensus that the constitution should be changed.

You can't get consensus, then it shouldn't be changed. The losers in that fight shouldn't be able to do something unconstitutional and force it down the throats of everyone else.

 

[julius]

They provided the mechanism to amend.

If you want to change how guns are treated, amend the constitution.

if they try that, you'll get nutbars who scream that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" and any concession is a real violation of good principles."

 

[e_blazer]

If it's not going to happen in today's political world, then it's not meant to be. The whole point of the amendment process is to get significant consensus that the constitution should be changed.

You can't get consensus, then it shouldn't be changed. The losers in that fight shouldn't be able to do something unconstitutional and force it down the throats of everyone else.

You didn't address the main point of my post that the Miller case gives government authority to limit access to some types of weapons and that there's room for discussion of new regulations under that case. Secondly, we have multiple flavors of gun registration and background check laws around the country so, clearly, there is disagreement among various politicians and attorneys as to how much regulation constitutes "infringement". A 5-4 ruling in the 2009 case doesn't mean that a different ruling might not result on a new case on slightly different points.