17
   

What do you think of the gun control Obama is proposing?

 
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 03:45 pm
Big deal. He closed down about half the loophole.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 04:26 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
These are mentally disabled people, not all disabled veterans.

So?


Robert Gentel wrote:
It's a tricky issue (one aspect is that it can discourage people from coming forward) but not what you make it out to be.

It is exactly what I am making it out to be. They are adding large swaths of law abiding citizens to the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns.


Robert Gentel wrote:
I for one see no problem with denying guns to people legally declared mentally unfit to manage their own legal affairs.

Financial affairs I believe.

And the fact that it is a grave violation of their Constitutional rights is a sizable problem. The government was allowed to prevent criminals or the dangerously insane from having guns because there is reason to believe that they would use those guns to harm people.

There is no reason to believe that people who can't keep track of their bills are likely to use their guns to harm anyone.


Robert Gentel wrote:
If they aren't declared mentally capable of being responsible for their own affairs I don't think they should be entrusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

Unless you can demonstrate that they are likely to use their guns criminally, the Constitution prevents you from restricting their rights.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 04:40 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I've not seen this, where can I read more?

Here is an article from 2011 about the Obama Administration blocking disabled veterans:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/senators-va-has-denied-gun-rights-to-more-than-100000-veterans/

Here is an article from 2015 about the new move to expand this to disabled people in general:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html


From your first source:
Quote:
In various forms, the bill has languished in Congress for several years now, but the House passed one version last Tuesday. The legislation has the support of the National Rifle Association.


After reading the second source, I agree with you that that part is far too over reaching.

I do think that people who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others should definitely be banned from gun ownership or purchasing new guns. I think to just go ahead and brand an entire group based on whether or not they can take care of their money is a reach too far. Hell, I can't take care of my money. That's why my wife is my accountant.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 06:35 pm
We don't need people with serious mental disabilities carrying guns. People with such disabilities are responsible for a lot of shootings. Furthermore, basic firearm safety requires mindfulness at all times. A lapse of awareness easily leads to accidental deaths and injuries.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 06:40 pm
@FBM,
Here's an interesting article on mental illness and guns.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 06:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Thanks for that. It's always good to add scholarship to the discussion. However, I have a technical issue with this part:

Quote:
...
Speaking to a national television audience, Torrey, a psychiatrist, claimed that “about half of . . . mass killings are being done by people with severe mental illness, mostly schizophrenia, and if they were being treated they would have been preventable.”23 Similar themes appear in legal dialogues as well. Even the US Supreme Court, which in 2008 strongly affirmed a broad right to bear arms, endorsed prohibitions on gun ownership “by felons and the mentally ill” because of their special potential for violence.24

Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.26


(Bold added) Background checks have been in place since 1998, so the low incidence of mentally ill people committing gun crimes could easliy be seen as evidence that the restriction works.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 07:08 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
We don't need people with serious mental disabilities carrying guns.

So now people who can't keep track of their bills have a serious mental disability?

It won't be long before the Democrats are labeling people who need glasses as having a serious mental disability too.


FBM wrote:
People with such disabilities are responsible for a lot of shootings.

Nonsense. People who can't keep track of their bills are hardly likely to go on shooting rampages.


FBM wrote:
Furthermore, basic firearm safety requires mindfulness at all times. A lapse of awareness easily leads to accidental deaths and injuries.

Being unable to keep track of bills doesn't mean someone can't follow basic firearm safety.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 07:20 pm
@oralloy,
Got anything other than strawman fallacies?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 07:24 pm
@FBM,
Nothing that I posted was in any way a strawman fallacy.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 07:26 pm
@oralloy,
Did I say anything about people's ability to keep track of bills? No? Instant strawman. Try again. Or better yet, don't.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 07:43 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Did I say anything about people's ability to keep track of bills? No?

So you are saying that your post about mental disabilities had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else was talking about in the thread?


FBM wrote:
Instant strawman.

If you jump into a discussion about disabled people and start an entirely unrelated conversation about disabled people (and without clarifying that you are talking about something entirely different), people are going to reasonably assume that you are posting in context of the existing conversation, and people making that reasonable assumption will not be engaging in a strawman.


FBM wrote:
Try again. Or better yet, don't.

At the moment I am satisfied with my first response given the overall context of the thread.

I will consider the possibility that you are talking about an entirely different subject when responding to further posts however.
FBM
 
  5  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 08:29 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

So you are saying that your post about mental disabilities had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else was talking about in the thread?


How do you logically conclude that from what I've posted?

Quote:

If you jump into a discussion about disabled people and start an entirely unrelated conversation about disabled people (and without clarifying that you are talking about something entirely different), people are going to reasonably assume that you are posting in context of the existing conversation, and people making that reasonable assumption will not be engaging in a strawman.


Here's an idea. Respond to me about what I post, not about what others post. That will avoid a lot of difficulty, I think.

Quote:

At the moment I am satisfied with my first response given the overall context of the thread.

I will consider the possibility that you are talking about an entirely different subject when responding to further posts however.


Good idea.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:05 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
oralloy wrote:
So you are saying that your post about mental disabilities had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else was talking about in the thread?

How do you logically conclude that from what I've posted?

All the other posts about disabled people in this thread deal with the push to bar them from having guns if they can't keep their finances straight.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:06 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
...from what I've posted?


There are many relevant aspects of mental illness other than the ability to manage one's finances.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:34 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Robert Gentel wrote:
These are mentally disabled people, not all disabled veterans.

So?


Many people would want these people to not have access to guns but when you describe it as "disabled veterans" these people don't come to mind and it sounds like taking weapons away from wounded warriors etc. You get the optics just fine, you don't need me to explain it to you.

Quote:
It is exactly what I am making it out to be. They are adding large swaths of law abiding citizens to the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns.


So? That you are describing it accurately doesn't mean your position on the matter is the ideal one. And given that most people don't want these people to have weapons they will likely be restricted from them.


Quote:
Robert Gentel wrote:
I for one see no problem with denying guns to people legally declared mentally unfit to manage their own legal affairs.

Financial affairs I believe.


Makes no difference, most people mentally unfit to manage their finances are mentally unfit to be wielding a weapon.

I'm sure that there are some people unjustifiably on such lists and yada yada yada but there is not a better, more accurate list upon which to base such gun regulation. In a choice between allowing all mentally unfit people access to guns and none of these people declared mentally unfit I prefer the latter, you prefer the former. We have different axioms we operate under and won't reach the same conclusions about the very same set of facts.

Quote:
And the fact that it is a grave violation of their Constitutional rights is a sizable problem.


I am not big on constitutional arguments because I am more interested in arguing what things ought to be, not what things are. But even then I think your statement is yet another minority opinion and that both legal courts and the court of public opinion will not interpret the constitution this way.

The notion that any restriction at all to the second amendment right to guns is unconstitutional is not one that is going to prevail in courts or in public opinion no matter how strongly you hold it and advocate for it.

Quote:
The government was allowed to prevent criminals or the dangerously insane from having guns because there is reason to believe that they would use those guns to harm people.

There is no reason to believe that people who can't keep track of their bills are likely to use their guns to harm anyone.


If they can't keep track of their bills and lack the mental capacity to represent themselves then they likely lack the ability to be responsible for a firearm, both in securing it and in its reasonable use.

Quote:
Unless you can demonstrate that they are likely to use their guns criminally, the Constitution prevents you from restricting their rights.


Sez you, but I predict that this will not be the prevailing opinion in either the court of law or public opinion.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:38 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Agree.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Agree with that agreement.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 10:47 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Many people would want these people to not have access to guns but when you describe it as "disabled veterans" these people don't come to mind and it sounds like taking weapons away from wounded warriors etc.

It IS taking weapons away from wounded warriors.

Well, it was. Now it is taking guns away from a much larger swath of law abiding citizens.

As for people who favor civil rights violations, what can I say. Some people are just bad.


Robert Gentel wrote:
So? That you are describing it accurately doesn't mean your position on the matter is the ideal one.

Ideals are subjective I suppose. I think vigorous support for civil rights is ideal.


Robert Gentel wrote:
And given that most people don't want these people to have weapons they will likely be restricted from them.

Has it been established that most people want to violate the rights of those who can't manage their finances? I'm expecting widespread outrage among those who value freedom.

But assuming for a moment that the majority hates our freedom, the majority is trumped by the Constitution. If the majority wants to violate people's civil rights, the majority loses.


Robert Gentel wrote:
most people mentally unfit to manage their finances are mentally unfit to be wielding a weapon.

Nonsense. Not keeping track of your bills doesn't mean you aren't a responsible gun owner.


Robert Gentel wrote:
I'm sure that there are some people unjustifiably on such lists and yada yada yada but there is not a better, more accurate list upon which to base such gun regulation.

Sure there is. The proper list of people who shouldn't have guns is: those people convicted of dangerous crimes in a court of law and those people who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others by a court of law.

The key points are that people are judged as individual cases, and they are given a fair hearing (with a defense) in a court of law.


Robert Gentel wrote:
I am not big on constitutional arguments because I am more interested in arguing what things ought to be, not what things are.

Having our civil rights protected by an inflexible Constitution is the way things ought to be.

But this justifies my previous position that the entire background check system needs to be weakened and opposed. It is no longer being used as a way to bar dangerous people from having guns. The Democrats are now using background checks as a weapon against the American people themselves.


Robert Gentel wrote:
But even then I think your statement is yet another minority opinion and that both legal courts and the court of public opinion will not interpret the constitution this way.

Actually quite a few Americans value America's freedom and civil rights quite passionately.

It seems unlikely that the courts will overturn a couple centuries worth of civil rights jurisprudence just because the Democrats don't like civil rights. It may well be that the Supreme Court will punt on the matter and refuse to hear the case though, at least until the Republicans pack the court with a bunch more conservative judges.

Luckily that should happen soon enough. Mr. Obama already wrecked his second term with his silly gun control nonsense, and now the Republicans are virtually guaranteed to win in 2016. I expect that 10 years from now we'll all be referring to Justice Scalia as "one of the old moderates".

Likely the first to go will be the Roe v Wade/PP v Casey stuff. The pro-lifers are a big part of the Republican base after all. But I'm expecting that after that we'll see a whole bunch of unconstitutional gun laws struck down.

Background checks might have once passed muster. But now that they are a weapon against the freedom of the American people, likely not.


Robert Gentel wrote:
The notion that any restriction at all to the second amendment right to guns is unconstitutional is not one that is going to prevail in courts or in public opinion no matter how strongly you hold it and advocate for it.

I'm not arguing that any restriction is unconstitutional. The rules are that a restriction impacting people's Constitutional rights can only be for a compelling reason, and it must be limited in scope to so that its impact is minimized.

Since there is no valid reason for barring guns from people who can't manage their finances, such a restriction fails the rules that American courts have used for centuries when dealing with the vital rights of Americans.

And don't be so sure that the public shares the Left's dislike of America's freedom. Civil rights are pretty popular here.


Robert Gentel wrote:
If they can't keep track of their bills and lack the mental capacity to represent themselves then they likely lack the ability to be responsible for a firearm, both in securing it and in its reasonable use.

That is preposterous. Especially regarding reasonable use.


Robert Gentel wrote:

Here are the standards that the courts use to determine if a law that impacts civil rights is allowed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 10:53 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Agree with that agreement.

Since you are agreeing with a post that openly advocates violating the civil rights of disabled people who can't keep track of their bills, is it safe for me to assume that you are now referring to that issue?

This shows why the background check system needs to be opposed. It is no longer being used to protect the public from dangerous people. The Democrats are using background checks as a weapon to violate the civil rights of the American people in general.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:23 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

FBM wrote:
Agree with that agreement.

Since you are agreeing with a post that openly advocates violating the civil rights of disabled people who can't keep track of their bills, is it safe for me to assume that you are now referring to that issue?


How about not assuming at all? If you want to know my specific position on a specific issue, ask.

Quote:
This shows why the background check system needs to be opposed. It is no longer being used to protect the public from dangerous people. The Democrats are using background checks as a weapon to violate the civil rights of the American people in general.


You have yet to establish that as a fact, and just repeating the rhetoric doesn't make your position any stronger.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 08:22:11