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

Mental healthcare is not a slippery slope, but having the government determine who is mentally ill enough to be denied certain right is.

These are personal decisions. Someone taking an ak 47 and killing 14 to 20 people who dident want to die dosent equal drinking oneself to death. This is also a poor arguement.

Ollaroy since you've asked for the logical fallacies to be pointed out I would like to note that this is a guilt by association fallacy. Again, not trying to lord this over you or anything I have often committed a fallacy or two before breakfast.

If this is 100% unconstitutional why then is it still law?

What triggers this evaluation? I think that financial issues tend to drive most declarations of mental incompetence.

I think the most effective (but perhaps more onerous) method would be for each gun buyer to be evaluated for mental capability, background checks and a gun safety test.

But I suspect you find that too much, even though it would be a more targeted and direct way of handling this concept (that if I'm not mistaken you agree with in principle?).

Your average 1 year old is not "dangerous" but is clearly not mentally fit to operate a firearm.

So it should be obvious that there is a certain degree of mental incapacity that might not make someone inherently dangerous but perhaps not fully capable of operating a firearm without being dangerous.

I'm thinking of those cases of very old confused gentlemen shooting pizza delivery guys at their door. They probably don't pose a threat to society except when being senile and operating a firearm.

Obviously the line at which this should be drawn is hard to set, but do you not acknowledge that there is a certain level of mental incapacity that represents a danger with firearms while the person might not otherwise be dangerous?

Nobody is gonna declare all toddlers to be dangerous people but we obviously recognize that a toddler with a gun is a potentially dangerous person.

I think this kind of dramatic flair really does your intellect no favors. You are obviously above average in intelligence but when you make overstatements for rhetoric it doesn't make your arguments commensurate with your intellect.

You know that the people you oppose are not doing this "for no reason". They simply differ from you in that they see reducing mortality rates as more valuable than the right to have guns. This is not "no reason" it is merely a reason that you do not agree with and not because of anything other than that you have different axiomatic values than do they.

Mental health is not easy, you should expound on how you seek to determine only the dangerous ones. I personally prefer the line differently drawn, to include people who we do not think are fully connected to reality enough to responsibly deploy a weapon. I don't want senile grannies who always think their grandson is a random stranger answering their doors with a gun. Do you?

Sure, but you are being facetious here again, you know very well that a list of mentally unfit people (even if the criterion for addition to this list is not ideal) is much more likely to improve mortality rates (the reason your political opposition has, by the way) by using this list than eye color right?

There is no such thing as a canonical interpretation of the constitution,

But do you concede that while you think this that enough people have not agreed for this interpretation to be codified? And that there is a distinct possibility that it will not?

It is not a "personal decision" to be killed by a drunk driver and tens of thousands of people die that way every year too.

DADSS is still several years away from being implemented in real cars. While the NHTSA would certainly advocate for automakers to install the technology in their vehicles, it would not be a required feature. The agency hopes that with a successful initial launch, DADSS will eventually become commonplace.

However, groups like Fascists and the KKK are viewed negatively specifically because they violate people's civil rights. It seems fair to me to compare them to others who like to violate civil rights.

It's harder than you'd think to get an unconstitutional law struck down.

FBM wrote:

Pointing out your fallacies does, however, reveal that you have yet to make a valid argument.
And pretending that your bullshit hasn't already been called doesn't make it go away.

You've not pointed out a single fallacy on my part, and you've not challenged a single fact that I posted.

Your lies to that effect are just a smokescreen to obscure your support for violating the civil rights of disabled people.

In a way, that is positive. It shows that you know that your position is repugnant.

But it is also negative. Instead of abandoning your repugnant position you merely try to hide it in a cloak of nonsense.

Your lies to that effect are just a smokescreen to obscure your support for violating the civil rights of disabled people.

Quote:

Mental healthcare is not a slippery slope, but having the government determine who is mentally ill enough to be denied certain right is.

I wonder if you have had to contend with a mentally ill person. I have. Trying to reason with them can be impossible, in which case one has to call help to control them. Help is one discription of the law, cops, courts, and mental facilities. If you have never had to contend with a mentally ill person you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

For example I think you are begging the question repeatedly when your posts devolve into the mantras of you being up against "bad" people while you champion "civil rights".

This assumption that you are on the "good" side of "freedom" and "civil rights" vs simply "bad people" is also a fallacy of equivocation in that these terms are ambiguous and whether or not this even applies to those terms would first be in dispute before you could declare that axiomatic to the argument.

I wish you were able to remain more dispassionate as I always enjoy discussions with you right up to the point where you become the dogmatic bulldog with nothing more to say.

Well you see things oddly,

firstly whether this is civil rights at all is not something you get wide agreement on,

and comparing people whom want mentally unfit people not to have guns to the KKK and Fascists is a textbook example of a rather ridiculous attempt at guilt by association because your connection of "want to deny civil rights" is as tenuous and silly a connection to make as is your "breathing air" example.

People who advocate these small gun regulations are plainly nothing at all like KKK and Fascists except in this tenuous association you are trying to assert.