christelsabine 1 #251 July 11, 2011 Quote That's nice that you don't need a gun. I haven't "needed" a gun, either. Hence I don't have one. Turns out that "need" isn't the basis for a right. I don't need to vote but I have the right to vote if I choose to exercise it. I understand that Europe has a higher degree of trust in government. Americans don't. I personally cannot understand how a place like Europe - where genocide and dictatorships are parts of the recent history - trusts the government. How can any citizen trust German government? Spain? Ask the Basques. Potugal? I just have a hard time looking at Europe with deference toward human rights. It was the FAULURE to stand for rights that caused that shit. In the US, the rights aren't there to protect the majority. The rights are there to protect the lowest, the sickest, the worst and the most unpopular and hated.The rights of the People are a serious downer for a despot. Only by relaxing the enforcement of those rights can a despot rise in power. And if it starts with a vastly unpopular right that that for guns, then it still has started. Whther something should or should not be a right is a different discussion. The right is there and should be enforced. Amending the Constitution is the system set up to deal with it. That's nice to hear an American confessing he has no gun, as he does not need one Much nicer is: I have one, no: several, which I need, mainly for hunting reasons. And for the rest of your post: Like usual. Senseless rambling. I'm quite sure you know not much about Europe, the Basques and even less about Germany and its government. - What's that??? - And that??? Your private joke for proof whatsoever that you're a shyster? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #252 July 11, 2011 >Bill - what is the solution? I think the system we have now works pretty well. A doctor can make an "emergency" decision, but that decision must then be either affirmed or voided by a court, using psychiatric experts. >How do we get the mentally ill to obtain treatment WITHOUT violating their rights? Well, that very statement contains its own problem. Suppose they don't want treatment? They should have the right to refuse - but also must understand that if they are mentally ill enough that they can no longer (for example) judge right from wrong, they will lose some rights they once had. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #253 July 11, 2011 QuoteAnd the compassionate ones like you will handcuff them, sedate them, restrain them and drag them kicking and screaming to hospitals with one-way entrances because that it compassion. Pelican Bay is your utopia? Nope... wrong Jerry... but nice attempt at your usual missing the point completely. Your fellow travellers want them to be invisible.. and just go die someplace as long as they dont have to support them.. or know about them... kinda like North Korea for those who do not partake of the party kool aid and are ostracized. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11244825 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #254 July 11, 2011 Quote>Bill - what is the solution? I think the system we have now works pretty well. A doctor can make an "emergency" decision, but that decision must then be either affirmed or voided by a court, using psychiatric experts. The problem is that this is not the system that we have in place in many states. Maybe thats the the system in place in California, but not in PA and many other states.__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #255 July 11, 2011 >The problem is that this is not the system that we have in place in many states. Hmm, I thought the original post was an example of just this system working: "Across the country, states are increasingly allowing people like Mr. French, who lost their firearm rights because of mental illness, to petition to have them restored." I'm sure that there are cases where the process has problems in both directions i.e. some places make it too hard to get one's rights restored, and some grant rights back to people who cannot exercise them safely. But all in all it sounds like things are headed in the right direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #256 July 11, 2011 Quote I'm sure that there are cases where the process has problems in both directions i.e. some places make it too hard to get one's rights restored, and some grant rights back to people who cannot exercise them safely. Exactly. Its not a one sided problem, and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Quote But all in all it sounds like things are headed in the right direction. Hopefully. Not there yet in a lot of places. Funny thing about this thread is that I think some of the folks posting in here are so used to being on opposite sides of contentious issues that nobody noticed that everyone is pretty much agreeing with each other but nobody is noticing it. Nobody here thinks that dangerously unbalanced people should be allowed to have guns. Most people seem to believe that this right shouldn't be preemptively revoked due to mental illness unless this person has been identified as dangerous by people that are qualified to make such a determination and a court has made this ruling based on their findings__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #257 July 11, 2011 QuoteQuote Most people seem to believe that this right shouldn't be preemptively revoked due to mental illness unless this person has been identified as dangerous by people that are qualified to make such a determination and a court has made this ruling based on their findings There's a BIG difference between being "identified as dangerous by people that are qualified.." and actually having a history of violence. Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #258 July 11, 2011 >and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? >Funny thing about this thread is that I think some of the folks posting in here are so >used to being on opposite sides of contentious issues that nobody noticed that >everyone is pretty much agreeing with each other but nobody is noticing it. Definitely. I think even the more vitriolic posters would agree with the basic concept here if this wasn't Speaker's Corner, where the only good argument is a loud one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #259 July 11, 2011 Quote >and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? >Funny thing about this thread is that I think some of the folks posting in here are so >used to being on opposite sides of contentious issues that nobody noticed that >everyone is pretty much agreeing with each other but nobody is noticing it. Definitely. I think even the more vitriolic posters would agree with the basic concept here if this wasn't Speaker's Corner, where the only good argument is a loud one. That is why when Talk Back was split.. I suggested this forum be called SHOUT BACK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lost_n_confuzd 0 #260 July 11, 2011 Quote That's nice to hear an American confessing he has no gun, as he does not need one As far as personal firearms, I have not needed a gun either, and likely will not need one. But in the event that I do need one for self defense, food, etc.. I'll be able to own/have one, which I already do. Quote Much nicer is: I have one, no: several, which I need, mainly for hunting reasons. I prefer a bow Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lost_n_confuzd 0 #261 July 11, 2011 QuoteQuote>and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? No. I think having the states not violate one's rights would help. That states should be do as they wish within reason and as long as whatever course they take does not vilolate a person's rights without due process. QuoteDefinitely. I think even the more vitriolic posters would agree with the basic concept here if this wasn't Speaker's Corner, where the only good argument is a loud one. I agree. Both sides have pretty much they said the mentally ill should and should not have guns depending on the outcome of evaluation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChrisL 2 #262 July 12, 2011 Quote Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Tricky question. I'm not usually first in line to grant more powers to the Federal Government, but technically (or traditionally) the federal government is supposed to have jurisdiction over constitutional issues and this is a constitutional issue so I think its already in their purview. Case in point would be DC vs Heller where the SCOTUS ruled that the DC handgun ban violated the citizens exercise of the 2nd amendment and struck down the ban, Clearly the Federal government already has this power, they just dont exercise it unless pressed to do so. I'm not really sure why the states each get to have their own sets of rules on this issue, but thats how it is. It would be great if they could all agree on a homogeneous solution.__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChrisL 2 #263 July 12, 2011 Quote Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. I dont want to wait for this. People like Cho and Loughner were both identified as, not just mentally ill, but possibly dangerously so long before they ever committed a violent act. I think that as soon as this became evident they should have been given one of those lovely 72 hour stays in the hospital that I enjoyed where they could have been examined more thoroughly. I'm certain that the results of that examination would have identified them as a real threat, after which the court could have revoked their right to purchase firearms and ordered appropriate treatment. The problem there is that very clear danger signs were completely ignored in both cases.__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dmcoco84 4 #264 July 12, 2011 QuoteHmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Yeah... it will "help" to slowly, TRICKLE, into everyone else's rights. No More Power to the Federal Government! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #265 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuote Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. I dont want to wait for this. People like Cho and Loughner were both identified as, not just mentally ill, but possibly dangerously so long before they ever committed a violent act. I think that as soon as this became evident they should have been given one of those lovely 72 hour stays in the hospital that I enjoyed where they could have been examined more thoroughly. I'm certain that the results of that examination would have identified them as a real threat, after which the court could have revoked their right to purchase firearms and ordered appropriate treatment. The problem there is that very clear danger signs were completely ignored in both cases. Ok you just made it to Lawrickets shit list... how dare you want to deny someone their right to shoot as many people as possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #266 July 12, 2011 Quote Quote Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Yeah... it will "help" to slowly, TRICKLE, into everyone else's rights. No More Power to the Federal Government! I thought you guys were into TRICKLE.... Dont worry though... you can start bowing down to the Corporation that owns you in adulation.... the government will no longer be needed when the corporations have it all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChrisL 2 #267 July 12, 2011 Quote Ok you just made it to Lawrickets shit list... how dare you want to deny someone their right to shoot as many people as possible. Nah. My suggestion still protects their rights because said rights are not removed preemptively on a mere suspicion that someone "aint quite right", but only after proper examination and due process. I think that Lawrockets position is all about protecting their rights and not revoking them unless its deemed appropriate and due process if followed. He doesnt want dangerous people to have guns either__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #268 July 12, 2011 Quote Quote Ok you just made it to Lawrickets shit list... how dare you want to deny someone their right to shoot as many people as possible. Nah. My suggestion still protects their rights because said rights are not removed preemptively on a mere suspicion that someone "aint quite right", but only after proper examination and due process. I think that Lawrockets position is all about protecting their rights and not revoking them unless its deemed appropriate and due process if followed. He doesnt want dangerous people to have guns either I made the same arguement as you months ago about Cho and Loughner.... Christ.... you would have thought I slapped the fucking Virgin Mary. Jerry and Kelp were all over me like stink on shit for that view Personally I am sick of morons like Cho and Loughner( just to keep Billvon off my ass with his ability to misunderstand what I wrote) getting guns and making the rest of responsible gun owners look bad. Both of them as you said were showing signs long before they "went off". I would like to believe that nutters like them could be identified and prevented from destroying other peoples lives..... LEGALLY.. since every one wants to protect rights. Fine do something about protecing EVERYONES rights to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of not getting shot by some fucking nutter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChrisL 2 #269 July 12, 2011 Quote Jerry and Kelp were all over me like stink on shit for that view . Perhaps folks are so focused on being all over each other like stink on shit that they fail to notice it when they actually agree on something __ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #270 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Most people seem to believe that this right shouldn't be preemptively revoked due to mental illness unless this person has been identified as dangerous by people that are qualified to make such a determination and a court has made this ruling based on their findings There's a BIG difference between being "identified as dangerous by people that are qualified.." and actually having a history of violence. Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. There's been one person in this thread so qualified. That person said that propensity for violence cannot be predicted unless there is a histroy of violence. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #271 July 12, 2011 Quote>and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Does this not move into an area of concern for the Tenth Amendment being violated?"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #272 July 12, 2011 I'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #273 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Most people seem to believe that this right shouldn't be preemptively revoked due to mental illness unless this person has been identified as dangerous by people that are qualified to make such a determination and a court has made this ruling based on their findings There's a BIG difference between being "identified as dangerous by people that are qualified.." and actually having a history of violence. Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. There's been one person in this thread so qualified. That person said that propensity for violence cannot be predicted unless there is a histroy of violence. So it was correct in your opinion and that of "one person" to wait until mass mayhem had been committed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #274 July 12, 2011 QuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Strawman. Heller already makes it clear that laws prohibiting the mentally unstable from gun ownership are not a violation of rights. Please explain how you would "close the cracks".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #275 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Please explain how you would "close the cracks". And then you can explain how you would. Maybe you will do it first?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 11 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 2,400 #258 July 11, 2011 >and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? >Funny thing about this thread is that I think some of the folks posting in here are so >used to being on opposite sides of contentious issues that nobody noticed that >everyone is pretty much agreeing with each other but nobody is noticing it. Definitely. I think even the more vitriolic posters would agree with the basic concept here if this wasn't Speaker's Corner, where the only good argument is a loud one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #259 July 11, 2011 Quote >and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? >Funny thing about this thread is that I think some of the folks posting in here are so >used to being on opposite sides of contentious issues that nobody noticed that >everyone is pretty much agreeing with each other but nobody is noticing it. Definitely. I think even the more vitriolic posters would agree with the basic concept here if this wasn't Speaker's Corner, where the only good argument is a loud one. That is why when Talk Back was split.. I suggested this forum be called SHOUT BACK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #260 July 11, 2011 Quote That's nice to hear an American confessing he has no gun, as he does not need one As far as personal firearms, I have not needed a gun either, and likely will not need one. But in the event that I do need one for self defense, food, etc.. I'll be able to own/have one, which I already do. Quote Much nicer is: I have one, no: several, which I need, mainly for hunting reasons. I prefer a bow Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #261 July 11, 2011 QuoteQuote>and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? No. I think having the states not violate one's rights would help. That states should be do as they wish within reason and as long as whatever course they take does not vilolate a person's rights without due process. QuoteDefinitely. I think even the more vitriolic posters would agree with the basic concept here if this wasn't Speaker's Corner, where the only good argument is a loud one. I agree. Both sides have pretty much they said the mentally ill should and should not have guns depending on the outcome of evaluation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #262 July 12, 2011 Quote Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Tricky question. I'm not usually first in line to grant more powers to the Federal Government, but technically (or traditionally) the federal government is supposed to have jurisdiction over constitutional issues and this is a constitutional issue so I think its already in their purview. Case in point would be DC vs Heller where the SCOTUS ruled that the DC handgun ban violated the citizens exercise of the 2nd amendment and struck down the ban, Clearly the Federal government already has this power, they just dont exercise it unless pressed to do so. I'm not really sure why the states each get to have their own sets of rules on this issue, but thats how it is. It would be great if they could all agree on a homogeneous solution.__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #263 July 12, 2011 Quote Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. I dont want to wait for this. People like Cho and Loughner were both identified as, not just mentally ill, but possibly dangerously so long before they ever committed a violent act. I think that as soon as this became evident they should have been given one of those lovely 72 hour stays in the hospital that I enjoyed where they could have been examined more thoroughly. I'm certain that the results of that examination would have identified them as a real threat, after which the court could have revoked their right to purchase firearms and ordered appropriate treatment. The problem there is that very clear danger signs were completely ignored in both cases.__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #264 July 12, 2011 QuoteHmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Yeah... it will "help" to slowly, TRICKLE, into everyone else's rights. No More Power to the Federal Government! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #265 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuote Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. I dont want to wait for this. People like Cho and Loughner were both identified as, not just mentally ill, but possibly dangerously so long before they ever committed a violent act. I think that as soon as this became evident they should have been given one of those lovely 72 hour stays in the hospital that I enjoyed where they could have been examined more thoroughly. I'm certain that the results of that examination would have identified them as a real threat, after which the court could have revoked their right to purchase firearms and ordered appropriate treatment. The problem there is that very clear danger signs were completely ignored in both cases. Ok you just made it to Lawrickets shit list... how dare you want to deny someone their right to shoot as many people as possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #266 July 12, 2011 Quote Quote Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Yeah... it will "help" to slowly, TRICKLE, into everyone else's rights. No More Power to the Federal Government! I thought you guys were into TRICKLE.... Dont worry though... you can start bowing down to the Corporation that owns you in adulation.... the government will no longer be needed when the corporations have it all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #267 July 12, 2011 Quote Ok you just made it to Lawrickets shit list... how dare you want to deny someone their right to shoot as many people as possible. Nah. My suggestion still protects their rights because said rights are not removed preemptively on a mere suspicion that someone "aint quite right", but only after proper examination and due process. I think that Lawrockets position is all about protecting their rights and not revoking them unless its deemed appropriate and due process if followed. He doesnt want dangerous people to have guns either__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #268 July 12, 2011 Quote Quote Ok you just made it to Lawrickets shit list... how dare you want to deny someone their right to shoot as many people as possible. Nah. My suggestion still protects their rights because said rights are not removed preemptively on a mere suspicion that someone "aint quite right", but only after proper examination and due process. I think that Lawrockets position is all about protecting their rights and not revoking them unless its deemed appropriate and due process if followed. He doesnt want dangerous people to have guns either I made the same arguement as you months ago about Cho and Loughner.... Christ.... you would have thought I slapped the fucking Virgin Mary. Jerry and Kelp were all over me like stink on shit for that view Personally I am sick of morons like Cho and Loughner( just to keep Billvon off my ass with his ability to misunderstand what I wrote) getting guns and making the rest of responsible gun owners look bad. Both of them as you said were showing signs long before they "went off". I would like to believe that nutters like them could be identified and prevented from destroying other peoples lives..... LEGALLY.. since every one wants to protect rights. Fine do something about protecing EVERYONES rights to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of not getting shot by some fucking nutter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #269 July 12, 2011 Quote Jerry and Kelp were all over me like stink on shit for that view . Perhaps folks are so focused on being all over each other like stink on shit that they fail to notice it when they actually agree on something __ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #270 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Most people seem to believe that this right shouldn't be preemptively revoked due to mental illness unless this person has been identified as dangerous by people that are qualified to make such a determination and a court has made this ruling based on their findings There's a BIG difference between being "identified as dangerous by people that are qualified.." and actually having a history of violence. Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. There's been one person in this thread so qualified. That person said that propensity for violence cannot be predicted unless there is a histroy of violence. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #271 July 12, 2011 Quote>and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Does this not move into an area of concern for the Tenth Amendment being violated?"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #272 July 12, 2011 I'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #273 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Most people seem to believe that this right shouldn't be preemptively revoked due to mental illness unless this person has been identified as dangerous by people that are qualified to make such a determination and a court has made this ruling based on their findings There's a BIG difference between being "identified as dangerous by people that are qualified.." and actually having a history of violence. Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. There's been one person in this thread so qualified. That person said that propensity for violence cannot be predicted unless there is a histroy of violence. So it was correct in your opinion and that of "one person" to wait until mass mayhem had been committed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #274 July 12, 2011 QuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Strawman. Heller already makes it clear that laws prohibiting the mentally unstable from gun ownership are not a violation of rights. Please explain how you would "close the cracks".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #275 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Please explain how you would "close the cracks". And then you can explain how you would. Maybe you will do it first?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 11 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
freethefly 6 #271 July 12, 2011 Quote>and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal > guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? Does this not move into an area of concern for the Tenth Amendment being violated?"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #272 July 12, 2011 I'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #273 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Most people seem to believe that this right shouldn't be preemptively revoked due to mental illness unless this person has been identified as dangerous by people that are qualified to make such a determination and a court has made this ruling based on their findings There's a BIG difference between being "identified as dangerous by people that are qualified.." and actually having a history of violence. Some people seem to want to wait until violence has been done before acting. There's been one person in this thread so qualified. That person said that propensity for violence cannot be predicted unless there is a histroy of violence. So it was correct in your opinion and that of "one person" to wait until mass mayhem had been committed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #274 July 12, 2011 QuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Strawman. Heller already makes it clear that laws prohibiting the mentally unstable from gun ownership are not a violation of rights. Please explain how you would "close the cracks".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #275 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Please explain how you would "close the cracks". And then you can explain how you would. Maybe you will do it first?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 11 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,623 #274 July 12, 2011 QuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Strawman. Heller already makes it clear that laws prohibiting the mentally unstable from gun ownership are not a violation of rights. Please explain how you would "close the cracks".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #275 July 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights. You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase... It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts. Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board. Typical reaction of American fear-mongers. Please explain how you would "close the cracks". And then you can explain how you would. Maybe you will do it first?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
