rushmc 18
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
Loughner is a prime example of why that strategy simply doesn't work.
So, without ignoring our laws and constittution, what (IYO) would work?
The status quo is not working, thats not debateable. So SOMETHING has to change.
BTW
For the sake or your post I am acepting the premise that the status quo is not working
But you need to define for me what this status quo is and what would be fixed by changing it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
OHCHUTE 0
QuoteQuoteLoughners parents knew their kid was out of it. They witness him talking to himself as if there were two persons there. They needed to get the guy in treatment, and if he refused go to court to have him put away. They didn't do that and look what happened. Parents, teachers, citizens need be more viligant. This has nothing to do with gun control but community policing doing its job to ensure public safety.
The original article states clearly that the initial cause for concern for the parents was when college police told them he was a possible danger to himself or others. These college police have to bear some of the blame. Just as the college in the aurora shooter should bear some - the college psychiatrist was aware of problems there, too.
Yep, their going after the wrong thing: the gun when they need eyes on the person. But it's pretty typcially that liberals don't want mentally ill, perps, criminals etc., encumbered in any way. Instead they want to encumber law abiding citizens and tax them to death. They end paying for all the BS that is going on.
dmcoco84 4
QuoteLoughner is a prime example of why that strategy simply doesn't work.
LMFTFY...
Loughner is a prime example of how there are ALWAYS Warnings Signs.
There are no laws that aren't already on the books that could change anything. You have to change the heart of man; and kill them first/faster, so instead of double digits, its single digits.
And clearly... with things like Nike's new slogan, "Winning takes care of everything", the culture of this nation is fucked.
We have an uneducated populace, obsessed with fame, twitter, money, sex, and so on...
When we need to be obsessed with Honor and Merit.
dmcoco84 4
QuoteThe status quo is not working, thats not debateable. So SOMETHING has to change.
Fuck your, "SOMETHING."
But here, here is something... How about end the Dept. of Education, return education to the localities as originally intended, and encourage communities to pay attention to their children, and their education. Tell parents when their kid comes home and says, "nothing", when asked what they did in school today, Throw Out The Damn BS Card!
Its not the state's job to educate or raise children...
Ben Carson's mom couldn't even read and she did her job.
No More Power ... No More Actions Based On Emotion
skypuppy 1
QuoteQuoteQuote
Loughner is a prime example of why that strategy simply doesn't work.
So, without ignoring our laws and constittution, what (IYO) would work?
The status quo is not working, thats not debateable. So SOMETHING has to change.
BTW
For the sake or your post I am acepting the premise that the status quo is not working
But you need to define for me what this status quo is and what would be fixed by changing it
Rush is exactly right. Doing 'something' that may even make the situation worse is not the answer. And again, given the numbers as a percentage of the population, I would say that the status quo is not nearly as bad as you are saying. Yes, there have been some mass shootings (a very very small percentage), but the vast majority of the 'gun deaths' people refer to are gang bangers or other criminals engaged in illegal activities to begin with, with illegal weapons.
And it seems the government wants to put even fewer of these gang-bangers in prison and for shorter sentences, so they can go back out and deal more drugs on the street, along with the accompanying violent lifestyle that entails. So taking away the ability of buying legal, semi-automatic weapons from average law-abiding persons will do absolutely sfa to improve the statistics.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
QuoteIn Reply To
Problem:
As far as law enforcement and the government were concerned, Loughner was no more or less crazy than you.
So, how do you propose fixing that?
How do you? Oh, that's right, you don't.
The fact is people in Loughner's life knew he was a menace. The system for ensuring Loughner didn't hurt others wasn't robust enough or easy enough for them to use.
You're a lawyer. The law is what you're supposed to be good at. Come up with a solution.
I'm a lawyer - not a politician. My job is to work within the laws, not to make new ones.
I've said over and over again that the solution requires changing the Constitution. Recall that I also said that the right to privacy would have to go and lo and behold, subsequently HIPAA is being proposed to be repealed as an "unnecessary legal barrier."
You're the one bitching about it. Not me. I've reiterated time and again that any broad solution is unworkable under the present form of our Constitution. Identification of all mentally ill is like trying to build the Empire State Building on the surface of Monterey Bay - nice thought, but the Empire State Building doesn't float, so a presently constituted the idea will not work due to constraints.
My solution - change the Constitution. I've said that all along.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
champu 1
QuoteIn other threads law rocket has tried to parse this "insane" issue to a strictly what would get a person off in a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense. Others have agreed with him and want to limit gun owners who have ONLY been previously declared insane by the courts as being eligible to have their gun rights revoked.
Loughner is a prime example of why that strategy simply doesn't work.
Well, I think lawrocket has made his point clear both here in summary and at length in the Dorner thread and, yes, I agree with him. In order to create laws to dip further into privacy with the goal of declaring more people unfit to own firearms, I think you'd have to amend the constitution. And when we say that it's not the second amendment that we're referring to.
rehmwa, on the other hand, apparently didn't make his point clear based on your response. When he said, "assumption that the only solution is a legal one" he didn't mean, "...in contrast with an illegal one." he meant, "...in contrast to where without any additional laws, the people in the lives of some of these killers went further to get them help (to potentially include having them committed) before they snapped."
It can be discomforting to hear people essentially say, "I don't know what the solution is, but I know it involves more laws." (only carrying a hammer, everything looking like nails, etc.)
1969912 0
Quote....My solution - change the Constitution. I've said that all along.
In what way?
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
QuoteQuote....My solution - change the Constitution. I've said that all along.
In what way?
Get rid of the 1st Amendment, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. It means no right to privacy, no right to warrantless seizures, no privilege against self-incrimination.
That’s how you identify all crazies and keep guns from them. There's a solution that will actually have the effect of limiting guns from nutters.
I despise the solution, but Quade wanted me to give one.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
quade 3
Rather than ammend several sections, wouldn't it be simpler to modify one?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
1969912 0
QuoteQuoteQuote....My solution - change the Constitution. I've said that all along.
In what way?
Get rid of the 1st Amendment, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. It means no right to privacy, no right to warrantless seizures, no privilege against self-incrimination.
That’s how you identify all crazies and keep guns from them. There's a solution that will actually have the effect of limiting guns from nutters.
I despise the solution, but Quade wanted me to give one.
That's what I was hoping you meant.
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
dmcoco84 4
QuoteRather than ammend several sections, wouldn't it be simpler to modify one?
You can't... not in a way that would enable what YOU desire without infringing on the rights of individuals.
You are going in circles Quade...
Every argument you try to make... Goes in Circles.
quade 3
With all due respect . . . wait, sorry, I can't do that . . . I simply do not respect anything you've ever had to say about any topic whatsoever.
Buzz off.
Buzz off.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
dmcoco84 4
QuoteWith all due respect . . . wait, sorry, I can't do that . . . I simply do not respect anything you've ever had to say about any topic whatsoever.
Buzz off.
Yet you say, sorry?
You don't like what I have to say because you don't use your brain... everything you desire is based off irrational emotion without any critical thinking.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou're a lawyer. The law is what you're supposed to be good at. Come up with a solution.
The assumption that the only solution is a legal one is really interesting.
The assumption people should find illegal solutions to problems is also interesting.
being deliberately obtuse doesn't make you sound smart at all - adding law after ineffective law after ineffective law is not the fix all to everything - even if in your mind the only way to fix a problem is through a liberal congress instead of good people learning to be safe and responsible and to watch out for each other
OH NO! my hands are cold - Congress better pass a law!
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteRather than ammend several sections, wouldn't it be simpler to modify one?
First: that's called "amending."
Second: one Amendment can supersede several Amendments, which means several Amendments have been Amended.
The Constitution will not allow many of the proposals being put out there. For example, in order to access a person's medical records, you have to get rid of the right to privacy (overturning Roe v. Wade - how about that?): get rid of the 4th Amendment (seizure of papers without probable cause); 5th amendment (medical records may have incriminating info, due process, etc, takings.); 14th Amendment (incorporating to the states). I deliberately avoided discussing the Second Amendment.
All of those would have to be changed. That's "Amending." What good is the waiver of the 4th Amendment if the right to privacy still exists under the 1st and 5th and 14th Amendments? All need to be changed.
Imagine Karl Rove saying, "We need to overturn Roe v. Wade for the safety of our children." The same thing is being proposed, only it isn't Karl Rove proposing it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
quade 3
Here, let me amend my statement.
Simply amend the Second Amendment. Problem solved.
(Please note lack of sarcasti-quotes.)
Simply amend the Second Amendment. Problem solved.
(Please note lack of sarcasti-quotes.)
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
normiss 622
In what way specifically?
dmcoco84 4
QuoteIn what way specifically?
Quade's edit...
A well regulated Militia, is not necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be determined by a Federal panel of experts.
quade 3
QuoteIn what way specifically?
Well, for one, clarify its meaning. Make it so people can't get pissy over comma placement and variously infer what the intent of it is. If you want to say it is so people can defend themselves, fine, but it was never intended the insane have access to weapons capable of mass murders. Yet, I've heard a "lawyer" here defend the idea they should be allowed access even if insane as long as they haven't killed anyone . . . yet.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 3
QuoteQuoteIn what way specifically?
Quade's edit...
A well regulated Militia, is not necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be determined by a Federal panel of experts.
Nice try, but I can type for myself.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The status quo is not working, thats not debateable. So SOMETHING has to change.
I am listening
Tell us all what will work
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln