Andy9o8 0 #26 April 10, 2013 Quote Look what they did to airspace. Seventeen federal agencies including: fighter jets to patrol against single engine 30 year old pipers with some elderly pilot at the controls. Quote ?? clarify please. Good luck holding your breath waiting for that to happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #27 April 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #28 April 10, 2013 Quote>no cold medication for you! I've driven after taking cold medication. I must be super human. and millions drive every night after drinking. (it's less common now for cold medication to have the warning against operating machinery, but it should point out the absurdity of your proposal) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #29 April 10, 2013 Quote>I anxiously await the list of prescription drugs that will vacate one's mental rights to weapons. One that makes driving impossible would be a good candidate. Can you name a single medicine that makes driving impossible? I can't. I can think of many that impair driving. However, consuming a sufficient quantity of some substance so as to appreciably impair your mental or physical faculties, or both, does not remove your right to own, buy, or possess a car. It is illegal to drive in that condition. Wouldn't that equate to barring carrying or shooting, not banning ownership? ETA: also, once the impairing substance is out of your system, you can go right back to operating a vehicle. You don't have to wait for a doctor, judge, or other arbitrator to retire your rights.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #30 April 10, 2013 >Can you name a single medicine that makes driving impossible? I can't. High dose fentanyl. >ETA: also, once the impairing substance is out of your system, you can go right back >to operating a vehicle. Agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #31 April 10, 2013 Quote>Can you name a single medicine that makes driving impossible? I can't. High dose fentanyl. Congratulations, you are correct. So what's your point? Anyone who has general anesthetic administered should lose their gun rights? Quote>ETA: also, once the impairing substance is out of your system, you can go right back >to operating a vehicle. Agreed. OK. So do you ha r anything to say, other than attempting to monkey wrench people who disapprove of the government's actions?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #32 April 10, 2013 >Anyone who has general anesthetic administered should lose their gun rights? No, but someone who will be on it for a while might lose them temporarily. (until they no longer need it.) >OK. So do you ha r anything to say, other than attempting to monkey wrench people >who disapprove of the government's actions? ?? I thought you were asking about which actions could result in the loss of gun rights? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #33 April 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual.... 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 #34 April 10, 2013 QuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns?... 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 Kennedy 0 #35 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OHCHUTE 0 #36 April 11, 2013 We live in a military industrial prison industry society. MIPI They want to turn as many people as possible into the convicted. Look what they did with airspace. They turned 6,000 pilots into violators. More rules equals more opportunity for violations. In states where they will ban AR they will come to your house if they think you have an AR and it will be a typical SWAT attack on a private residence. People will get hurt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #37 April 11, 2013 Quote>I anxiously await the list of prescription drugs that will vacate one's mental rights to weapons. One that makes driving impossible would be a good candidate. >Cops come to your house on a domestic? IF there is violence involved? Might be a very good idea. Could save some lives. >DUI? Felony DUI - yes. Consistent and serious alcohol abuse that results in multiple DUI's - probably. >Eye test? Lots of perfectly responsible gun owners wear glasses. Interesting. valerie harper was interviewed on tv a couple of days ago - turns out she wasn't driving for a while due to medication. But not for a mental condition (I don't think) But now she is driving again. How long do you think cops should hold onto your guns before giving them back? How much paperwork do you think is involved? Who should pay for the paperwork to take your guns away and then give them back, considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #38 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. As far as I'm aware, although some may have had red flags raised, none were advised to be committed by family or physicians, which could have resulted in them being branded as 'mentally ill'. Therefore, how would you have kept these 'nutters' from accessing their weapons?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OHCHUTE 0 #39 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. As far as I'm aware, although some may have had red flags raised, none were advised to be committed by family or physicians, which could have resulted in them being branded as 'mentally ill'. Therefore, how would you have kept these 'nutters' from accessing their weapons? From a democrats perspective the answer to your question is total ban of guns. Lets face it, if no one was allowed to have guns, Cho wouldn't have happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #40 April 11, 2013 >How long do you think cops should hold onto your guns before giving them back? If you get arrested, how long should cops hold you in jail before freeing you? I suspect you will answer "well, depends." Same thing. Depends on the circumstance. Were the guns confiscated because you were walking around drunk threatening to "make thoshe loudmotshs shut uo?" Maybe not long at all. Were they confiscated because you accidentally shot your son and his friend? Probably a bit longer. >considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich? No, it's not. Felons do not have a right to own guns, for example. Nor do the legally insane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #41 April 11, 2013 >considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich? No, it's not. Felons do not have a right to own guns, for example. Nor do the legally insane. ________________________________________________ Oh, come on. You know exactly what I meant. It is the right of all americans, barring being a convicted felon or legally insane, to keep and bear arms. And you yourself were the one to say anyone on prescription meds which prevent you from driving, something which fits neither of those scenarios. And how many of the people on those drugs are told not to drive by their doctor, but no one on law enforcement knows that, so they drive anyways, and even if they get stopped, law enforcement still doesn't know they weren't supposed to drive. In other words, the only law they'd be breaking is being impaired to drive, and that in many cases other than alcohol is a subjective test, not an objective test. Therefore who will pay for all the paperwork and logistics of confiscating guns for a day, a week, a month, a year, 3 years, a lifetime, since you say it is going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. And who will decide how long and how much will they have to be paid to decide. The gov't officials in New Orleans couldn't even give receipts when they confiscated weapons, and never planned on giving them back or compensating for them because it was too much work. And they weren't even trying to figure out at what point you are going to take away someone's right to own a gun. In this case, someone would have to decide. I would be interested in seeing a workable solution here (although again, when someone loses their right to drive, isn't it, I don't thinkIf 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Fast 0 #42 April 11, 2013 Quote No, it's not. Felons do not have a right to own guns, for example. Nor do the legally insane. I think that this is the point that we are trying to get at and everyone is doing a good job of dancing around it. This guy, in question here, had his rights infringed upon because NY State says he is legally insane for taking an anxiety medication. In this exact case, we don't know all the circumstances, but the point in my mind that should be the issue is due process. At what point do we get to just skip due process because an outside entity (private, local, state, federal) decides that it knows better. That to me is a huge red flag. It's a slippery slope that I don't think is a good place for us to be. There are far too many examples of private and public interests contorting the law to take things from people for us to willingly be going along with it on any issue. People need to stop thinking emotionally and start thinking more logically. We can't set a precedent for this type of thing whether it is guns, soda size, personal property rights, freedom of speech, etc. If anything - we should be going in the other direction. My post isn't super argumentative though, so I understand why you're all going to just ignore it. (This is also a major contributor to why I am unhappy with society's direction as it currently stands.)~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #43 April 11, 2013 I won't ignore it. You make valid and important points re: due process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #44 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS majority opinion, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. No. 07–290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 I'd like an apology now.... 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 2,396 #45 April 11, 2013 > It is the right of all americans, barring being a convicted felon or legally insane, to keep and bear arms. Agreed. All sane law-abiding adults in the US have a constitutional right to own a gun, subject to reasonable limitations. I am for laws that prevent the insane or criminals from getting guns, and am against laws that prevent capable law abiding citizens from owning guns. >And how many of the people on those drugs are told not to drive by their doctor, but >no one on law enforcement knows that, so they drive anyways, and even if they get >stopped, law enforcement still doesn't know they weren't supposed to drive. You are aware that people who drive under the influence of drugs can go to jail, right? >Therefore who will pay for all the paperwork and logistics of confiscating guns for a >day, a week, a month, a year, 3 years, a lifetime, since you say it is going to be >decided on a case-by-case basis. Same people who pay for all the paperwork and logistics of arresting you for a day, a week, a month, a year etc on a case by case basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #46 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. Do you disagree that they are "nutters"? IS mass murder of strangers the behavior of a normal mentally healthy person?... 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 wolfriverjoe 1,340 #47 April 11, 2013 Quote"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS ruling, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. I'd like an apology now. Those "Long Standing Prohibitions" are for convicted felons, or those found not guilty by reason of mental defect or those involuntarily committed to a mental institution. All of those follow the concept of "due process." You seem to want to be able to declare someone a "nutter" and strip them of their rights without that due process. And I don't see where the court even begins to allow that. And the last part of that: "Law imposing conditions and qualification on commercial sales." Do you think they specifically used the word "commercial" by mistake? Or did they mean to only require those "conditions qualifications" for commercial sales, exempting private sales?"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OHCHUTE 0 #48 April 11, 2013 Quote> It is the right of all americans, barring being a convicted felon or legally insane, to keep and bear arms. Agreed. All sane law-abiding adults in the US have a constitutional right to own a gun, subject to reasonable limitations. I am for laws that prevent the insane or criminals from getting guns, and am against laws that prevent capable law abiding citizens from owning guns. >And how many of the people on those drugs are told not to drive by their doctor, but >no one on law enforcement knows that, so they drive anyways, and even if they get >stopped, law enforcement still doesn't know they weren't supposed to drive. You are aware that people who drive under the influence of drugs can go to jail, right? >Therefore who will pay for all the paperwork and logistics of confiscating guns for a >day, a week, a month, a year, 3 years, a lifetime, since you say it is going to be >decided on a case-by-case basis. Same people who pay for all the paperwork and logistics of arresting you for a day, a week, a month, a year etc on a case by case basis. Aside from the doc, reporting to the BATF, about a nutjob, gun laws are at a maximum in curtailing a nutjob. What is your proposal to end nutjobs? If that is a possibility You and all democrats are at an impasse as there is nothing that can be done aside from confiscation and fortifying assembly of unarmed people. Face the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #49 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS majority opinion, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. No. 07–290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 I'd like an apology now. You don't deserve one and won't be getting one. You may know all about physics, clearly don't know much about hour the law. Notice SCOTUS did not define or redefine mental illness. They didn't have to. Mental illness in relation losing rights is already clearly defined. Notice "longstanding prohibitions". That means things already in place. It doesn't mean you get to redefine mental illness or include whatever you like, and it certainly doesn't include denying rights without due process. It is what the law says it is. It is not what you want it to be just because you want it. "Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things." Suck it up, cupcake.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OHCHUTE 0 #50 April 11, 2013 Everyone in this country is against criminals and nutjobs having guns. The question is: how do you limit gun access to criminal and nutjobs. The answer is: you can't Fingerprinting Mr. Homeowner law abiding citizen when he buys a gun will not stop a nutjob. Look, after 911 I doubt many more aircraft will be flown into buildings due to controls. Since Newtown and states taking responsibility to lock school doors and having someone there to block a trench coated kid will have the same effect. Nutjobs will avoid schools. For god sakes we live with nutjobs. Get use to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 7 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
Kennedy 0 #27 April 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 April 10, 2013 Quote>no cold medication for you! I've driven after taking cold medication. I must be super human. and millions drive every night after drinking. (it's less common now for cold medication to have the warning against operating machinery, but it should point out the absurdity of your proposal) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #29 April 10, 2013 Quote>I anxiously await the list of prescription drugs that will vacate one's mental rights to weapons. One that makes driving impossible would be a good candidate. Can you name a single medicine that makes driving impossible? I can't. I can think of many that impair driving. However, consuming a sufficient quantity of some substance so as to appreciably impair your mental or physical faculties, or both, does not remove your right to own, buy, or possess a car. It is illegal to drive in that condition. Wouldn't that equate to barring carrying or shooting, not banning ownership? ETA: also, once the impairing substance is out of your system, you can go right back to operating a vehicle. You don't have to wait for a doctor, judge, or other arbitrator to retire your rights.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #30 April 10, 2013 >Can you name a single medicine that makes driving impossible? I can't. High dose fentanyl. >ETA: also, once the impairing substance is out of your system, you can go right back >to operating a vehicle. Agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 April 10, 2013 Quote>Can you name a single medicine that makes driving impossible? I can't. High dose fentanyl. Congratulations, you are correct. So what's your point? Anyone who has general anesthetic administered should lose their gun rights? Quote>ETA: also, once the impairing substance is out of your system, you can go right back >to operating a vehicle. Agreed. OK. So do you ha r anything to say, other than attempting to monkey wrench people who disapprove of the government's actions?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #32 April 10, 2013 >Anyone who has general anesthetic administered should lose their gun rights? No, but someone who will be on it for a while might lose them temporarily. (until they no longer need it.) >OK. So do you ha r anything to say, other than attempting to monkey wrench people >who disapprove of the government's actions? ?? I thought you were asking about which actions could result in the loss of gun rights? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #33 April 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual.... 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 #34 April 10, 2013 QuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns?... 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
Kennedy 0 #35 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #36 April 11, 2013 We live in a military industrial prison industry society. MIPI They want to turn as many people as possible into the convicted. Look what they did with airspace. They turned 6,000 pilots into violators. More rules equals more opportunity for violations. In states where they will ban AR they will come to your house if they think you have an AR and it will be a typical SWAT attack on a private residence. People will get hurt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #37 April 11, 2013 Quote>I anxiously await the list of prescription drugs that will vacate one's mental rights to weapons. One that makes driving impossible would be a good candidate. >Cops come to your house on a domestic? IF there is violence involved? Might be a very good idea. Could save some lives. >DUI? Felony DUI - yes. Consistent and serious alcohol abuse that results in multiple DUI's - probably. >Eye test? Lots of perfectly responsible gun owners wear glasses. Interesting. valerie harper was interviewed on tv a couple of days ago - turns out she wasn't driving for a while due to medication. But not for a mental condition (I don't think) But now she is driving again. How long do you think cops should hold onto your guns before giving them back? How much paperwork do you think is involved? Who should pay for the paperwork to take your guns away and then give them back, considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #38 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. As far as I'm aware, although some may have had red flags raised, none were advised to be committed by family or physicians, which could have resulted in them being branded as 'mentally ill'. Therefore, how would you have kept these 'nutters' from accessing their weapons?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #39 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. As far as I'm aware, although some may have had red flags raised, none were advised to be committed by family or physicians, which could have resulted in them being branded as 'mentally ill'. Therefore, how would you have kept these 'nutters' from accessing their weapons? From a democrats perspective the answer to your question is total ban of guns. Lets face it, if no one was allowed to have guns, Cho wouldn't have happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #40 April 11, 2013 >How long do you think cops should hold onto your guns before giving them back? If you get arrested, how long should cops hold you in jail before freeing you? I suspect you will answer "well, depends." Same thing. Depends on the circumstance. Were the guns confiscated because you were walking around drunk threatening to "make thoshe loudmotshs shut uo?" Maybe not long at all. Were they confiscated because you accidentally shot your son and his friend? Probably a bit longer. >considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich? No, it's not. Felons do not have a right to own guns, for example. Nor do the legally insane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #41 April 11, 2013 >considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich? No, it's not. Felons do not have a right to own guns, for example. Nor do the legally insane. ________________________________________________ Oh, come on. You know exactly what I meant. It is the right of all americans, barring being a convicted felon or legally insane, to keep and bear arms. And you yourself were the one to say anyone on prescription meds which prevent you from driving, something which fits neither of those scenarios. And how many of the people on those drugs are told not to drive by their doctor, but no one on law enforcement knows that, so they drive anyways, and even if they get stopped, law enforcement still doesn't know they weren't supposed to drive. In other words, the only law they'd be breaking is being impaired to drive, and that in many cases other than alcohol is a subjective test, not an objective test. Therefore who will pay for all the paperwork and logistics of confiscating guns for a day, a week, a month, a year, 3 years, a lifetime, since you say it is going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. And who will decide how long and how much will they have to be paid to decide. The gov't officials in New Orleans couldn't even give receipts when they confiscated weapons, and never planned on giving them back or compensating for them because it was too much work. And they weren't even trying to figure out at what point you are going to take away someone's right to own a gun. In this case, someone would have to decide. I would be interested in seeing a workable solution here (although again, when someone loses their right to drive, isn't it, I don't thinkIf 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #42 April 11, 2013 Quote No, it's not. Felons do not have a right to own guns, for example. Nor do the legally insane. I think that this is the point that we are trying to get at and everyone is doing a good job of dancing around it. This guy, in question here, had his rights infringed upon because NY State says he is legally insane for taking an anxiety medication. In this exact case, we don't know all the circumstances, but the point in my mind that should be the issue is due process. At what point do we get to just skip due process because an outside entity (private, local, state, federal) decides that it knows better. That to me is a huge red flag. It's a slippery slope that I don't think is a good place for us to be. There are far too many examples of private and public interests contorting the law to take things from people for us to willingly be going along with it on any issue. People need to stop thinking emotionally and start thinking more logically. We can't set a precedent for this type of thing whether it is guns, soda size, personal property rights, freedom of speech, etc. If anything - we should be going in the other direction. My post isn't super argumentative though, so I understand why you're all going to just ignore it. (This is also a major contributor to why I am unhappy with society's direction as it currently stands.)~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #43 April 11, 2013 I won't ignore it. You make valid and important points re: due process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #44 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS majority opinion, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. No. 07–290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 I'd like an apology now.... 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 2,396 #45 April 11, 2013 > It is the right of all americans, barring being a convicted felon or legally insane, to keep and bear arms. Agreed. All sane law-abiding adults in the US have a constitutional right to own a gun, subject to reasonable limitations. I am for laws that prevent the insane or criminals from getting guns, and am against laws that prevent capable law abiding citizens from owning guns. >And how many of the people on those drugs are told not to drive by their doctor, but >no one on law enforcement knows that, so they drive anyways, and even if they get >stopped, law enforcement still doesn't know they weren't supposed to drive. You are aware that people who drive under the influence of drugs can go to jail, right? >Therefore who will pay for all the paperwork and logistics of confiscating guns for a >day, a week, a month, a year, 3 years, a lifetime, since you say it is going to be >decided on a case-by-case basis. Same people who pay for all the paperwork and logistics of arresting you for a day, a week, a month, a year etc on a case by case basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #46 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise... ps - you have supported gun confiscation when you don't like the guns, classify people with perjoritive class names, I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. Do you disagree that they are "nutters"? IS mass murder of strangers the behavior of a normal mentally healthy person?... 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
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #47 April 11, 2013 Quote"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS ruling, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. I'd like an apology now. Those "Long Standing Prohibitions" are for convicted felons, or those found not guilty by reason of mental defect or those involuntarily committed to a mental institution. All of those follow the concept of "due process." You seem to want to be able to declare someone a "nutter" and strip them of their rights without that due process. And I don't see where the court even begins to allow that. And the last part of that: "Law imposing conditions and qualification on commercial sales." Do you think they specifically used the word "commercial" by mistake? Or did they mean to only require those "conditions qualifications" for commercial sales, exempting private sales?"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #48 April 11, 2013 Quote> It is the right of all americans, barring being a convicted felon or legally insane, to keep and bear arms. Agreed. All sane law-abiding adults in the US have a constitutional right to own a gun, subject to reasonable limitations. I am for laws that prevent the insane or criminals from getting guns, and am against laws that prevent capable law abiding citizens from owning guns. >And how many of the people on those drugs are told not to drive by their doctor, but >no one on law enforcement knows that, so they drive anyways, and even if they get >stopped, law enforcement still doesn't know they weren't supposed to drive. You are aware that people who drive under the influence of drugs can go to jail, right? >Therefore who will pay for all the paperwork and logistics of confiscating guns for a >day, a week, a month, a year, 3 years, a lifetime, since you say it is going to be >decided on a case-by-case basis. Same people who pay for all the paperwork and logistics of arresting you for a day, a week, a month, a year etc on a case by case basis. Aside from the doc, reporting to the BATF, about a nutjob, gun laws are at a maximum in curtailing a nutjob. What is your proposal to end nutjobs? If that is a possibility You and all democrats are at an impasse as there is nothing that can be done aside from confiscation and fortifying assembly of unarmed people. Face the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #49 April 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE? Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS majority opinion, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. No. 07–290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 I'd like an apology now. You don't deserve one and won't be getting one. You may know all about physics, clearly don't know much about hour the law. Notice SCOTUS did not define or redefine mental illness. They didn't have to. Mental illness in relation losing rights is already clearly defined. Notice "longstanding prohibitions". That means things already in place. It doesn't mean you get to redefine mental illness or include whatever you like, and it certainly doesn't include denying rights without due process. It is what the law says it is. It is not what you want it to be just because you want it. "Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things." Suck it up, cupcake.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #50 April 11, 2013 Everyone in this country is against criminals and nutjobs having guns. The question is: how do you limit gun access to criminal and nutjobs. The answer is: you can't Fingerprinting Mr. Homeowner law abiding citizen when he buys a gun will not stop a nutjob. Look, after 911 I doubt many more aircraft will be flown into buildings due to controls. Since Newtown and states taking responsibility to lock school doors and having someone there to block a trench coated kid will have the same effect. Nutjobs will avoid schools. For god sakes we live with nutjobs. Get use to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
