ny-gun-confiscation-underway-citizens-told-to-turn-in-pistol-owner-id-firearms/

[billvon 2,384]

>What is your proposal to end nutjobs? If that is a possibility

?? I'm not proposing to "end nutjobs" - just to make it harder for them to get guns.

Currently we arrest "nutjobs" (i.e. someone roaming around screaming at the top of his lungs.) They might be held in prison if they feel he was disturbing the peace or something, or they might be taken to a psych ward if they feel he needs to be evaluated. He might be released if doctors determine he's no threat to himself or others, or he might be held by them (or by doctors) until a court can determine if he can be released.

Apply the same sort of standard to guns.

>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.

1) I'm not a democrat.

2) Looks like both republicans and democrats disagree with you:

==============

Senators reach deal on gun background checks

Two senators have struck a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more firearms purchases. The agreement could build support for President Obama's drive to curb gun violence.

WASHINGTON — Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., announced a compromise bill Wednesday that would expand background checks for gun buyers, possibly paving the way for votes this week on a key piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence.

They announced the deal as the Senate gets ready for its most intense debate on gun control since 1994.

"I don't consider criminal background checks to be gun control. It's just common sense," Toomey said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "If you pass ... you get to buy a gun. It's the people who fail that we don't want having guns."

The deal would expand background checks to purchases made at gun shows and online sales of firearms. It would impose penalties on states that do not add records of felons and the mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

=====================

[Rick 67]

Quote

For god sakes we live with nutjobs. Get use to it.

QFT

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[billvon 2,384]

>The question is: how do you limit gun access to criminal and nutjobs.

Require that every person who buys a gun gets checked to see if they are a criminal or a nutjob. Period.

>For god sakes we live with nutjobs.

Yep. So you're going to give them guns because "well, we just have to live with them?" Bad idea.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>What is your proposal to end nutjobs? If that is a possibility

?? I'm not proposing to "end nutjobs" - just to make it harder for them to get guns.

Currently we arrest "nutjobs" (i.e. someone roaming around screaming at the top of his lungs.) They might be held in prison if they feel he was disturbing the peace or something, or they might be taken to a psych ward if they feel he needs to be evaluated. He might be released if doctors determine he's no threat to himself or others, or he might be held by them (or by doctors) until a court can determine if he can be released.

Apply the same sort of standard to guns.

>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.

1) I'm not a democrat.

2) Looks like both republicans and democrats disagree with you:

==============

Senators reach deal on gun background checks

Two senators have struck a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more firearms purchases. The agreement could build support for President Obama's drive to curb gun violence.

WASHINGTON — Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., announced a compromise bill Wednesday that would expand background checks for gun buyers, possibly paving the way for votes this week on a key piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence.

They announced the deal as the Senate gets ready for its most intense debate on gun control since 1994.

"I don't consider criminal background checks to be gun control. It's just common sense," Toomey said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "If you pass ... you get to buy a gun. It's the people who fail that we don't want having guns."

The deal would expand background checks to purchases made at gun shows and online sales of firearms. It would impose penalties on states that do not add records of felons and the mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

=====================

WE DO NOW. CERTIFIED NUTJUBS CAN"T BUY GUNS. 11f on the BATF NICS form.

So what you really want to ban are liars! A nutjob who lies on the BATF form telling the dealer he's not a nutjob?

Tell me how you'd expect to do that.
And tell me what expanded background checks mean? Are they going to do a anal search on you before allowing you to buy a gun. Hell you might have drugs up there. Or a gun! Has happened.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You 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?

Everyone knows hitler was crazy, but thousands of German soldiers killed strangers and committed mass murders during the war. Ditto in just about every war that's ever happened. Do you consider EVERY soldier that killed, possibly unnecessarily, civilians or prisoners, as being nutters?

Are vigilantes nutters when they take the law into their own hands to exact revenge (justice) if someone in their family is injured or killed?

I would argue that in some cases, even of mass murders, the perpetrators are not necessarily nutters.

That does not mean I necessarily agree with their actions, but I do not agree that all mass murderers are insane. And therefore, you would never be able to prohibit all mass murders just by taking guns from diagnosed nutters.

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

[skypuppy 1]

Currently we arrest "nutjobs" (i.e. someone roaming around screaming at the top of his lungs.) They might be held in prison if they feel he was disturbing the peace or something, or they might be taken to a psych ward if they feel he needs to be evaluated. He might be released if doctors determine he's no threat to himself or others, or he might be held by them (or by doctors) until a court can determine if he can be released.

Apply the same sort of standard to guns.

>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.

Won't work. As you said, that already happens, but doesn't stop people. People will be let out prematurely and still kill other people. We just had a case in Toronto of a homeless guy who went up to the staff in his shelter to say he was having 'bad thoughts of doing something bad'. They did nothing. He went to the hospital and told them the same thing. They dithered around until he left.

Then he stole a snowplow and drove around downtown smashing into things until a cop showed up, at which time he rammed and killed him.

He was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

So should we ban snowplows? The guy didn't kill the cop, the snowplow did.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

should we ban snowplows?

Nope; swimming pools and shoes. Try to keep up.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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.

this is the statement that 100% of people here agree with

the issue is how to achieve that state without pissing on everyone


implementation concept is always the tough part

...
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

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

>The question is: how do you limit gun access to criminal and nutjobs.

Require that every person who buys a gun gets checked to see if they are a criminal or a nutjob. Period.

Not, Gonna, Happen...

...Fuck, Your, Panel.

Period.

Fuck Your panel of experts, Bill...

Fuck Quade's panel of experts.

Quote

>For god sakes we live with nutjobs.

Yep. So you're going to give them guns because "well, we just have to live with them?" Bad idea.

Dude... you seriously need to go spend some time in an ER/ED or mental health facility. Seriously, get your fuggin EMT-B (any moron can get that), and go work in an ED part time. Crazy, don't mean stupid. Even if you did dissolve the Constitution or amend it to:

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.

...Guaranteed, "nutjobs", will get past your Panels; there will still be shootings (whether the death count is in the single or double digits is the difference).

Sorry... this is a Republic based on Natural Law with Natural Rights, designed specifically to bind the hands of power (greatly more focused at the central level, than state and local) and to preserve liberty; Maximum Freedom.

DEATH TO TYRANTS.


I am amazed at how this shit isn't clicking in your head, and that you don't see how stupid all your (and many others') little varied examples in trying to find other ways to say the same stupid crap, is one big ridiculous circle.



Or... you are a Progressive.

American Progressivism: A Reader

The Little Blue Book


"Reading is Fundamental"

[OHCHUTE 0]

Suicide mass murders are a product of our society. Once a person shot themselves or hung themselves in the garage without taking other life. Now, it seem almost routine that one not only takes their own life but takes others with them. Why? Cho even mailed a package to NBC during his crimes. What is the motivation for these people to kill others? Perhaps these people were given too much during their lives and enabled. When I grew up I had to work. I worked for gas money and college tuition. Now days, kids are riding around in cars paid for by their parents. Here's Adam Lanza, living high on the hog, no job, totally supported. Perhaps its the parents fault for giving too much and not forcing the kids to do for themselves. I don't have the answers but as many people that are taking their own lives and those with them something is up with that. We just had a military recruiter kill a 17 year old girl, a person he was trying to get to join the army murdered and then the recruiter killed himself.


The focus might be on learning why there are so many suicidal people and no so much on controlling guns.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You 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.

Thank you for grudgingly and with bad grace actually admitting that I was correct when I wrote:


"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."

Attempting to recover from your mistake by trying to contradict stuff that I didn't write (strawman) just makes you look silly.

Get over yourself, cupcake.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

The question is: how do you limit gun access to criminal and nutjobs.

Require that every person who buys a gun gets checked to see if they are a criminal or a nutjob. Period.

OK, gov has a list of prohibited buyers based on due process. Allow FFLs and private citizens to check the list. Govt does not need to know who checked the list or why. No BATFE involvement, no backdoor registration or citizen tracking. Sound good to you?

Quote

Quote

For god sakes we live with nutjobs.

Yep. So you're going to give them guns because "well, we just have to live with them?" Bad idea.

How do you define "them"? You still haven't defined kallend's "nutters" better than those already prohibited by court order or involuntary commitment.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,384]

> As you said, that already happens, but doesn't stop people.

Nope. You can sell someone a gun with no background check whatsoever. He could be a felon who has killed a dozen people. He could be legally insane. Not your problem.

> We just had a case in Toronto of a homeless guy who went up to the staff in his
>shelter to say he was having 'bad thoughts of doing something bad'. They did nothing.

OK. I don't know what the standard is in Canada, but here it is a belief that the patient will harm himself or others. Indeed, some homeless types game the system by walking into an ER and telling the admitting nurse "I feel that I might harm myself or others." Instant psych hold, bed for the night.

>So should we ban snowplows?

BAN SPOONS!

[dmcoco84 4]

***Thank you for grudgingly and with bad grace actually admitting that I was correct when I wrote:


"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."

Attempting to recover from your mistake by trying to contradict stuff that I didn't write (strawman) just makes you look silly.

Get over yourself, cupcake.

[dmcoco84 4]

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.


This does not translate to, that the State (Local, State, Federal) can screen people with a panel of experts (like in Canada or UK) to determine if they are "not healthy in regard to mental health", by standards set up by the State.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Mentally competent, until proven mentally incompetent.

You are wrong... Son.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Nope. You can sell someone a gun with no background check whatsoever.

Are you talking private sale?

Ex) If you are a convicted felon and want to buy my shotgun?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You 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.

Thank you for grudgingly and with bad grace actually admitting that I was correct when I wrote:


"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."

Attempting to recover from your mistake by trying to contradict stuff that I didn't write (strawman) just makes you look silly.

Get over yourself, cupcake.

Wow, could you be more full of it? You use Heller to support your contention that more steps can be taken to prevent your class of "nutters" from getting guns, but you can't define nutters and SCOTUS only gives support for longstanding prohibitions banning guns for clearly defined groups.

I'll admit I was wrong and offer heartfelt apologies if you say you think current law is sufficient. I'll do the same if you'll finally define a "nutter", rather than offer examples using bad acts someone has committed. Otherwise, you're just plain full of it, because I know you're smarter than to think you've supported your views.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Innocent until proven guilty.

Mentally competent, until proven mentally incompetent.

The professor seems to have serious problems with these concepts.

Folks like him want some magical "them" to preemptively stop anyone from doing anything bad, and failure to do so means government needs more power and control.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,384]

>Are you talking private sale?

Yes.

[billvon 2,384]

>Wow... you are one Brain Dead Professor.

Your one warning.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

***Thank you for grudgingly and with bad grace actually admitting that I was correct when I wrote:


"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."

Attempting to recover from your mistake by trying to contradict stuff that I didn't write (strawman) just makes you look silly.

Get over yourself, cupcake.

Wow... you are one Brain Dead Professor.



My mistake? And what mistake is that?

What are you saying I have contradicted... every bit of my statements have remained consistent, and you are not correct in any degree by what you have posted and trying to imply.

So you are Kennedy's sock puppet? Looks like admitting that is another mistake on your part, then

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Innocent until proven guilty.

Mentally competent, until proven mentally incompetent.

The professor seems to have serious problems with these concepts.

Folks like him want some magical "them" to preemptively stop anyone from doing anything bad, and failure to do so means government needs more power and control.

Talking to yourself now?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"

What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"

What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding?

I suspect it's that part where you leap from "not unlimited" to "any limitations are permissible." It's a deliberate logical lie on your part.

And used so many times, it really should be ignored as troll bait.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"

What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding?

The part that you seem to think eliminates due process.

Please show me where the SC implied that "not unlimited" means "ignores due process."

And what about the word "Commercial" in reference to 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