Gun control and the Second Amendment

[Mace1647545504]

I own several guns and if stronger background checks would stop even 1 murder I'm ok with that. Let them check my mental status, my irs records, and my driving record, let them check my prostate...I really don't care. That would shut up many people.

 

Mojoe..I believe you posted a story about the sheep and the wolves several years ago. I wish you'd re-post so I could copy and send to some of my friends

 

This is my 2 cents and you get what you pay for

 

mace

[unfunnyryan]

Stronger background checks wouldn't solve a larger problem. Mental health care in this country is disaster. The number of people that will remain undiagnosed due to lack of insurance or negative stigmas involving mental healthcare will leave millions outside of the scope of such background checks.

[kirks5oh]

 

To me the problem isn't guns, its the inability of modern healthcare to diagnose and treat the mentally ill.

 

clearly, this has to be the answer!!!! Blame it on medicine.

 

When was the last time you saw your family doctor??? Do you have one???

 

I'd be willing to bet at least 50% of those on this site don't have a family physician, don't get regular checkups, have never had a mental health screening, and only go to the emergency room when they are sick, or need stitches. Am I right?? Of course I am, that was a rhetorical question.

 

Even if we were able to get every single human being into the office of a psychiatrist for a full mental health screening, mental health is not a static phenomenon. People can function without any issues one moment and then have a bout of major depression another. And then there's the obvious problem with ensuring compliance with medication. Aside from not wanting to take medication because of side effects, many people are just too fucking dumb and are incapable of getting medication refills every 1-3 months and taking it every day.

 

I won't even address this thought any further, unless you want me to, but there are at least two other major problems with your statement that I don't even have the effort to type out right now

[Littleguy]

I would think that a big problem would be that if mental health status, whatever that means, was looked at for gun purchases, some people would avoid getting help with mental health issues for that reason.

 

When it comes to mental health in general it is a really complex topic when it comes to treatment and individual rights.

[TTQ B4U]

clearly, this has to be the answer!!!! Blame it on medicine.

 

I think in the case of James Eagan, details of the trial that I've read about shared he had seen a psychiatrist where their notes show he had been depressed and obsessed with killing for the past 10+ years.

 

I mean really, combined with all the social media and behaviors they found out about him...... Of course hindsight is 20/20 but the facts stand that often times signs and facts of people being way over the top sick in the head exist and are either not compiled into the right hands or ignored completely.

 

The Virginia Tech shooter was diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as well as major depressive disorder Again, clearly the details were seen but our current system doesn't really do anything with the facts to help track and or prevent such explosive outbursts of behavior.

 

Red flags abounded with Adam Lanza from Sandy Hook too. From school to after yet the signs were not acted upon.

 

The VA TV Shooter Bryce Williams or whatever his name is was fired and the cmpany needed Police to escort him from the building. Major red flag right there let alone all the crap in his history that led up to that.

[Exodus]

My concern is who will decide what is to bar someone from owning a gun for being "mentally ill"? I understand there are some easy ones, but what if one day the government decided that x is now a mental disorder, or people that play call of duty are more likely to go on mass shootings?

 

Its a possibility, but there has to be a way to prevent the government from going crazy with policy while accomplishing the original intent of the law.

[greg1647545532]

I would think that a big problem would be that if mental health status, whatever that means, was looked at for gun purchases, some people would avoid getting help with mental health issues for that reason.

 

This is a big problem for the military dealing with its suicide problem. They try real hard to tell us that if we seek help for mental problems it won't necessarily affect our clearances, our assignments, or our continued ability to serve, but the problem is obviously that sometimes it will.

 

Telling someone who's mentally unhinged that if they seek help they might not be able to practice their [gun] hobby anymore would certainly be a hindrance. Telling them that we're going to lock them up indefinitely if some labcoat diagnoses them with severe depression and anxiety disorder seems like it would only make that problem worse. And even then we're only talking about the people who are A) so goddamn crazy that they're forced to see a psychologist or B) sane enough in the first place to acknowledge that they need help.

[TTQ B4U]

My concern is who will decide what is to bar someone from owning a gun for being "mentally ill"? I understand there are some easy ones

 

We can start with the easy ones. Again, it's not going to be an easy or quick adjustment. Enforcing it is going to cause even more pain.

 

there has to be a way to prevent the government from going crazy with policy while accomplishing the original intent of the law.

 

There is; we just have to work to define the boundaries. I don't think that's as big of a challenge as trying to enforce them. Dare I say that might even be a bit big brother-ish.

[Mace1647545504]

The real problem is there is no answer. The right will fight every effort to change the policy even a little and the left will fight the effort not to change the policy. There is a grey area which must be met

[RyM3rC]

Historically when a government is preparing to oppress the shit out of a population, they like to disarm them beforehand. The Romans did it, the English did it, it's happened before, after, and in between.

 

Thinking "good luck having any effect on your super government with small arms" is an uneducated presumption. Although it is my opinion the 2nd amendment allows for us all to have much more than what is currently accessible, even a comparatively small band of weakly armed insurgents can be effective.

[TTQ B4U]

This is a big problem for the military dealing with its suicide problem. They try real hard to tell us that if we seek help for mental problems it won't necessarily affect our clearances, our assignments, or our continued ability to serve, but the problem is obviously that sometimes it will.

 

The reality is though do you really want someone on the edge and perhaps suicidal to have those clearances and assignments? Really?

 

Telling someone who's mentally unhinged that if they seek help they might not be able to practice their [gun] hobby anymore would certainly be a hindrance.

 

but it's absolutely the right thing to do and the step towards reducing this crap. again, the key becomes handling that conversation/communication.

 

Telling them that we're going to lock them up indefinitely if some labcoat diagnoses them with severe depression and anxiety disorder seems like it would only make that problem worse.

 

I'm not professing we lock them up and toss the key, but we certainly need to protect the rest of society and insure there's a program in place to manage their needs and mitigate the risks they present. Currently we're doing a piss poor job of both evidence by these events. That's not an acceptable program going forward in my book.

 

and even then we're only talking about the people who are A) so goddamn crazy that they're forced to see a psychologist or B) sane enough in the first place to acknowledge that they need help.

 

The above is a start and there are other means to determine when someone needs help. Again and a clear case example is how we handle people with drinking problems. DUI related deaths are out of control and our current means of handling them is pathetic. There are ways to see the red flags and we have the means to do something about them. People have rights, but they don't have a right to go around behaving recklessly or letting a major issue go untreated which then leads to huge impacts on the rest of society.

[Geeto67]

What troubles me is that the common citizen has no idea how I interpret the 2A and it's reasons in a modern context in my head and then live by it

 

Fixed it for you. I am pretty sure whatever you have going on in your head as to "why it is in place" is probably different from the constitutional Law scholars that...you know...debate the merits of constitutional amendments for a living and all.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Fixed it for you. I am pretty sure whatever you have going on in your head as to "why it is in place" is probably different from the constitutional Law scholars that...you know...debate the merits of constitutional amendments for a living and all.

 

And why does CR's self-proclaimed law scholar think its in place? Hunting rights? Self defense? Formation of a National Guard?

 

And who are these scholars you speak of? Hillary? Obummer? lol.

 

:dumb:

[Geeto67]

And why does CR's self-proclaimed law scholar think its in place? Hunting rights? Self defense? Formation of a National Guard?

 

I wouldn't be stupid enough to presume why it is in place with any kind of certainty - there are literally hundreds of more learned people than you or I that literally debate what was meant when it was written.

 

If you want a good glimpse of how deep this rabbit hole goes here is a pretty good article from Duke's law school's website:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

 

it is by no means the only one, but it is meant to give you an idea of just how little you think you know about why this thing exists in the first place.

 

Whatever the intent was at the time - that was the purpose of the law.

What ever you think the purpose is now, that is not the intention but the twisting of 200 years of the amendment to men's will and agendas. Granted as the above article points out there may have been disagreement even then among the drafters as to whether it meant to physically carry or just own.

 

Remember in the context of the constitution as a whole it was never the framers intent to be a fixed document - it was always meant to be a living document that changed with the will and the needs of the people, and as such they provided a mechanism for that change. Considering that the 2nd amendment has not changed in 200+ years but the meaning and enforcement has, well I would say we are doing a piss poor job of living up to the framers expectations (or at very least we are cheating the system which is common in politics). The constitution is not some precious document that needs to be defended to the death as intact - its a basic "law of the land" for the people and as the people change and the landscape changes so does the law. To put this in context the most recent changes to the constitution happened in 1992 - well with in most of our lifetimes.

 

does that answer your question? I have a better question for you - since you seem to know exactly why it was written, what's the name of the current theory of intent that the supreme court uses in deciding 2nd amendment cases? I will even make it multiple choice...is it:

a) The individual Right Theory

b) the collective rights Theory

c) Social Contact Theory

d) Natural Law Theory

Edited August 31, 2015 by Geeto67

[Dafunk13]

I'm a pretty left-leaning "gun guy" and I've found the most productive thing I can do is to invite some of those "dumb liberals" to actually go shoot. Most aren't too shy to tell me that they now understand the appeal. Not every dude with a safe full of firearms is some backwoods tool daydreaming fantasies about thwarting a robbery or shooting military personnel when Obama starts shipping us into internment camps. Some of us just like them because they're fun! They're not autonomous killing machines and they aren't that scary. A little understanding goes a long way towards shaping political beliefs, IMO.

[Geeto67]

Not every dude with a safe full of firearms is some backwoods tool daydreaming fantasies about thwarting a robbery or shooting military personnel when Obama starts shipping us into internment camps.

 

The 49% who are aren't doing the 51% who aren't any favors though.

[unfunnyryan]

The 49% who are aren't doing the 51% who aren't any favors though.

 

[Geeto67]

 

It's a take on an old lawyer joke:

 

"Not all lawyers are dishonest crooks but the 99% are sure giving the 1% a bad name"

 

Obviously the number of crazy right wing dingbats gun owners waiting in their bunkers for "obummer" to come take their guns is not very large but they certainly are making a whole lot of noise (mostly because crazy is entertaining).

 

 

Clearly If I have to explain it it wasn't a very good joke. Like I said this board doesn't always get my sense of humor.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Geeto67

[Dafunk13]

Yeah, your syntax was a little fudged, but I got your point. As I said, the best way to combat that vocal minority is to set the example. The left's demonizing of semi-auto rifles because they look scary (OMG assault rifle) and 30 round magazines is just as ridiculous. Again, the best way to combat that is to take a hippie out to shoot my AR15. Most people are just stupid, but some are willing to re-evaluate their shit after they've had a day at the range with a guy they probably assumed doesn't have a safe full of babykillers in his closet and they actually had FUN.

 

I think the more easily addressed issues here are in gun security (not leaving the pistol where little Jimmy can find it and show the neighbor boy, or leaving it in your center console while drinking at the bar) and thorough BG checks. Not in banning foregrips and barrel lengths and "scary" looking guns. Most people with any gun experience, liberal or conservative, would agree.

[Exodus]

[wagner]

So the media does not seem to interested in the latest on TV shooting, guess not enough people were killed for the elected trolls to care?

[Geeto67]

anybody else kind of disappointed with this thread?

[87GT]

anybody else kind of disappointed with this thread?

 

Just you. You seem like you should be on a college debate team instead of CR.

[Geeto67]

Just you. You seem like you should be on a college debate team instead of CR.

 

college is starting to be a distant memory to me sunny jim.

 

I expected the general level of mis-information, was kind of surprised it died out so quickly.

[Mojoe]

There are many angles on this topic that I would like to talk about, but don't have the time to post about them. Frankly, when I see geeto67 is in a thread, I lose interest in the thread. Two factors are always when geeto67 is in a thread. Over baring information, whether you agree or not with the info. And, then that info to be followed up by an argumentative stance, that may actually be a conflict to the original information he posted. Resulting in, a structured self trolling to troll others into being upset and posting more.

 

The by product is people have stopped posting or lost interest.