Don't disarm the mentally ill

[Formaldehyde]

Not according to the Supreme Court.

Not according to a 4-year-old Supreme Court ruling made on a 5-4 decision after the last 3 Republicans put reactionaries on the bench?

Purely from reading the text of the Second Amendment, it's quite clear that the clause beginning 'a well regulated militia...' is an explanation of the clause beginning 'the right of the people...' and that the latter clause is not dependent on it: it can be restated as 'the right of the people...' because 'a well regulated militia [is]...'

I'm glad you definitively determined what it must mean after centuries of dispute over that very issue. Gun control has been a part of US law since the 1700s.

It used to be that even the NRA actually stood for more gun control instead of less, as well as responsible gun ownership, until it was taken over by gun nuts in the 1970s. Now it even advocates continuing to allow criminals easy access to guns while banning, or at least severely limiting, violent video games and movies.

It seems that to at least some the current interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court even trumps the First Amendment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The problem really being many of those disiring to hurt themselves also want to hurt a lot of others on the way out.

True. All that I was saying is that the government should have no role in stopping people from hurting themselves. That's the only claim that I made.

Its a basic tenet of Christian faith that you dont own yourself, God owns you. Have you forgotten this?

Of course I haven't, but there is no good reason for a secular state to recognize that fact.

It seems to me he's saying the state should not enforce Christian rules on people. That said, I'm somewhat surprised to hear that from him.

This.

I have made that comment about a thousand times so I don't know why its surprising.

Another problem with the mental health diagnosis is that it would then be non-governmental agencies stripping someone of their rights.

Who cares if its a government agency or not? Rights are rights.

Not according to the Supreme Court.



Not really.



A pretty good chunk of the population have no second amendment rights.



Drugs, poverty, unemployment, social inequality, poor education, poor mental health care?

Most of those restrictions are unconstitutional.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Not according to a 4-year-old Supreme Court ruling made on a 5-4 decision after the last 3 Republicans put reactionaries on the bench?

The Supreme Court, yes.

And two rulings actually...one of them including incorporation...

 

[Flying Pig]

Oh, not at all. What is 'the right of the people'? Does that mean that 'the people' should be able to bear arms as a collective, which doesn't necessarily mean that all of them can: after all, would that not be the meaning carried by 'the right of every [able] citizen...'? 'To keep' arms; to keep at home? To possess, but store in an appropriate armoury? Should 'to keep and bear' be taken together to imply that the right to possess a weapon is contingent on the proper maintainance ('keeping') thereof, thereby restricting the right to own a weapon to those both willing and able to look after their weapons - which would effectively limit gun ownership to potential militiamen. Does 'to bear arms' imply soldiering, which would make the Second a prohibition on the government banning militias and private military contractors? Otherwise, does it mean to carry ('bear') your weapon at all times? Are 'arms' specifically military weapons, non-military weapons, or any weapons at all?

More fundamentally, is the text of the Second Amendment equivalent to the intention of its writers? Since it originally had a comma immediately after 'militia' - which is nonsensical by modern standards - there's a good case that the Founding Fathers' understanding of grammar was rather different to our own, and that they intended to write a sentance in which the 'right' depended on its 'explanation'. Even then, should the Constitution be interpreted precisely? Is what was good enough for them good enough for us? And so on, and so forth.

Nevertheless, I stand by my point that, grammatically, the sentence 'a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' does not mean that a well-regulated militia must exist in order for the right to keep and bear arms to exist.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The point is that it isn't "clear" at all. That it has been a matter of incessant debate among even constitutional experts.

I personally think the Second Amendment should be repealed, and that a new amendment that makes it completely clear what our rights actually are is put in its place.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The point is that it isn't "clear" at all. That it has been a matter of incessant debate among even constitutional experts.

Well thank Jesus that it's been settled finally.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is true at least until the current block of reactionaries eventually die or leave the Supreme Court.

I think it is quite revealing that the right wing typically criticize the courts for making laws until they do so in ways which they happen to agree.

 

[Carras Dad]

after 200 years it might just be time to get a new constitution.

the french have a presidential system, so maybe just copy theirs, they seem to be doing fine with it.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not calling for gun control, i'm calling for more mental health control. They arent the same thing.

And again, labeling my position as 'throwing the mentally ill off the gun rights bus' simply is a mischaracterization, a outright lie if you will, since there is a decided difference in someone who is violentlly mentally ill and someone who has a severe fear of heights. You continually seem unable or unwilling to recognize that point.

As to the congress, all it takes is a continual database where such information can be assessed as it occurs. If a person wants to buy a gun, but has a psych red flag due to a diagnosis of being mentally ill, then they dont pass the gun buy restrictions. Simple.

Laws controlling access to guns is not gun control? So you're not throwing the mentally ill off the gun rights bus because there's a difference between a fear of heights and a violently mentally ill person? Does everyone else exercising their gun rights have to visit a court and it's mental health care professional for "permission" to have a gun? Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege? You equated the mentally ill with convicted criminals to deny them their gun rights, and now "gun buy restrictions" are not gun control.

 

[Bugfatty300]

That is true at least until the current block of reactionaries eventually die or leave the Supreme Court.

I think it is quite revealing that the right wing typically criticize the courts for making laws until they do so in ways which they happen to agree.

If I were a pro-gun control advocate; Since McDonald and Heller didn't overturn or forbid any gun control laws other than the bans in DC and Chigaco, I'd forget about debating what "militia" and "people" means and focus on fighting the overturning of gun control laws in court using the tools that Heller gave, which has been done numerous times since those rulings came down. Seems like this would be a lot easier and productive than getting the 2nd amendment abolished or getting two landmark decisions reversed which is VERY unlikely to happen even if Obama gets free pick on all the seats.

Gun control advocates whinning and complaining about losing in the SC is going to get them about as far as it did the pro-lifers.

 

[Formaldehyde]

after 200 years it might just be time to get a new constitution.

the french have a presidential system, so maybe just copy theirs, they seem to be doing fine with it.

Indeed. There are many changes which should be considered. This is just one of them.

If I were a pro-gun control advocate; Since McDonald and Heller didn't overturn or forbid any gun control laws other than the bans in DC and Chigaco, I'd forget about debating what "militia" and "people" means and focus on fighting the overturning of gun control laws in court using the tools that Heller gave, which has been done numerous times since those rulings came down. Seems like this would be a lot easier and productive than getting the 2nd amendment abolished or getting two landmark decisions reversed which is VERY unlikely to happen even if Obama gets free pick on all the seats.

Gun control advocates whinning and complaining about losing in the SC is going to get them about as far as it did the pro-lifers.

Only I didn't suggest "abolishing" the Second Amendment. I want it completely clarified once and for all exactly what our rights are in this regard. And apparently you don't...

Besides I am hardly a "gun control advocate" as the term is typically used in a derogatory manner by the far-right. However, I do support rational common sense measures be adopted, especially in regard to closing the loopholes that allow criminals such each access to weapons. Furthermore, I fully support public healthcare programs which allow those who have mental difficulties to find appropriate medical treatment. You don't?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Only I didn't suggest "abolishing" the Second Amendment. I want it completely clarified once and for all exactly what our rights are in this regard.

So you don't want it repealed and replaced? (Abolished)

I personally think the Second Amendment should be repealed, and that a new amendment that makes it completely clear what our rights actually are is put in its place.

Just clarification? Then no repeal is neccesiary! That's what the SC is for.

And apparently you don't...

Of course I don't. I already believe I have firm grasp of what it means.

Not that it matters. For a long time now I've based my opinions on American gun control laws on their merits alone as laws instead of whether or not it is unconstitutional.

I am hardly a "gun control advocate" as the term is typically used in a derogatory manner by the far-right.

No, it's a perfectly neutral term. No more than pro-gay rights, pro-choice or pro-gun rights are derogatory. Nothing to be ashamed of.

However, I do support rational common sense measures be adopted, especially in regard to closing the loopholes that allow criminals such each access to weapons. Furthermore, I fully support public healthcare programs which allow those who have mental difficulties to find appropriate medical treatment. You don't?

Well I do support laws that have tangible results and don't waste time and money.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So you don't want it repealed and replaced? (Abolished)

Replacing it with a new amendment that makes it quite clear what our rights actually are is hardly "abolishing" it. Now is it? Repealing it would be necessary because otherwise it would be subject to interpretation along with the new amendment.

Why are you apparently opposed to clarifying what our rights actually are?

No, it's a perfectly neutral term. No more than pro-gay rights, pro-choice or pro-gun rights are derogatory. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Only I am actually in favor of reasonable and responsible gun "rights". Claiming I am a "gun control advocate" is disingenuous at best.

It also completely ignores the clearly deceitful fear mongering and hatred being espoused by the NRA and others in this regard.

Well I do support laws that have tangible results and don't waste time and money.

That is hardly definitive. Do you, or do you not, support the measures which Obama has proposed? If not, which measures are you opposed?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Replacing it with a new amendment that makes it quite clear what our rights actually are is hardly "abolishing" it. Now is it? Repealing it would be necessary because otherwise it would be subject to interpretation along with the new amendment.

Only I am actually in favor of reasonable and responsible gun "rights".

Then why not abolish altogether and leave guns open to any bans and regulations? Sounds simpler to me.

That is hardly definitive. Do you, or do you not, support the measures which Obama has proposed? If not, which measures are you opposed?

Well, I don't know. I haven't been paying any attention to events in the US for quite a while, all I've heard about in the gun control arena is another outcry for an "assault weapon ban" which happens every couple of years or so. You probably already know my views on that. Is mental health reform included?

 

[Flying Pig]

Then why not abolish altogether and leave guns open to any bans and regulations? Sounds simpler to me.

Precisely because this leaves guns open to any bans and regulations - the argument for any constitutionalism is that it prevents a future government from inhibiting what is seen as a 'basic right' and enshrined in the Constitution.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Then why not abolish altogether and leave guns open to any bans and regulations? Sounds simpler to me.

Based on what has actually occurred, I really don't have that much of a problem with that approach given how sensible all the gun restrictions have been. When I lived in NYC it made perfect sense to me to have quite restrictive gun laws. While I have never lived in DC, I imagine the situation is quite similar.

But that clearly wouldn't pass muster with those who do claim that bearing arms is their right. Like any other rights, they need to be enumerated so that the "tyranny of the majority" cannot prevail.

And much of the restrictions being so reasonable in the past was likely due to fears that anything more restrictive would be declared unconstitutional.

Well, I don't know. I haven't been paying any attention to events in the US for quite a while, all I've heard about in the gun control arena is another outcry for an "assault weapon ban" which happens every couple of years or so. You probably already know my views on that.

You probably should spend more time actually reading these threads where the issues continue to be mentioned, such as this one, while spending less time listening to the propaganda being spewed by the NRA and the gun nuts. There hasn't been any such "outcry" until quite recently, and that was specifically based on recent events. You do know about what occurred in Aurora, CO in July and Newton, CT in December?

But here they are anyway:

Proposed Congressional Actions

Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.

Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.

Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.

Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.

Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.

Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.

Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.

Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.

Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

Executive actions

Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system
.
Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.

Nominating an A.T.F. director.

Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.

Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.

Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

Other than the ban on assault weapons and extended capacity magazines, is there anything else in the list that seems anything like excessive "gun control" to you, instead of basic common sense measures which should have been implemented long ago?

 

[MobBoss]

Of course I haven't, but there is no good reason for a secular state to recognize that fact.

I was referring to your personal beliefs, not the nations.

 

[MobBoss]

Laws controlling access to guns is not gun control? So you're not throwing the mentally ill off the gun rights bus because there's a difference between a fear of heights and a violently mentally ill person?

Of course there is a difference in various types of mental illness.

Does everyone else exercising their gun rights have to visit a court and it's mental health care professional for "permission" to have a gun?

No, and neither would anyone else. You seem unable to grasp that this would have already occurred prior to the request to buy a weapon via a mental health professional inputing their diagnosis into a database which would be part of a background check at point of purchase.

Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?

Absolutely. Do you?

You equated the mentally ill with convicted criminals to deny them their gun rights, and now "gun buy restrictions" are not gun control.

I equated the violently mentally ill as a demograph that we shouldnt allow to have access to guns. If you disagree with that then your just fine with the violentlly mentally ill killing our schoolchildren.

 

[Bugfatty300]

while spending less time listening to the propaganda being spewed by the NRA and the gun nuts.

Now, you see Forma, it's because of unnecessary remarks like that I don't continue very far into our debates. What make you think I a pawn of anyone's propaganda, much less that of the NRA? If you believe my opinions are any less than my own then I'd rather keep them to myself, thank you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is a very convenient excuse to not even look at these quite rational common sense measures and voice your opinion about them, while conflating all these threads in this forum on these issues to be:

another outcry for an "assault weapon ban" which happens every couple of years or so.

No. That is completely unlike the propaganda being spewed by the NRA and the gun nuts to deflect criticism from their own direct involvement in gun violence, instead of even thinking about addressing the real issues.