Re: Supreme Court hears 2nd admn
[Re: rex123]
#7396490
11/04/21 10:24 AM
11/04/21 10:24 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 10,408 Northeast Oklahoma
Mike in A-town
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 10,408
Northeast Oklahoma
|
So people with a mental illness should be allowed a gun as long as they haven't broken a law? Legally define mentally ill. And do it in a way that separates the harmless mentally ill from those who would do harm. You're going to find it difficult, or impossible. The framers of the Constitution understood that. It's one of the reasons the 2A exists. No law will protect you from anyone bent on doing harm. Laws only provide consequences once the crime is committed. A lot of mass shooters kill themselves as their last act... What consequences do you think will dissuade someone who is that mentally unstable? None. It's also why mass shooters or criminals prefer gun free zones or other soft targets... They can inflict massive damage with little risk of someone responding with equal or greater force. They know if they attack a police station they'll have the drop at first and get a few shots off. But they'll be met with overwhelming force very quickly. Now, do I agree with the "spirit" of your statement? Absolutely. Anyone who is mentally ill enough to be a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to possess firearms. We used to lock those people up in rubber rooms. But translating spirit to letter of the law is difficult to do in a way that can't be misinterpreted or twisted and abused. No law will stop someone who is determined or crazy enough to commit a crime. The best you can do is be prepared as much as possible to preserve what is dear to you. That is the entire basis of the 2A. Mike
One man with a gun may control 100 others who have none.
Vladimir Lenin
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court hears 2nd admn
[Re: GREENCOUNTYPETE]
#7396502
11/04/21 10:38 AM
11/04/21 10:38 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 10,408 Northeast Oklahoma
Mike in A-town
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 10,408
Northeast Oklahoma
|
greencountrypete, why not just keep people to dangerous to own firearms in prison or mental hospitals? those laws you advocate do NOTHING to keep people safer Well because it serves little purpose to keep Alec Baldwin in prison forever if he can just be stripped of his rights , pay restitution to the family and work burger king flipping burgers for the rest of his days. Not sure the Baldwin case is a good example. As much as I dislike Baldwin I don't think he shot those people on purpose. No "malice" or "forethought" involved. Gross negligence? Absolutely. The question would be, "Will he kill again?" Probably not. So I WOULD punish him for gross negligence that resulted in one dead and one injured. But after his sentence was served I don't think stripping him of all rights forever is the best thing. I'm not defending what he did. But I realize that whatever cup is used to measure out justice on him, could be the same cup used to measure out mine one day. And I would want a fair assessment. Mike
One man with a gun may control 100 others who have none.
Vladimir Lenin
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court hears 2nd admn
[Re: EdP]
#7396503
11/04/21 10:39 AM
11/04/21 10:39 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,027 Nevada
nvwrangler
OP
trapper
|
OP
trapper
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,027
Nevada
|
I also agree with GCP. Danny I don't agree with. No law alone keeps anyone safe. It takes action by someone to counter threats by lawbreakers and NY is preventing their citizens from taking action to protect themselves.
I listened to some of the arguments as they were made. One attorney for the state argued that it was reasonable to restrict firearms in the high population areas because of increased police presence. That argument, if accepted, would mean that as population increases the 2nd Amendment would go away. The justices did not pull the string on that particular line of thought, but did question how it could be that a constitutional right would be less applicable becase of population density. I guess this gets to my original point, if their argument is that of higher police presence means less need why didn't the opposing side counter with the courts own precedent of " No Duty to Protect"? My other question has always been is there anywhere else in the constitution that the words "the people" didn't mean the individual ?
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court hears 2nd admn
[Re: nvwrangler]
#7396526
11/04/21 11:21 AM
11/04/21 11:21 AM
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 18,080 Oakland, MS
yotetrapper30
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 18,080
Oakland, MS
|
We need to bring back mental institutions so that guy Rex knows talking to a box can be kept in one. The "mentally ill" should absolutely be allowed to own a gun. But people like that probably shouldn't be on the street period. Someone like that is probably more likely to kill someone with a knife, broken bottle, or brick than they are to be sane enough to buy and keep track of a gun.
By the definition of mental illness today, few people probably wouldn't be considered mentally ill. Drink a few too many beers on the weekend? Now you're an alcoholic, and mentally ill. Having a hard time getting over a breakup or the loss of a loved one? Now you're depressed, and mentally ill. Suffer something traumatic (like someone shooting an AR-15 near you...remember that?) now you have PTSD and are mentally ill. Your kid don't like sitting in school all day because he'd rather be outside and is fidgety? Soon the school says he is ADHD and now he's labeled mentally ill before he's even old enough to legally purchase his first gun.
Be REAL careful what you wish for when wanting to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
Just give me one thing, that I can hold on to. To believe in this livin' is just a hard way to go.
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court hears 2nd admn
[Re: hippie]
#7396561
11/04/21 12:13 PM
11/04/21 12:13 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,570 McGrath, AK
white17
"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
|
"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,570
McGrath, AK
|
I also agree with GCP. Danny I don't agree with. No law alone keeps anyone safe. It takes action by someone to counter threats by lawbreakers and NY is preventing their citizens from taking action to protect themselves.
I listened to some of the arguments as they were made. One attorney for the state argued that it was reasonable to restrict firearms in the high population areas because of increased police presence. That argument, if accepted, would mean that as population increases the 2nd Amendment would go away. The justices did not pull the string on that particular line of thought, but did question how it could be that a constitutional right would be less applicable becase of population density. What impression did you get from the questions the Justices were asking? I got a good feeling from them. I don't think it is safe to read anything into their questions. The things Roberts asked were "encouraging" but I still can't trust the guy. He did vote with the majority in Heller & MacDonald so I wonder if he now feels he must support the plaintiffs in order to be consistent with his own record ?? I am a little nervous about Barret even though she authored a dissent in an earlier case when the decision went against our side. She still strikes me as a squish that is mostly concerned "for the children". My best hope is that we will prevail with a 5/4 decision. We already know how Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor will vote...........on everything.......... It's possible that we will get a 6/3 decision but I hope not. I would prefer that Roberts vote with the other liberals. If that happens then Thomas will decide who writes the decision for the majority. Hopefully he will write it. I think that if Roberts votes with the majority he will assign the task of writing the decision to himself. If that happens, he will be able to include all sorts of ambiguities and loopholes........weasel words that will still allow liberals to pick away at 2A. We do not want a Roberts' Court status quo decision..... that essentially means nothing changes...........IMO
Mean As Nails
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court hears 2nd admn
[Re: nvwrangler]
#7396563
11/04/21 12:15 PM
11/04/21 12:15 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 30,922 williamsburg ks
danny clifton
"Grumpy Old Man"
|
"Grumpy Old Man"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 30,922
williamsburg ks
|
If alec is dangerous and allowed to be free no law will stop him from buying or stealing or building a firearm
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court hears 2nd admn
[Re: nvwrangler]
#7396564
11/04/21 12:16 PM
11/04/21 12:16 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 30,922 williamsburg ks
danny clifton
"Grumpy Old Man"
|
"Grumpy Old Man"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 30,922
williamsburg ks
|
Laws only apply to people who obey them. Its why people go to prison. To protect society from them
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
|
|
|
|
|