View Poll Results: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    77 91.67%
  • No

    7 8.33%
Page 31 of 51 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 510

Thread: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  1. #301
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    And mental health professionals can certainly make a valid case. You haven't proven that they can't.
    Dude, they rarely agree with each other. That's all you need to know.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #302
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Dude, they rarely agree with each other. That's all you need to know.
    Dude, if that were true, there wouldn't be so much consensus among them.

  3. #303
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Dude, if that were true, there wouldn't be so much consensus among them.
    You cannot subject the extent of a right to consensus. You must use the necessary and proper process of figuring out what the NEED for a limit is and if it is PROPER to create the law according the the U.S.C.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #304
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You cannot subject the extent of a right to consensus. You must use the necessary and proper process of figuring out what the NEED for a limit is and if it is PROPER to create the law according the the U.S.C.
    I'm sure there would be people who don't think shouting "fire" in a theater is dangerous either, but the consensus is that it is. Consensus is what we have. And yeah, I agree about the necessary and proper clause. Experts on whatever topic is at hand are the most qualified to determine what is necessary and proper to solve a problem. In this case, experts are mental health professionals.

    You're essentially arguing "if I don't think it's necessary, it isn't and if you disagree you're anti-second amendment". That's not an argument.

    I'll re-post this again since you haven't answered it:

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    A paranoid schizophrenic with delusions and consistent threats of violence is not "subjectively" violent and I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree. An adult with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is also not subjectively incompetent. You don't seem to understand that mental health professionals aren't just guessing when they make diagnoses, commit patients and make other decisions. There are actual standards. Like grip said earlier, there should be limits to prevent people like Loughner from obtaining weapons.

    Moreover, you do not seem to understand that limiting rights is not an infringement of rights.

    Again, you see anyone who disagrees with you on limits as "anti-second" and that just isn't so.

  5. #305
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I'm sure there would be people who don't think shouting "fire" in a theater is dangerous either, but the consensus is that it is. Consensus is what we have. And yeah, I agree about the necessary and proper clause. Experts on whatever topic is at hand are the most qualified to determine what is necessary and proper to solve a problem. In this case, experts are mental health professionals.

    You're essentially arguing "if I don't think it's necessary, it isn't and if you disagree you're anti-second amendment". That's not an argument.

    I'll re-post this again since you haven't answered it:
    It's not MY argument, it's the way things are supposed to work. The constitution is based on consensus and neither is the "shouting fire argument". I've got to make a run in a minute but I'll come back and explain the shouting fire case to you later.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #306
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    First round being a rubber bullet may be the silliest suggestion on this thread. If that was my first round, I would rely on a double tap. The only chance you would have with a rubber bullet would be the criminal laughing himself to death.

    Personally, I would rather have a box of rocks than my first round being non lethal.
    Many people have a movie-fantasy view about guns and their fighting off hordes of terrorists or some action shootout with evildoers in their home. It is just that, fantasy. In those fantascies they invision being heroic for killing bad people like an action hero. Unfortunately, even many police officers have such view. Among my jobs is to train officers to think otherwise and instead real applications and correct usages of firearms in real-world terms.

    However, it is more dangerous a view for citizens rather than officers. Officers understand the consequences of shooting someone dead and of doing so wrongly. Citizens don't and the overwhelming number of gun-deaths in homes are so-called "accidental" deaths.


    Your comment about preferring rocks over a rubber bullet then backed up by metal bullets just indicates your fantasy only allows senarios of killing armed assailants as an action hero and no understand of mental-physical reaction times, impact force or any any reality other than you as the action hero.

    Unlike your mono-load view, my firearms are loaded each with a variety of ammo, which I will change for the circumstances of carry of potential usage. For example, 1st round rubber bullet, then hollow point (stopping power) and the next steel jacketed (for penetration) etc. That is my 1911 45s. For shotguns, the diversity is even greater. But, then, unlike you, I can fire multiple rounds and even go through multiple clips rather quickly and accurately - the latter being more important.

    Otherwise for your comment expressing your opposition to multiple type rounds in your firearm, I gather you have a particularly weak finger and can only manage pulling off one shot every few seconds and therefore you couldn't to fire a second lethal round for many seconds.

    At close range any marksman could not only knock anyone down with a rubber bullet, but kill someone with one. You really don't know what you're talking about comparing a rock to a rubber bullet. They are considered "semi lethal." Depends where they hit and at what velocity.

    I seriously doubt you'll ever had the situation where you are Matt Dillon in a quick draw contest with the villian, but that's what you envision.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-04-12 at 02:33 PM.

  7. #307
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It's not MY argument, it's the way things are supposed to work. The constitution is based on consensus and neither is the "shouting fire argument". I've got to make a run in a minute but I'll come back and explain the shouting fire case to you later.
    You don't need to explain anything to me. The government cannot punish speech unless it incites "imminent lawless action." Determining what speech meets such standards is based on a consensus and certain people will certainly object to the conclusions reached by such consensus. The same applies to determining what mental states meet the standards of someone being an imminent threat if they were able to own a gun.

    Again, a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions and consistent threats of violence is not "subjectively" violent and I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree. An adult with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is also not subjectively incompetent. You don't seem to understand that mental health professionals aren't just guessing when they make diagnoses, commit patients and make other decisions. There are actual standards. Like grip said earlier, there should be limits to prevent people like Loughner from obtaining weapons.

    You might be comfortable with those two people having guns, but I'm not interested in it.

  8. #308
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Favorite: Shotgun is Saga 12 semi auto. Favorite round for it: old fashioned 00 buck.
    Handgun is full frame Colt 1911 45 semi auto. Favorite round for it: ordinary steel jacketed
    Long gun: Garrand M1 30.06. Favorite round for it: black tips

    What most officers carry: 9mm Glock or Berreta. Some still carry revolvers - then usually 44 mags. A few prefer 45 semi-autos, but double action with first round.

    For ankle backup most carry Berreta .380 - which I believe is a particularly bad choice. An alloy framed 38 sp with Crimson Trace would make more sense. But, then I believe a 45 is overwhelming superior to a 9mm despite the double capacity. A person only needs lots of bullets if they aren't taking time to make their shots count. It's easy enough to change a clip in that ultra rare shootout situation.

    THE self defense consideration in a firearm is KNOCK DOWN power, not killing power. Only a person indifferent to anyone else's life also does not consider limiting penetration ability and less-than-lethal options.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-04-12 at 02:30 PM.

  9. #309
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    You don't need to explain anything to me. The government cannot punish speech unless it incites "imminent lawless action." Determining what speech meets such standards is based on a consensus and certain people will certainly object to the conclusions reached by such consensus. The same applies to determining what mental states meet the standards of someone being an imminent threat if they were able to own a gun.
    Obviously I do need to explain it because limits are not specifically about "immenent lawless action" in limiting free speech. There are very specific tests for protection such as SLAPP value, defamation, invasion of privacy, provocation to anger and "fighting words", and words that create a "clear and present danger" or "immenent threat". The common thread in all of this is that the words themselves are protected, however usage of with ill intent is not. For instance, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no danger can cause a panic and endangers the rights of those in proximity, yelling fire in a crowded theater that is on fire is perfectly legal. Same thing with firearms, a person who is not going to commit a crime is not a danger with a 10, 20, or 100 round magazine. The psych test is not enough, all it would take to infringe would be a psychologist who wants to end gun ownership finding for the state or.....as is the case with most gun laws an over broad definition of psychological disqualifications such as PTSD, or other broad spectrum afflictions. Simply owning a gun, same as speaking in a non-threatening Time/Place/Manner endangers no one therefore the right is protected.

    Again, a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions and consistent threats of violence is not "subjectively" violent and I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree. An adult with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is also not subjectively incompetent. You don't seem to understand that mental health professionals aren't just guessing when they make diagnoses, commit patients and make other decisions. There are actual standards. Like grip said earlier, there should be limits to prevent people like Loughner from obtaining weapons.
    Are you a psychologist? I learn the subject as a hobby and have some family members with mental health issues, they are broad spectrum and even delusional mental disorders have a broad range, one can have delusions, even violent ones and not act upon them or be okay with medication. Your broad brush approach is grossly insufficient.
    You might be comfortable with those two people having guns, but I'm not interested in it.
    Your opinion is not sufficient to restrict a right, neither is anyone else's. You MUST provide a necessary and proper argument, simply saying you aren't comfortable is not going to cut it. In the case of Laughner, it was obvious the kid was dangerous, the authorities charged with public safety turned a blind eye which led to the eventual shooting of Giffords and those in attendance of her public appearance. The gun didn't kill or injure anyone Laughner DID. Had he been barred gun ownership he would have found another way to do what he did, those with intent to injure tend to find ways of accomplishing their goals.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #310
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    I don't think Laughner is a good example for much in terms of gun regulations issues.

    Accidental gun deaths by children, demented old people shooting kids for trespassing, people who shoot with the bullets not going anywhere near the target and hitting elsewhere, people who think it's ok to scare someone with their gun, and people shooting people only knowing the person they are shooting as a dark siloette that scare them - are all among reasons from some minimal required training, proof of competency and basic knowledge of gun laws.

    It is amazing how many people don't know that merely pointing a gun at someone usually is felony assault with a deadly weapon or don't TRULY secure (rather only "hide") loaded firearms in a house with kids or that kids might visit.

    Personally, I believe having a loaded firearm in a house with children that is not secured by a lock - unless the adult owner is literally carrying/wearing it, should be a criminal offense.

Page 31 of 51 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •