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 32 of 51 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 510

Thread: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  1. #311
    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
    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".
    Exactly. There are tests to determine what should be limited and those tests are developed by consensus on what makes something dangerous. That's the same standard I'm talking about in regards to mental health.

    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.
    Sure, that's your argument and it isn't the end all be all of the discussion as you try to make. Moreover, disagreeing with it doesn't make someone anti-second amendment or anti-gun.

    In any case, there are people who I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree are a threat with a weapon. For example, a two year old. Now let's take an adult with the mental capacity of a two year old and give them a gun. That's a bad decision.

    You are trying to say that only having weapons with certain intents and in certain situations is a problem. However, it's a fact that CERTAIN PEOPLE having a weapon is a problem - like a 2 year old or someone with their same mental capacity.

    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.
    No, I'm not a psychologist and I also have knowledge on the subject. I also agree with your comments about the broad spectrum which is why I said that PROFESSIONALS WITH THE MOST EVIDENCED BACKED ARGUMENTS SHOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS so that those who are not a danger to society are not unjustly restricted.

    Moreover, you are trying to use the broad spectrum of mental disorders as evidence that NOBODY can be diagnosed as a threat to others by professionals. That just isn't the case. It's done all the time and when it can be done, that information should be used for law.

    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.
    Do you NOT understand that I haven't argued rights should be limited based on my opinion? I said mental health professionals with the most evidenced backed arguments should be those who advise lawmakers and judges.

  2. #312
    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
    Exactly. There are tests to determine what should be limited and those tests are developed by consensus on what makes something dangerous. That's the same standard I'm talking about in regards to mental health.


    Sure, that's your argument and it isn't the end all be all of the discussion as you try to make. Moreover, disagreeing with it doesn't make someone anti-second amendment or anti-gun.

    In any case, there are people who I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree are a threat with a weapon. For example, a two year old. Now let's take an adult with the mental capacity of a two year old and give them a gun. That's a bad decision.

    You are trying to say that only having weapons with certain intents and in certain situations is a problem. However, it's a fact that CERTAIN PEOPLE having a weapon is a problem - like a 2 year old or someone with their same mental capacity.


    No, I'm not a psychologist and I also have knowledge on the subject. I also agree with your comments about the broad spectrum which is why I said that PROFESSIONALS WITH THE MOST EVIDENCED BACKED ARGUMENTS SHOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS so that those who are not a danger to society are not unjustly restricted.

    Moreover, you are trying to use the broad spectrum of mental disorders as evidence that NOBODY can be diagnosed as a threat to others by professionals. That just isn't the case. It's done all the time and when it can be done, that information should be used for law.


    Do you NOT understand that I haven't argued rights should be limited based on my opinion? I said mental health professionals with the most evidenced backed arguments should be those who advise lawmakers and judges.
    You don't form law due to "appeal to popularity" you don't understand my arguments or are trying to adapt them to fit your worldview. Either way I don't think you understand the subject.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #313
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You don't form law due to "appeal to popularity" you don't understand my arguments or are trying to adapt them to fit your worldview. Either way I don't think you understand the subject.
    Yes he does. You just don't like his response and have no response. In fact, many people are readily detectable as mentally or psycholoigcally unstable. In is not uncommon for those who teach conceal-carry classed to deny "passing" someone for such reasons or due to statements the person makes that appear to apply the person will be dangerous with a firearm.

    A couple of times I have come across someone with a conceal-carry permit and then-and-there took away their handgun and recommended their permit be repealed to the state. I tried to be gentle towards both as it was due ot no fault of their own. In both instances it was very elderly people clearly suffering from dementia (Alzheimers) and both speaking and acting irrationally. Officers also have to deal with this with drivers. Lots of old folks in Florida and aging can be cruel in ways that then can endanger others if not addressed.

    Law isn't built around platitudes requiring perfection. They should be written around reality.

  4. #314
    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 joko104 View Post
    Yes he does. You just don't like his response and have no response. In fact, many people are readily detectable as mentally or psycholoigcally unstable. In is not uncommon for those who teach conceal-carry classed to deny "passing" someone for such reasons or due to statements the person makes that appear to apply the person will be dangerous with a firearm.

    A couple of times I have come across someone with a conceal-carry permit and then-and-there took away their handgun and recommended their permit be repealed to the state. I tried to be gentle towards both as it was due ot no fault of their own. In both instances it was very elderly people clearly suffering from dementia (Alzheimers) and both speaking and acting irrationally. Officers also have to deal with this with drivers. Lots of old folks in Florida and aging can be cruel in ways that then can endanger others if not addressed.

    Law isn't built around platitudes requiring perfection. They should be written around reality.
    If he understood my arguments he wouldn't be for broad psych testing. You do understand that an overbroad interpretation of his stance can be used to signifigantly reduce the number of people who could otherwise safely and legally carry right? There are politicians currently advocating expanding the definition of just such a thing.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #315
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    I highly suggest (and practice) that the FIRST round in a home defense firearm should be non-lethal (only rarely causing death) such as rubber bullets. It would be very, very rare that would not deter someone the extra second you need to fully wake up or fully realize the level of actual danger. It also provides a better legal defense in some situations. If someone keeps coming at you after you shoot them with a rubber bullet (or bean bag if a shotgun) you have a clearer claim that only deadly force would stop the person, that your pre-mindset is to NOT wanting to kill someone, and - of course - that you did at least something to avoid reckless endangerment by you in relation to your children.
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    If the intruder has a gun and suprises you - you die whether you have a gun or not. If you can't hit and knock someone down with a rubber bullet or bean bag, a metal bullet wouldn't do you any good either.

    It is in fact known far more likely that shootings in a home most likely 1.) kill your own child 2.) is a child finding your gun and killing him/herself or a friend 3.) Kills a neighbor or friend and 4.) kills your spouse or yourself.

    Also, depending on the state, you can't just kill an 11 year old burglarizing your house. Rubber bullets are a great defense in face of an minor aged, unarmed intruder. In fact, that unarmed intruder actually might still kill you, but if you're an mature adult man and the intruder an unarmed young teenager, a grand jury might not see it as "self defense" but a punitive killing - especially if you shot the kid multiple times with a para-military assault rifle.

    A first-shot rubber bullet gives you more options and time to gather your senses. If you can't defend yourself in your home that way, the fact is you can't defense yourself otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The Constitution actually says the purpose of allowing firearms is to have an available militia in the event of a foreign invasion or otherwise needing a military at a time when the country had essentially no standing army nor anticipating maintaining one. As a literal interpretation, the government could outlaw any usage, display or unsecured firearm unless a militia is called up. People who push their rights as strictly constitutional right to have any weapon they want for any reason they want have a losing argument. Constitutional qualifier is ONLY for "militia" usage.

    While I support gun ownership and as a fundamental human right to self defense, I also believe proof of competency and knowledge of relevant laws should go along with it. Too many people die by accidents and too many truly stupid, firearm's incompetent and demented people have firearms that have no potential of being used to defend themselves, but only stupidly and in ways that will wrongly hurt others and themselves.

    Well, one thing here of some significance has to be that among those who are actively discussing this issue on these forums, Thunder can no longer quite so clearly be claimed to be by far the most abjectly ignorant person regarding this subject. He now has some serious competition for that distinction.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  6. #316
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    If he understood my arguments he wouldn't be for broad psych testing. You do understand that an overbroad interpretation of his stance can be used to signifigantly reduce the number of people who could otherwise safely and legally carry right? There are politicians currently advocating expanding the definition of just such a thing.
    Political abuse of psychiatry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Well, one thing here of some significance has to be that among those who are actively discussing this issue on these forums, Thunder can no longer quite so clearly be claimed to be by far the most abjectly ignorant person regarding this subject....
    can't make a post without trying to insult me, huh? how very sad.
    Last edited by Thunder; 01-04-12 at 04:29 PM.

  8. #318
    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
    If he understood my arguments he wouldn't be for broad psych testing. You do understand that an overbroad interpretation of his stance can be used to signifigantly reduce the number of people who could otherwise safely and legally carry right? There are politicians currently advocating expanding the definition of just such a thing.
    You do understand that no one's arguing for an "over-broad interpretation of my stance" right? The fact that you focus on an "over-broad interpretation" of my stance instead of just my stance says it all. I've been quite clear that I don't support banning people left and right for non-threatening disorders. I've said that people who are obviously a threat to the public should be prohibited from owning weapons. You refuse to address this actual point I've made along with my specific examples and have instead taken it upon yourself to do some "over-broad" interpretation that NO ONE is arguing for. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS MENTIONED SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.

  9. #319
    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
    You do understand that no one's arguing for an "over-broad interpretation of my stance" right?
    Oh but you are. You have stated that the politicians and judges should pick the psychiatrists to accredit for the purposes of decided who can't have a gun. Psycologists range among the spectrum and there is a more than likely chance of anti-second politicians picking those professionals who have the broadest definition of danger. You are advocating for a door to prior restraint being opened for those who do not respect the amendment to infringe upon it. This is what I am trying to get you to realize, that certain politicians are apt to stack the deck in their favor, judges are not immune to applying biases either.
    The fact that you focus on an "over-broad interpretation" of my stance instead of just my stance says it all. I've been quite clear that I don't support banning people left and right for non-threatening disorders.
    But you are in favor of allowing more gun control, stating many things anti-gun groups have said as well, and these are things that do not pass necessary and proper. I don't care how broad your interpretation of my rights are since you are not in a postition to infringe, however your stance can and often does become overbroad once you grant said powers to politicians.
    I've said that people who are obviously a threat to the public should be prohibited from owning weapons. You refuse to address this actual point I've made along with my specific examples and have instead taken it upon yourself to do some "over-broad" interpretation that NO ONE is arguing for. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS MENTIONED SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.
    You have used similar defeated talking points, I don't know if that is your opinion or not but the constitution does not allow for most of your stance. There is a due process to remove a right from individuals, and it must still meet tests that are necessary AND proper, either/or is insufficient.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #320
    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?

    Thanks. While psychiatry is a noble profession it most certainly can be used for less than noble means.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 32 of 51 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... 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
  •