NJ Senators On Guns: "Confiscate! Confiscate! Confiscate!"

This is a bit like somebody saying that your well within your second amendment rights if we restrict you to a musket, under the requirement that you keep it at the town armory for use only well drilling on the third Sunday of each month.

Define mental illness.

No, I don't, but like I said, I want to understand how you are able to determine that the 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

Look into a mirror.

For the purposes of this discussion, I mean those whom psychiatric professionals would judge to have a mental condition or who are medicated in such a way that renders them incapable of exercising lawful handling of a firearm.

As already mentioned, that too could be considered infringement of liberties. In fact, I don't put it past someone in power to run with that and make the mental screening process so exclusive that it would effectively BE a ban on guns.

The lady has a point. Way too easy for the "liberals" (who don't want to liberate anybody) to declare that anyone who resists their attempts at tyranny is "mentally ill."

In the 40s-50s, they were sterilizing retarded kids in this country, and some weasels wanted hillbilly yokels to be defined as "mentally incompetent", next.

There is precedence.

First thing I said on this topic when the NRA released their talking points and it started showing up on Wordforge - No, you really, really, REALLY don't want this to be considered a mental health issue. Because there's no quicker way of losing ALL of your rights than being declared mentally ill.

yeah I think it would be obvious if the left tried to classify tens of millions of people as crazy just so they couldn't have guns.

You gleefully support an organization that attempts to stop every possible way law enforcement has to track, limit and disarm those who commit said attacks.

Which is why you are a liar.

NRA's attack on common sense kills people, and you root them on every time they do.

Head up ass comment. You know there was a Muslim that knew about that attack ahead of time?

Hell, the one bit of data we have on that is the first time the idiot started railing about a fundamentalist concept (not one that was violent, btw) he was kicked out of his Mosque.

Head. Up. Ass.

Background checks do that?

Fuck you, ass clown.

Yes, there's no possible way to buy a gun in the US without a background check...

Oh, wait, there is, its hugely publicized, it happens all the time, and your guys want to keep it that way.

More lies.

Ridiculous. The Dems want to close down loopholes, the NRA GOP puppets want to keep them open. Go peruse the interwebz for hundreds of examples of this.

That's a badge of honor coming from you assclowns.

Ricky says its a "badge of honor" to be recognized as a busybody communist thug. That's it. That's all

Paladin still hasn't responded to my request for rationale on this. I can say no guns for the mentally ill, but that's because I recognize the "well regulated" clause. Since Paladin sees it as an individual right only, then he needs to explain what basis there is for infringing that right when it comes to certain individuals.

Here's the thing about Rick: there's a Muddy Waters song called "you can't lose what you never had."

He never grew up in a gun-owning society so he doesn't see why not having guns is a big deal. Much like a blind man man wanting to take Rick's car. The blind man has never driven, so why does Rick need to? People walked for thousands of years before cars were invented.

So, let me get this straight...

You AGREE with me, but want me to defend my reasons?

Okay...

There is nothing in the individual rights interpretation that precludes people losing that right, only that such a restriction (1) can't be arbitrary, (2) must serve some highly compelling social interest, (3) must be subject to judicial review, and (4) must be narrowly tailored to the desired result.

On the contrary, guns have very much been the bane of the society I grew up in.

All of your arguments, for everything, are an appeal to personal experience. You suck.

Really not so strange, since it was quite unlikely we'd approach the question with the same reasoning.

Where does it say this? Is there some secret clause? To borrow from a retort often tossed in my direction during these debates, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

At any rate, I think you've just articulated a rationale for banning guns, so long as it (1) applies to all (not arbitrary), (2) decreases accidental and willful gun deaths (social interest), (3) gun owners are protected from injury or loss of non gun property (judicial review), and (4) allows for continued usage in gun ranges and other specified locations where risk of injury can he mitigated (tailored for result).

I don't think you can have it both ways on this issue, so lets deal with the problem that some ill-prepared folks will legally obtain guns. I recommend mandatory training and licensing, what do you suggest.

Dude, really?
Well maybe your people need to ban guns! My people I grew up with (and am now part of) are responsible gun owners for the most part, who hunt, target shoot, scare off and sometimes kill bad guys, etc. Must be a "cultural" thing.

So here is what it boils down to: fully developed individuals should oppose the nanny state, while mewling larvae are incapable of defying it.

Uh, you seem to think that gun rights advocates are absolutists. They aren't, but, by all means, keep flogging that straw man.

Such a law is not narrowly tailored because it removes gun rights from many millions who have done no wrong. Also, by common sense, a limitation or regulation on the right can't nullify the right. Would you accept similar reasoning for laws regarding speech?

I'm not trying to have it "both ways." You're saying I either have to be an absolutist--nerve gas for kids! grenades for prison inmates!--or I have to allow for regulation that nullifies the right. I'm saying that's a false dilemma because another possibility--that society can legitimately strip an individual of his rights in very, very peculiar and compelling circumstances (i.e., the prevailing view of rights in this country)--exists.

Training is not required and licensing is unacceptable for a right. I might allow you a short test on gun safety principles for a first time buyer provided the test costs the buyer nothing, is immediately available, and has no limits or time constraints on re-tests.

I suggest a law requiring psychiatric professionals to notify the authories when their patients are diagnosed with certain mental disorders or are placed on medications which can reasonably be expected to make the patient incapable of lawfully handling a firearm. The law would then allow firearms to be confiscated from an adult (until such time as the person is cleared by a psychiatric professional) or, if a minor, for the authorities to notify the parents/guardians that it is a crime to allow access of their child to firearms.

Then let's not have it both ways. Any individual, agency, department, office, organization or government which seeks to abridge the rights of the people -- any of the rights of the people -- in any fashion, to any degree and regardless of justification...

...shall be annihilated. Physically not merely nullified but desecrated and scattered.

Draft a law abridging free speech, free association or the right to bear arms? The second your face is visible through the door of the building, you die.

Easy as breathin'. We elect representatives, not rulers. It's time that they, and their sycophants, were reminded of this fact.

Our representatives seem to require a reminder of that fact. So do their bootlickers here among us.

This won't work, as most of the people who shouldn't have a gun have also not sought psychiatric help. If you really want to prevent sales to the mentally I'll, you need to test everybody. I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with that idea.

Several of the recent high-profile massacres were committed by people who had been recognized as unstable by psychiatric professionals. No system will catch every possible psycho, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Also, those who don't seek help = those who don't get medicated, meaning more likely to manifest mental illness outwardly.

Unacceptable. Unless I've given you (the state) probable cause to intervene, you may not subject any of my freedoms to tests.

Nor am I, which is why I said it's unacceptable.

That's a question for your elected officials.

Or for Dayton.

Anyone who thinks the law is not founded on force will be relieved of that misconception when they try openly disobeying it. You will find that continued defiance will eventually escalate a small matter (a traffic ticket or somesuch) into an encounter with an armed civil servant.

Rightly or wrongly, for good or for ill, for better or for worse, the state's power ultimately rests in its ability to initiate violence in order to compel adherence to the law.

"All political power flows from the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong

(I'm not a fan of Mao's, of course, but here he was speaking the unvarnished truth.)

We don't vote on rights, moron. There is a way to change the constitution if that is what the people want, but the people don't want that and its nothing to do with the gun lobby. You need to be educated in American government.

You can get gunned down over seatbelts if both ides of the equation are stubborn enough.

As John Cougar Mellencamp sang, authority ALWAYS wins.

It must.

If it doesn't, it ceases to be authority.

I don't see how.

Explain.