So, in my community, we decided that anyone can check out a gun for as long as he likes, and the mental health treatment he receives consists of “Have a nice day!” Do we have that level of control? Because if there is a difference between “we run it” and “you run it - we just tell you what to do” I don’t see what it is.
Because there is that thing called the Second Amendment, which singles out the right to keep and bear arms as something the government cannot infringe upon. The question then becomes, at what level does “regulation” become infringement?
Which goes back to another cite I haven’t seen. Do you see how restricting how new guns may be kept and borne infringes on the Second Amendment? Because the Second Amendment doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed as long as it is done gradually”.
Rights aren’t necessarily absolute. There can be, for example, a public safety exception so that you can’t use your right to free speech to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. But the immediate danger has to be demonstrated - you can’t assume that anyone who wants to go see the latest Black Panther movie needs psychiatric treatment in case he might start a panic.
“Old books are fine - you can keep those. But from now on, any new publication will only be available from government-approved centers, and you have to prove you are mentally stable enough to read something new.”
I must not have made myself clear. What is your evidence that mandatory mental healthcare for “those who want to use guns safely and legally” causes them to use those guns even more safely and legally?
Both your cites, AFAICT, talked about mental health treatment for convicts and addicts. What I would like to see is evidence that mental health treatment helps reduce violence among everybody else.
Felons and drug addicts are currently precluded from owning guns, in many states. What is your evidence that mental health treatment improves outcomes for everyone else?
Did you read his whole post? Because your objection seems odd if you did. Literally, the next line clears this up, though perhaps you were so bent on him switching to free speech that you didn’t get it? I’m honestly asking here, not being snide.
I don’t get this objection. So, they aren’t equivalent rights because you don’t think books kill people? It seems a bit contrived that some of you don’t get the analogy, but let me ask you guys something…what do you think totalitarian regimes in the world today (China, North Korea, Russia, etc) fear most? Guns or speech? Or, let me put this a different way…do you think that totalitarian regimes fear free speech? If so…do you still not get the analogy??
I said a few. I almost said a decade. Either way you miss the point. If it’s a benefit for society it could take a billion years and still be a good idea.
Not caring what other countries do is the definition of ignorance. You’re ignoring possible solutions because they weren’t first enacted in the US? That’s absurd!
And people would go through all that hassle because they get to use and own guns. Even if they can’t keep the guns under their pillows and gently but firmly stroke the shaft while fantasizing about protecting their families and property , people would buy still them. People jump through hoops already just to possess and use firearms. My plan is more effective at keeping guns off the streets and still allows people greater access to firearms and proper training.
I am well aware people would rush to buy a large amount of weapons in fear of the plan. They would be considered legal. That doesn’t mean all of the people purchasing them are going to use them for illegal means. The legal gun owners will have as many guns as they can legally purchase and possess. Any guns criminals obtain are going to be confiscated when they are caught, which is what we presently do. Legal guns will be broken down, or maintained, or given to the government as tax credits. I mean, it should seem just as obvious to you that many of the guns purchased in fear or outrage are going to be eventually gotten rid of by people who don’t really think they need 20 AR-15 rifles their great great grandfather bought as much as the government tax credit or money from a buyback program. Especially if they can go to the armory and use a greater variety if weapons.
One could argue that books don’t kill people, people kill people. I mean, give me a break, civilized people dont use bullets to spread ideas. The fact that both are considered a legal right in our society is where the similarities start and end. I did think about it, and my thought is still that it is a laughable simile. The most glaring difference is simply that books have uses other than spreading murder, whereas guns are used to hurl pieces of metal at things to destroy them.
I see. So, you care what other countries do wrt what you think the US should do then? You think, for instance, that we should emulate what other countries do wrt alcohol consumption, tobacco use, or even toxic waste in their environment? Perhaps you feel strongly about what other countries do wrt free speech or the lack thereof?
I didn’t say I didn’t know what other countries do (which would be ignorant), I said I didn’t care, because, you know, I DON’T LIVE THERE. And they don’t vote HERE. If I ever emigrate to another country (a distinct possibility) I will care what they do at that point because I’ll be a citizen…and I won’t give a fuck what you folks here in the US do because, again, I WON’T LIVE HERE THEN.
At most you could make a case I’m not sensitive, but ignorant? I’d say what I think of your logic and knee-jerk post but this isn’t the pit so I’ll just move on.
Um…ok. Yeah, you do that. Because I’m sure the same exact problem that plagues us today will still be relevant in a century or so, and certainly on geological timescales. You seem to know quite a bit about that history stuff, to be sure…
Project much? Man, that’s a lot of straw AND a lot of smoke up my ass without any substance. You haven’t explained why anyone would jump through the hoops you are vaguely proposing for the privilege of having someone keep their guns for them and limit their access, you are projecting why you would do such a thing. Especially in light of the fact that there will be all of those guns that are here today.
Cutting to the chase since you’ve decided to move away from being even marginally civil, your plan won’t work. It’s crap. For all the reasons folks have tried to tell you. But the base reason is that your plan has that grandfather clause you put in. You don’t seem to get this, but most of the people in America today who want a gun have one already (actually, in most cases they have many guns)…or they are in their families (i.e. they want a gun because folks in their families exposed them to guns). Since you need it spelled out, there aren’t going to be a huge number of folks who don’t have a gun today who will want one after you put your master plan into effect…they will already have guns or know someone they can buy or trade for a gun, and so they will have a choice…jump through all those hoops you are talking about or, you know, just keep and use the guns they already have in the way they already do. And there will be hundreds of millions of them out there. I know, it’s a big number, but there are more guns than people in the US…while there is only about 30% of the population who are gun owners. Even as the population rises there will be a lot more guns than people who want them, so they won’t need to buy new ones if it means they have to jump through your hoops to do so.
Let me give you a real world example of this. In Cuba, if you had a car already you could keep it. However, if you wanted a new car you had to jump through a bunch of hoops and regulations, as well as fees, to get a new one. So, the result was…Cubans have a lot of cars from the 50’s or before that they keep going by hook or by crook to avoid jumping through all the hoops. And cars? They are a lot harder to keep going than guns are.
Well, you probably used similar logic to the above, so I’ll grant you that you thought about it. While I’m puzzled how someone couldn’t make the connection I’m not puzzled that you can’t so I’ll just leave it there.
My position is not that they can or should attempt to detect or stop violent behavior any more than they already do. My position is that mental health care lowers aggression across society as a whole, so citizens who want to exercise their right should be required to undergo therapy to help reduce aggressive impulses among gun owners.
The cite shows that mental health care reduces aggression across society as a whole. Whether or not the people receiving that care are mentally ill is irrelevant. That out of context quote doesn’t argue against my point at all. As previously stated, the purpose of mandated therapy isn’t to detect or weed out the mentally ill from the program, but to provide gun owners with adequate mental health care for the safety and benefit of society.
You would get mental health care and proper training if you wanted to remove weapons from the premesis. If you wanted to shoot you could just go and shoot. Participation would be voluntary except for those wishing to purchase or use newer model firearms. I would like there to be restrictions on the amount of guns one person or group can possess outside the armories or libraries to lower the amount of available guns more quickly, but I would be open to other ideas. I just believe it is unreasonable for any single person to need 30 different weapons to protect their life, liberty, or property. In my plan, participation is mandatory for everyone who wants to possess, purchase, or use firearms. Those with grandfathered in weapons would just be allowed to keep their weapons at home, while anyone who joined without weapons would use the armories to purchase store and use weapons
Well, there’s a million home invasions per year in the U.S. by “straw intruders”, which resulted in a quarter of a million violent crime victims.
1/323 chance any given year seems a pretty good reason to want to protect my life. Even if there were only a million car crashes a year I’d still wear my seat belt. As for what I have that’s so valuable, any given house usually as a TV set, computers, jewelry and such. Enough that an evil person would risk it to try to get it, especially if he knew there was no chance of him loosing his life and the worst that might happen is he might get a dog bite or wince at my bright porch lights.
The idea is that with proper mental and physical health care, he wouldn’t be in your house in the first place.
It’s amazing how I’ve gone my whole life without locking my doors or carrying a gun, and have yet to be mugged or have my home invaded. It’s almost as if I use things other than bullets to solve my problems before they become problems.
Similarly, I’ve never been in a car crash which is why those seat belt thingies are just a waste. My house has never burned down either, so I’m unsure why we pay all this money for fire departments! I haven’t died either, so why do I have life insurance?? It seems we are wasting a lot of time, money and effort on a lot of things that never happened to me, personally. If more people were just like you and didn’t get robbed then there would almost certainly be less crime. To bad they can’t see that, amirightorwhat?
Just FTR, I also don’t own a gun nor have one in my house for home protection. But I realize that it’s luck (well, probability) that is the reason I haven’t needed one or been mugged, robbed or home invaded. Sadly, not everyone is so fortunate, nor does just giving the robber what they want always work from the perspective of personal health and well being. Hopefully you will never have to learn that and can go about your old liberal ways in peace and ignorant bliss for the rest of your days.
No, its a huge amount of money for spending on military. So then it would seem reasonable that having the general public trained in proper firearm use would be beneficial to the defense if the nation. Sort of like an investment in future soldiers. Of course, we could keep using that money to keep building F-35 aircraft( or attempting to anyways).
It is generally believed that the Second Amendment was to prevent tyranny on the part of government, such as they had experienced as colonists of England.
So your answer is … the Americans - politicians at least.
Also useful to defend against “free-lance capitalists.”
I went looking for “They Were Having a Sale at the Gun Store”, but it’s not on YouTube.
Certainly, though they also had ‘Ze Germans’ (a.k.a. other European foreign powers) in mind as the primary reason an armed population looked like a good thing to them at the time. In addition, there weren’t a lot of police in a lot of the more rural areas, so they thought that an armed population could take care of themselves from the various dangers back then. Also, an armed population could hunt…this was a big one, since a lot of Europeans (read: poor, non-noble) couldn’t or weren’t allowed to do that.
Of course, today we don’t have most of those issues, but we still have the amendment. Myself, rather than all these zany and convoluted (and usually not well grounded in anything like reality) schemes to get around the 2nd, what we should REALLY do, if the thing is as anachronistic and out of step with todays world, is use the process that is there to vacate it, which would pave the way for all those restrictions and bannings that folks seem to crave so much.
Pick the country with the best mental and physical healthcare in the world. I don’t care which one. Are people safe from home invasions in that country?
Pick the country with what you think has the best mental and physical healthcare in the world. I don’t care which one. Are people safe from home invasions in that country? Safe from muggers, rapists, serial killers? Even if you assume we can create some kind of fantasy world that’s never existed yet without criminals, in the short term saving your life with a gun is a lot more practical.
I support, and have, guns for home defense. But I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that whatever country it is that truly has the best mental and physical healthcare (and I don’t have a clue what it is; I’m guessing somewhere in Northern Europe, though) has far, far fewer home invasions, robberies, muggings, rape, and serial killers, just by virtue of having a better social safety net, more rehabilitative penal system, and probably a much more homogenous population.
Unless he can show that CCW is a ‘public safety issue’ as opposed to open carry, the argument falls flat. He used an example of how regulating the way weapons are borne can’t be. I provided an example that’s perfectly germane in rebuttal.
No, they’re not equivalent rights. That was just my sarcastic approach. The 2nd Amendment was enacted primarily because the federal government didn’t have a strong military, and had neither the funds nor manpower to make one at that point. It’s stated literally within the amendment itself. (The other justifications are also correct, but they weren’t the main motivation.)
As you stated later, there’s no longer a need for a militia, let alone hunting. It’s an artifact of different times. Whereas, if anything, the 1st amendment is even more important than when it was first enacted, especially now, with the Liar-in-Chief attacking it at every opportunity. The need for free speech will never be obviated or disappear. There is no such corresponding need for the 2nd.
But it’s been 25 years since I saw that video, so maybe my memory is all wrong about that story.
Very good point – 'cause if I’m the lowlife who’s thinking of robbing you (with a knife, I guess), I’ll just wait until you’re driving to the armory and burgle your empty house.
No confrontation necessary.
–G!
The foregoing were feeble attempts a levity.
This seems contradictory. It isn’t meant as an attempt to stop violent behavior; it is to help reduce aggressive impulses among gun owners. What is the difference?
Well, no, your cite doesn’t show that. What you need is a cite showing that mental therapy for people who are not mentally ill reduces aggression among those who are not mentally ill.
Yes, I get that. Do you understand that this is an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear newly-purchased arms?
Originally you seemed to want to find a reasonable solution, but now you’re just drifting into the absurd.
You want some entity, as yet unnamed, to build and run literally thousands of armories across the country.
You’d like the military, to now use funding appropriated for the military to training hundreds of thousands of people in how to use guns across the nation, because you’ve determined that military funding is a waste of money anyway.
And you’re just ignoring the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.
Do I have that about right? If you’re no longer serious, why should we be?
