Another shooting....

[kastein]

It's too bad, because his last post was a fairly solid comparison that would probably make you think a bit about your stance. I think I know what's up there :laugh2:

 

[urban yan]

First, I steered away from gun bans a long time ago; in fact, I explored everything and anything else BUT gun bans that hurt responsible gun owners. Please tell me how his comments pertain to me?
Second, I don't respond well to conversations derailed by Hitler comparisons, or socialist jabs, or any other BS used to polarize the present debate.

 

[DrMoab]

I think the possibility of being disarmed and comparing that possibility to what hitler did is a pretty strong comparison.

Please tell me how it isn't? Especially when you look at the second amendment and why it was written the way it was.

 

[urban yan]

You can compare the shape of your breakfast pancakes to Hitler's moustache for all I care...I wouldn't expect any less from this 27 page rollercoaster. Just don't warp my previous comments as some wild endorsement of Himmler's policies like 87manche did in his previous post. WWII left my family and place of birth in ruins; I resent any fool audacious enough to draw such comparisons, and dense enough to disagree when I correct them.

 

[5spd_xj]

You can compare the shape of your breakfast pancakes to Hitler's moustache for all I care...I wouldn't expect any less from this 27 page rollercoaster. Just don't warp my previous comments as some wild endorsement of Himmler's policies like 87manche did in his previous post. WWII left my family and place of birth in ruins; I resent any fool audacious enough to draw such comparisons, and dense enough to disagree when I correct them.

I've got to say... I appreciate the fact that you've continued to post in this thread, because your comments, justifications and reasoning are all positively wildly entertaining.

Here's the simple fact of the matter- The second amendment is what it is. It's the only amendment that grants a right and goes on to explicitly say "shall not be infringed." To clear that up for you, that means when you say things like "I'm against bans that hurt responsible gun owners," you're still not in the right. There can be no changes or stipulations or anything else tacked on, like "that hurts responsible gun owners." According to our Constitution, that's explicitly illegal. You think that's ridiculous, wrong, or needs to be changed? Tough luck. Feel free to support anyone who wants to repeal the amendment. Anything short of that, you're wrong. Plain and simple. If someone in Congress was trying to repeal it, that's something I could respect. I would of course STRONGLY disagree, but I would respect the fact that they were going about it correctly instead of blatantly trampling clearly stated natural rights.

Gun Control is a pointless debate, because it's not about any sides coming to the tables to compromise on anything. The Constitution says it can not be compromised. Maybe that's wrong, but until the Second Amendment is changed or removed, it is what it is and needs to be respected.

 

[DrMoab]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&sns=em

 

[heyhar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&sns=em

Not one Hitler reference :tears:

 

[XJEEPER]

@XJEEPER
1) I could turn the tables on you, and say that cars kill more people than people on anti-depressants.
2) Generalizing mass-shooters simply as being ‘evil’ does a disservice to the medical conditions surrounding mental illness thereby precluding actions against them.
3) Your stories include a combination of antidepressants and guns; than why, pray-tell, does the NRA lobby against doctors asking mentally ill people whether they own firearms? There should be a conversation regarding anti-depressant use as well. I will agree that -- in many cases -- they're a band aide solution, but your post proves the two make for a lethal combination.

Cars, like firearms kill ZERO people each year. :twak:

Slippery slope, are you stating that doctors should be held responsible, as well as liable, for the actions of a patient who acts out violently, if they are the one who prescribed their medication?

If so, then it can be argued that these patients should be kept under close observation and away from the public, where they may pose a threat to themselves or others, until they can be diagnosed as cured, beyond any shadow of a doubt. This way it can be guaranteed that they won't have access to a firearm while in a mentally unstable condition, correct?

And this care should be paid for by the state, because it protects the general public, right?

And because it protects the general public who own firearms, these individuals should bear the expense of this protection by paying a state collected tax on the firearms and ammo which they purchase, right?

And when someone who is not under a physicians care or taking meds gets their hands on a firearm and shoots up a school, mall, bus, full of people.....what new laws would you then suggest to prevent this from taking place ever again?

 

[87manche]

You can compare the shape of your breakfast pancakes to Hitler's moustache for all I care...I wouldn't expect any less from this 27 page rollercoaster. Just don't warp my previous comments as some wild endorsement of Himmler's policies like 87manche did in his previous post. WWII left my family and place of birth in ruins; I resent any fool audacious enough to draw such comparisons, and dense enough to disagree when I correct them.

Where did you correct me? You simply dismissed my comment because you did not agree with it. That does not make it any less true.

Again, I did not twist or misconstrue your post in any way, I directly quoted it, and then compared it to what the sentiments of the nazi party were. Those sentiments happened to be the same as yours.
Did you not bother to research any of it because me bringing up the word Nazi offends your sensibilities? It happened, we would be wise to learn from it and never let it happen again.
As someone that suffered under the hands of tyranny I'd think that you would understand better than most what happens when you leave a population defenseless against its own government.


Have you forgotten that American citizens sent their privately owned arms to europe for the defense of your homeland? What about the privateers that essentially comprised the American Navy during the revolutionary war? Private owners of ships and cannon, state of the art war machines of the time equal to any force that a great empire could muster. Sure seems that the founding fathers were all for private citizens owning military hardware.
Oh look, more facts:
http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

Also, I'd like to simply reiterate something that seems to be lost on most people. The Constitution is not worth anything more than the parchment it was written on. Yeah I said that. You could burn the constitution this afternoon and I will still have my rights as a human being to exist, make myself happy and defend myself from aggression with any and all means available.

The rights "given" in that document are not rights that any government can grant to citizens, they supersede any government authority, that is the purpose of the document, that these are unalienable rights afforded to all human beings. The document exists to make sure that government does not interfere with natural rights. It grants no power to the government, it restricts it.

When you start thinking about rights that the government allows you to have you stop being a citizen, and start being a subject.

 

[MJ3000]

Also, I'd like to simply reiterate something that seems to be lost on most people. The Constitution is not worth anything more than the parchment it was written on. Yeah I said that. You could burn the constitution this afternoon and I will still have my rights as a human being to exist, make myself happy and defend myself from aggression with any and all means available.

The rights "given" in that document are not rights that any government can grant to citizens, they supersede any government authority, that is the purpose of the document, that these are unalienable rights afforded to all human beings. The document exists to make sure that government does not interfere with natural rights. It grants no power to the government, it restricts it.

LOLOL. I hope the word "unalienable" was a typo and your really not that ignorant.

Inalienable: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of one possessing such rights.

Examples: Guns, cars, everything else IN COMMERCE.

Unalienable: Incapable of being alienated; that is, sold and transferred. Things which are not in commerce, are in their nature unalienable.

Examples: Food, water, breathing, sleep, sex, homeostasis.

You want to burn the Constitution without even knowing the difference between two words that are a huge part of its ideology? Cool beans. The reason you don't care about the Constitution is because it mentions the word gun ZERO times. By god if it mentioned the words gun and right in the same sentence ANYWHERE in the 2nd or the entire Constitution, you would parade it through the streets like no ones business. Fact is it NEVER mentions gun, handguns, or anything. Off of this point, I could elaborate how misleading Scalia's ruling in 2008 of an "unlimited right to handguns" really is. He's the one that said the Constitution is dead, dead, dead. Not alive. You must strictly interpret it as it is written. He used this to say Roe vs. Wade is ridiculous because where in the constitution does it talk about trimesters, etc. Really? Where in the Constitution does it mention handguns? I thought it was dead, not alive? Oh right, he made it up because somebody wants to profit off selling some guns. Is Scalia hypocritical? Of course.

But go ahead and keep saying "defending yourself with any and all means available" is an unalienable right like breathing. Cause that makes complete sense. LOL

If it was a simple typo, I apologize for my semi-rant for the uniformed. :lecture:

 

[87manche]

all that because the I and the U key are next to eachother?

To understand Scalia's ruling you have to realize that the heart of his argument as a "dead document" was researching the common uses of words at the time.

regardless, we have the right as sentient beings to live our lives without interference from the government, and to defend ourselves with any force needed.

It's only been recently that we demand "sporting uses" for firearms. I thought I was pretty clear in what I feel the intent of the 2nd was, to see citizens of this country armed equally as well as any military force. It was after all private arms and private funding that gave us out independence. Why should anyone trust the government to watch over them? That's the responsibility that comes with being free.

 

[urban yan]

Cars, like firearms kill ZERO people each year. :twak:?

By that logic, antidepressants themselves don't kill people, people suffering their side effects kill people.
Therefore, you just proved your last post was null and void since antidepressants carry ZERO fault.

Slippery slope, are you stating that doctors should be held responsible, as well as liable, for the actions of a patient who acts out violently, if they are the one who prescribed their medication?

If so, then it can be argued that these patients should be kept under close observation and away from the public, where they may pose a threat to themselves or others, until they can be diagnosed as cured, beyond any shadow of a doubt. This way it can be guaranteed that they won't have access to a firearm while in a mentally unstable condition, correct?

And this care should be paid for by the state, because it protects the general public, right?

And because it protects the general public who own firearms, these individuals should bear the expense of this protection by paying a state collected tax on the firearms and ammo which they purchase, right?

And when someone who is not under a physicians care or taking meds gets their hands on a firearm and shoots up a school, mall, bus, full of people.....what new laws would you then suggest to prevent this from taking place ever again?

I barely understood your line of questioning.... all I gathered was an attempt to fog-over an otherwise clear-cut comment.
Here, doctors can report people (elderly in particular) to the ministry of transportation if they pose a serious risk on the road. It’s not done arbitrarily either. I can’t imagine why anyone would oppose a similar approach towards the mentally ill. Your logic to defend mentally ill to bare arms is comparable to a powerful lobby group protecting blind people’s right to drive.

As someone that suffered under the hands of tyranny I'd think that you would understand better than most what happens when you leave a population defenseless against its own government.

Nazis were Polish now, and the Poles freely chose communism? Tell me more about your dimension? Is up down and down up? Are cats married to dogs? Is everyone so paranoid of a possible dystopic future that they chose to ignore ways of addressing their dystopic present... mainly mass shootings resulting in 20 dead children? Oh wait, the last one happened in this dimension. Continue your wetdreams of what possible tyrants your future shall bring while sitting on your fat-arse as the world falls apart. TODAY.

Where did you correct me? You simply dismissed my comment because you did not agree with it. That does not make it any less true.
Again, I did not twist or misconstrue your post in any way, I directly quoted it, and then compared it to what the sentiments of the nazi party were. Those sentiments happened to be the same as yours.

No you didn’t misconstrue my comments in any way; instead, you keep trying to pin gun bans exclusively on my shoulders, and you've outright grouped me as a collaborator with the very same people that imprisoned my father in a German workcamp, and butchered his neighbors. Than, you've doubled-down your sack-of-crap insult by questioning my sensitivities, AND somehow, SOMEHOW your chipmunk brain cannot process why I try very VERY hard to ignore your posts.

 

[5spd_xj]

you've outright grouped me as a collaborator with the very same people that imprisoned my father in a German workcamp, and butchered his neighbors.

You're kidding right? :laugh:

What he did with his posts was demonstrate that your reccomendation might not be a great idea simply because parallels can be drawn to past events in history, events that we would be wise to avoid repeating. He sure as hell didn't call you a Nazi, or ever so much as imply it. You're reading posts as you want to see them so you can feel like a victim and pawn away any potential good points people are making.

 

[DrMoab]

Yeah. I was giving Yan the benefit of a doubt in this thread. For awhile he acted like he was almost thinking rationally and giving some thought to what others were thinking. Then he went nuts.

 

[XJEEPER]

I barely understood your line of questioning.... my chipmunk brain cannot process why I try very VERY hard to ignore your posts.

:laugh3:

 

[urban yan]

You're kidding right? :laugh:
What he did with his posts was demonstrate that your reccomendation might not be a great idea simply because parallels can be drawn to past events in history, events that we would be wise to avoid repeating. He sure as hell didn't call you a Nazi, or ever so much as imply it. You're reading posts as you want to see them so you can feel like a victim and pawn away any potential good points people are making.

He said my National Guard comments were comparable to Himmler’s sentiments than he doubled-down when I suggested those comments were uncalled for. They’re not just insulting to me but all the US service men and women in the National Guard. I was looking for ways to let people have more guns, better training, and an outlet to deal with mental health issues all the while-while ditching the NRA and its polar opposite lobby groups.... Not comparisons to Himmler!!

Yeah. I was giving Yan the benefit of a doubt in this thread. For awhile he acted like he was almost thinking rationally and giving some thought to what others were thinking. Then he went nuts.

27 pages of ridiculous accusations will do that to man.
In fact, I'd wager a guess if you poked the Dalai Lama with a stick enough times he, too, would coldc*ck you in the face. He'd probably go Mortal Kombat on your ass to boot.

I can't understand why others don't share my affinity for Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Good to know.

 

[urban yan]

It sounds like you are implying that there needs to be improvements made in the HIPA law....

to that, I agree.

However.....it should NOT become the health care provider's business to interview a patient wether they own firearms or not. Deciding wether or not someone should be allowed to own firearms is NOT in their skill set, nor should a health care provider be empowered to make that decision.

They should be allowed to ascertain wether or not they believe a patient is an imminent threat with clear and present danger to themselves or someone else.

And for the record, i am still very uneasy with this opinion, and how such a procedure would be enacted and executed.

The only real comparisons I have on this matter are to elderly drivers in Canada. Doctors have the authority to report them to our ministry of transportation. If I'm not mistaken, ER Doctors are also obligated to report gunshot victims to the Police; thereby, transferring the issue to people with the skillset to tackle it properly. There's no reason why we can't apply that reasoning to mentally ill people who possess firearms. It could be kept it at a municipal or state level (to keep the federal government out of the loop), and there could be provisions for an appeal process that allows those who underwent proper therapy to purchase firearms once more.

 

[Beezil]

But you see the distinction i am making right?

Im against doctors making inquiries about gun ownership

But still have questions regarding a healthcare technicians inability to report an imminent threat?

 

[urban yan]

No doubt, the devil is in the details. Having said that, you can't state that mental illness is the cause of this problem all the while you have the NRA lobbying against the first responder's (healthcare professionals) ability to ask those questions without a threat of a fine.

 

[5spd_xj]

He said my National Guard comments were comparable to Himmler’s sentiments than he doubled-down when I suggested those comments were uncalled for. They’re not just insulting to me but all the US service men and women in the National Guard. I was looking for ways to let people have more guns, better training, and an outlet to deal with mental health issues all the while-while ditching the NRA and its polar opposite lobby groups.... Not comparisons to Himmler!!

But...your idea WAS comparable. There's no need to get all upset simply because someone essentially said "No, I don't think that's a good idea- here's why."