Wasn't expecting this result.

[sfzombie 3]

it's not just the media, if you have any doubts at all about this, look at this forum. fucking pathetic. let's all just move on to problems that can be fixed...homeless people in this country, renewable energy, etc. for example, i have an idea that can make a car run on water, but no funding to pull it off full scale. i made a mock up of it on a sheet of plywood, the solution is viable and should apply to other power generation areas as well, but when i applied for a govt grant, never heard a thing back. if i could afford to patent the idea, i would apply for public funding, if it hasn't been stolen by the govt yet...

http://kitswv.com

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Answered many times. Now answer mine.

I answered that as well in previous threads. Next!

Great, the you agree with me.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>As with anything, point to some underrepresented group of people, point the finger
>at them, and forget all about things like the Constitution.

Do you support a Constitutional right for the insane to own guns?

The insane or the adjudicated insane? The latter - no. The former? Yes.

I'll quote the President:

Quote

We will make sure mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence, even as we acknowledge that someone with a mental illness is far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the perpetrator.

Edited to add: it's not the "insane" that they are after. It's anyone with "mental illness" or even some history of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>The insane or the adjudicated insane? The latter - no. The former? Yes.

I'd go with "actually insane" myself. To me sanity is a prerequisite for exercising most rights (owning a gun, driving a car, getting a pilot's license etc)

[regulator 0]

Bill

playing the lame games of kallend doesnt represent you very well.

You are better than that.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

To me sanity is a prerequisite for exercising most rights

Driving a car and getting a pilot's license aren't "rights."

Next, to you it may be a prerequisite. But the Constitution views it differently.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>Driving a car and getting a pilot's license aren't "rights."

The right to own a gun is not called out in the Constitution. It does not say "you have a right to own a gun" - it says that the right shall not be infringed.

Who said you had all those rights to begin with? The Tenth Amendment. THAT is where the right to own a gun, the right to drive, the right to get a pilot's license, the right to make clay pots etc explicitly comes from.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

To reduce gun violence, require mental health checks on all gun buyers:
Favor 83% / Oppose 15%

I'm shocked but I'm not surprised. As with anything, point to some underrepresented group of people, point the finger at them, and forget all about things like the Constitution.

This is why people supported the Patriot Act because, well, it will only affect terrorists.

Justice Scalia seems to disagree with you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

for example, i have an idea that can make a car run on water...

The first law of thermodymanics called. It said, "No. It can't."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The right to own a gun is not called out in the Constitution

So by saying that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” you are saying that no actual right is called out? The people can keep arms. They can bear arms. But they cannot own them?

The Second Amendment’s language is one that seems to confirm a right that was already understood. And it was ADDED to the Constitution. The Constitution was sent for ratification in September 1787. It was ratified in June, 1788. The Bill of Rights was added in December, 1791.

Quote

Who said you had all those rights to begin with? The Tenth Amendment. THAT is where the right to own a gun, the right to drive, the right to get a pilot's license, the right to make clay pots etc explicitly comes from.

I disagree. The Tenth Amendment told the states that they had authority that was not given to the federal government. The right to own a gun was explicitly given by the Second Amendment (note – the Second Amendment is not a “requirement” to own a gun.) The Tenth Amendment proscribes that States have “police powers” (states can regulate behavior, morals, safety, health, crimes, etc.) The Tenth Amendment gives those powers to the states that have not been given to the federal government, thus maintaining federal supremacy with things like treaties, interstate commerce, navies, etc. And until the 1860s, the federal government guaranteed things like the right to bear arms and freedom of speech, but the states didn’t have to. The 14th Amendment required the states to provide those guarantees, and it wasn’t until the mid 1900s that the courts began to be explicit and hold that states had to provide federal constitutional protections.

Before the 14th Amendment, Delaware could have banned guns for its citizens but the feds couldn’t ban them for Delaware citizens. The 10th Amendment meant that states could give, for example, the right to privacy, even if the US Constitution didn’t. The federal Constitution is now the base floor of rights that states can’t go below.

And think of it – what business is a pilot’s license of a state? It isn’t. It’s a federal thing (interstate commerce). How do you know it’s not a right? Because an airline transport pilot is mandatorily retired at age 65. It’s subject to federal supremacy. Drivers’ licenses, however, are run by states. There are, in fact, different regulations that apply to commercial drivers if they cross state lines during a day.

The rules about this are pretty confusing. I understand that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

He also disagrees with me that my personal sexual practices are my own damned business and thinks that states have the right to regulate it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

He also disagrees with me that my personal sexual practices are my own damned business and thinks that states have the right to regulate it.

He did, however, write the majority opinion in Heller.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Scalia did a very fine job of limiting the Heller decision to private possession o handguns inside the home. And Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is not absolute: “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”


But I also don’t believe that you are seeing the problems here. The “mentally ill.” How do you define “mentally ill?” How about someone with anorexia? Is that a “mental illness?” Would a person who had anorexia be precluded from ever owning a firearm?

And then to this point: what about the mentally ill who never harmed anyone? To prevent them you’d need medical records. That means that you have to obtain those records, which are protected. So the president has proposed that, well, privacy is an “unnecessary legal barrier.” Scalia, I take it, felt vindicated at that statement. Taken as a nine year old to a therapist for help dealing with your parents’ divorce? No guns for you. You had a mental illness. Stricken with cancer at the age of 22 and have records detailing sadness and anger at your fate? Depression! No guns for you! Smoked pot and did “some blow?” Not a problem.

That is the thing that is not expounded upon – even by Scalia. How do you identify the mentally ill? To do that, you have to overturn Roe v. Wade. And other cases finding the right to privacy.

It’s the everlasting question of “how?”

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>But I also don’t believe that you are seeing the problems here. The “mentally ill.”
>How do you define “mentally ill?” How about someone with anorexia? Is that a “mental
>illness?” Would a person who had anorexia be precluded from ever owning a firearm?

That's the tough part. The eventual determination is made by a court, but who makes the emergent decisions?

Right now such decisions are made at initial arraignment, where a judge determines whether or not to free a person from prison, and if so what the conditions of that release are (i.e. bail.) Perhaps a similar system could work for people who are arrested for potentially psychotic behavior, who have been placed on a psych hold or have been evaluated by a doctor as potentially dangerous.

Thus a judge at an arraignment would likely decide that an anorexic did not represent a threat to himself or others, and thus order his gun returned (or more likely not taken at all.) Or he might decide that a psychotic man who was yelling "gonna kill you all!" at a local hospital did represent a threat, and thus order his gun retained until the outcome of his competence hearing.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

>As with anything, point to some underrepresented group of people, point the finger
>at them, and forget all about things like the Constitution.

Do you support a Constitutional right for the insane to own guns?

I support the right of insane people (including Christians, Democrats, and vegans) to own guns until they've been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution as defined under 27 CFR 478.11 where

1) The determination was by a court
2) The accused had adequate notice to mount a defense
3) The accused had the right to respond to charges
4) The accused had the right to legal counsel

[sfzombie 3]

that's why it isn't being done, if it's impossible, people stop trying. my law says it can, i've done it on a small scale. like i'm going to put it on an internet forum so anyone could do it before it's patented...just like some people here, trying to tell me it's impossible when i have the prototype downstairs...fucking unbelievable

http://kitswv.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Who said you had all those rights to begin with? The Tenth Amendment.

The tenth amendment is a tautology.

[I]"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered."[/I]
United States v. Darby

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!