Gothic.net Community

Gothic.net Community (https://www.gothic.net/boards/index.php)
-   Politics (https://www.gothic.net/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Gun ownership and mental health (psychological) screenings (https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=31267)

Jonathan 01-04-2013 02:22 PM

That mother needs to stop blaming her mentally ill child's unpredictable and irrational violent outbursts on his mental illness! To say nothing about the unscrupulous medical professionals involved who are profiting from encouraging her ableism.

They should have just been honest with her: that's humans for you, and left it at that.

Miss Absynthe 01-04-2013 02:28 PM

@Jonathan - have some fucking integrity, dude. You've said multiple times that you were going to shut up. Can't you stand by your own words?

Jonathan 01-04-2013 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe (Post 709796)
@Jonathan - have some fucking integrity, dude. You've said multiple times that you were going to shut up. Can't you stand by your own words?

Did you or AshleyO become moderators recently?

Miss Absynthe 01-04-2013 03:00 PM

Quote:

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.
False cause.

I agree that what she has to go through is awful, and would add that what her son has to go through is SO much worse.

I agree that people need access to mental health care, and would add that these people HAVE that access.

However, these are two separate discussions to have.

Versus 01-04-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan (Post 709797)
Did you or AshleyO become moderators recently?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...psc1fdf940.gif

AshleyO 01-05-2013 01:22 AM

...I fucking hate this discussion.

Jonathan 01-16-2013 11:16 AM

"He also announced 23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improvements in the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence, putting more counselors and “resource officers” in schools and better access to mental health services."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,3325027.story

Who's planning on writing the White House?

Deadmanwalking_05 01-16-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan (Post 710249)
"He also announced 23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improvements in the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence, putting more counselors and “resource officers” in schools and better access to mental health services."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,3325027.story

Who's planning on writing the White House?

My argument against "more resource officers in schools" is that it not only has it proven to be ineffective in most cases,it is also more taxpayer funding that is going to be wasted when there is no need to do so,the cheapest way to prevent this type of waste (both in cost to the tax payer and in loss of life) is to get rid of gun free zones,teachers and staff (as well as students that are of legal age) that have C.C.W. permits would be able to carry,these same people carry in public on a daily basis without causing problems,such also means that a given school isn't limited to the protection of one or two resource officers,in fact it multiplies the chances that someone will be able to act effectively in case such an event takes place.

Also,it mentions that Doctors are not prohibited from asking those in their care about firearms ownership,such could equate to a defacto gun owner database that could very well lead to abuse.

Also,what is to say that simple insomnia or other minor problems would disqualify someone from their 2nd Amendment rights?

My point of view after reading the 23 points made,is that the slope has become ever the more slippery.

And such favors the will of the few over the rights of the many.

Sinjob 01-16-2013 02:02 PM

I've always been on board with giving some kind of IQ test before letting any asshole a weapon. Living in the south I was exposed to a shitload of right win, trigger happy lunatics way too stubborn to listen to anyone telling them otherwise (espeically people like me). I mean you'll probably be shot even hinting the error of their ways.

Deadmanwalking_05 01-16-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinjob (Post 710262)
I've always been on board with giving some kind of IQ test before letting any asshole a weapon. Living in the south I was exposed to a shitload of right win, trigger happy lunatics way too stubborn to listen to anyone telling them otherwise (espeically people like me). I mean you'll probably be shot even hinting the error of their ways.

The thing that you aren't understanding is that no one is "Let" have anything.

If that is the case what about an IQ test before you can use the first amendment,or the fourth?

When someone claims that another citizen "Needs" to fill a given requirement before exercising their rights then a precedent is set that can and will lead to rights becoming privilages.

Also,if privilages are granted,they can also be removed.

A government that can give you everything,can also take everything away.

Sinjob 01-16-2013 02:25 PM

That's a funny bit.

Deadmanwalking_05 01-16-2013 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinjob (Post 710268)
That's a funny bit.

Would you mind explaining how/why what I've said is funny?

AshleyO 01-16-2013 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05 (Post 710267)
The thing that you aren't understanding is that no one is "Let" have anything.

If that is the case what about an IQ test before you can use the first amendment,or the fourth?

When someone claims that another citizen "Needs" to fill a given requirement before exercising their rights then a precedent is set that can and will lead to rights becoming privilages.

Also,if privilages are granted,they can also be removed.

A government that can give you everything,can also take everything away.

Holy fucking shit. You just said something that had some sense to it.

Versus 01-16-2013 10:45 PM

Stop quoting him.

Miss Absynthe 01-16-2013 11:18 PM

Well, fuck me.

Deadmanwalking_05 01-17-2013 09:07 AM

The only real requirement for full protections of the B.O.R. is that a person be a United States citizen.


And for folks that argue that there are "limits" to one right or another,they have no leg to stand on.

Because if limits can be placed on one they can be placed on all,and such will lead to the defacto repeal of the B.O.R. for everyone.

It would be a case of the majority being oppressed by the few.

Miss Absynthe 01-17-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05 (Post 710298)
It would be a case of the majority being oppressed by the few.

Because that shit NEVER happens.

Oh, wait...

I'm not familiar with the BOR, but doesn't the idea that you need to be a citizen actually create a further level of privilege for some people?

And shouldn't we be concentrating on fulfilling basic human rights for all people? I kind of like the idea that NOBODY should get extra until EVERYBODY has enough...

Deadmanwalking_05 01-17-2013 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe (Post 710311)
Because that shit NEVER happens.

Oh, wait...

I'm not familiar with the BOR, but doesn't the idea that you need to be a citizen actually create a further level of privilege for some people?

And shouldn't we be concentrating on fulfilling basic human rights for all people? I kind of like the idea that NOBODY should get extra until EVERYBODY has enough...

No it doesn't.

Because if I were to go to another country that had rights for it's citizens,I wouldn't have the full benefit of those rights.

In some cases even becoming a naturalized citizen doesn't give one the same rights of people born in that country.

For Example: In Mexico a person can become a naturalized citizen,but can't vote in that nation's elections.

Miss Absynthe 01-17-2013 11:33 AM

http://i.imgur.com/TLQaD.gif

Deadmanwalking_05 01-17-2013 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe (Post 710315)

Anything to add or do you want to leave that meme as your only response?

Jonathan 01-17-2013 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe (Post 710311)
Because that shit NEVER happens.

Oh, wait...

I'm not familiar with the BOR, but doesn't the idea that you need to be a citizen actually create a further level of privilege for some people?

And shouldn't we be concentrating on fulfilling basic human rights for all people? I kind of like the idea that NOBODY should get extra until EVERYBODY has enough...

I guess.

People are just supposed to have certain rights because they are people, regardless of where they happened to be born or who they happened to be born to.

Interestingly enough, I don't think citizenship is required, non-citizens can purchase firearms provided they are in the US legally

"If the buyer is not a U.S. Citizen, then he or she is required to demonstrate that he or she is legally within the United States by providing to the firearms dealer with documentation that contains his/her Alien Registration Number or I-94 Number."


OH! I think you misunderstood. Deadman said "protection of the Bill of Rights", not the rights themselves. All humans are supposed to have the inherent rights, we just can't force all nations everywhere to stop preventing people from enjoying what they naturally have. Everybody has those rights, we just have a government set up with the ostensible purpose of ensuring they aren't infringed.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 AM.