No guns for people on meds for mental disease?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Drop the crazy and militant uber-tough guy attitude and consider that allowing people to carry with them one of the most efficient weapons in history might be a bad thing.

I have considered it, but then I looked at what the military had, and that is why the CIVILLIAN populace has arms, to defend their rights against ENEMY forces, or CORRUPT GOVERNMENT FORCES.

There is no false attitude here, this is me, and thats the fact.

ZNYFRH said: If you're so tough, why do you need a gun to defend yourself?

Because I am not stupid, and I have nothing to prove.

Only a fool risks his life when it isn't necessary.

ZNYFRH said: Don't put up the pretense that you want to defend yourself when what you're really saying is that you need a gun to do it. You can defend yourself without one.

Yes, actually I can, quite well. But even the most ignorant person on the topic of guns knows that one man with a gun is much harder to control than 5 men without guns.

This isn't about tough, its about smart, and a right to competent defense.

If you want to share Rambo stories, start a thread for it.

ZNYFRH said: Taking away guns doesn't take away your precious right to self-defense. It just means you have to fight a little harder.

Unacceptable, unnecessary, and no reason to even foster the tragicly faulted theory.

So ZNYFRH, drop the avoiding the issue debate tactics, and talk about the facts and data that support your theory..... or are there none......

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am saying that if I have reason to carry, meaning I have reason to feel at risk during my day, I will carry if I so choose, regardless of the law. I am a law abiding citizen SECOND, I am a RIGHTS HOLDING AND RESPECTING CITIZEN FIRST. Why the word college? I am guessing due to the recent college shootings? If more of those RIGHTS RESPECTING ADULTS had carried guns, the chances of this many deaths as a result become exponentially lower.

Okay. I understand that you support more CCW. I was only wondering if, for some reason, you felt unsafe in a "gun free zone" like Virginia Tech that you would illegally carry a weapon. I gather that you would not from your observance of CCW laws in your city.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have a right to KEEP and BEAR arms. My body is my property.

There is the constitutional technicality of "militias" of course. And if your armed body enters another's private property, it becomes subject to further rules, like "gun free zones." Property owners have a right to ban equipment they deem detrimental to their business or mission.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Look at how the government protects your personal information......how much do you want them knowing about you?

I want the government to weed out crazies like Cho. They have no business owning guns.

[Osborn F Enready]

Decider said: Okay. I understand that you support more CCW. I was only wondering if, for some reason, you felt unsafe in a "gun free zone" like Virginia Tech that you would illegally carry a weapon. I gather that you would not from your observance of CCW laws in your city.

It is totally dependent on the situation.

I support justice and laws that have constitutional backing.

I do, without a doubt, feel less safe in "gun-free zones", and fight that type of legislation in every manner, in every way I can.

I can't say I would or would not, as it is entirely dependent on the place, the time, the social climate, and a variety of other factors.

I will say that "laws" never enter my mind if deciding to carry or not if my safety is a forefront issue, speaking of arms prohibtion laws only.

I only intended to comply with CCW laws ONCE it finally became an option in Ohio, never before that. I dismissed the notion of legal compliance for firearms in this area the day the Mayor and the State started breaking Constitutional limitations on government, state and city.

I doubt I will ever comply with firearms registration or carry laws again, except by coincidence. I have carried many times, without incident, as I am a rights respecting, law abiding citizen, and my legally purchased firearms are my property, as is the body they are worn on if I choose to do so, context dependent of course.

Decider said: There is the constitutional technicality of "militias" of course.

No, not really. Only in anti-gunners minds.

Decider said: And if your armed body enters another's private property, it becomes subject to further rules, like "gun free zones." Property owners have a right to ban equipment they deem detrimental to their business or mission.

Agreed, private property owners certainly have that right. The government, city, state, or federal doesn't have the right to "limit the publics access to defense" in the name of "protecting the public" on public owned land.

Decider said: I want the government to weed out crazies like Cho. They have no business owning guns.

That is not the governments job, and it can't be done with respect to privacy rights of individuals, which IS THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT.

The individuals have a RIGHT to defense, and a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It is the individuals job, and the schools job to do their best to ensure the safety of themselves, and those on their property from harm until police can be on scene to TAKE that RESPONSIBILITY in the name of the people, at the request of the people.

Bad people will always have access to weapons.....the right thing to do is ensure that good people will also, to balance that threat, or CHECK that power.

The very government you speak of, may indeed become, if it is not already, they enemy of you and every individual who values rights, so I obviously don't give them the power to negate that check against them, which is what it was designed for. The right to usurp unjust power, and replace it with constitutionally just power, should the power in control become unconstitutional, and egregiously anti-rights.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn,

You say that it's the person's job to protect themselves and the government's job to protect their rights?

You can't have it both ways.

[ladyphoenix]

ZNFYRH, how on earth do you think that those two things are contradictory?

Example A) I have a right to carry a gun, as per our constitution, and to use that gun in self-defense, in the event that lives are in danger (my own or someone else in my presence).

Example B) The constitution guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. The government is obligated to strike down laws of states and municipalities (government, not private citizens) who try to "infringe" that right.

I'll ask it again, how can you possibly think that those two things are the slightest bit contradictory? You can't possibly think that it's COPS who protect our rights?

[ZNFYRH]

ladyphoenix,

Your two examples are incorrect.

Osborn said that a person has to take responsibility for their own protection.

Then he went on to say that it's the government's responsibility to protect the rights of the person.

If the gov't is responsible for protecting a thing, the gov't can do with that thing as it chooses.

If the person is responsible for defending themselves, they should have unlimited freedom to do so as they see fit.

One cannot insist they should have the freedom to protect themselves while simultaneously insisting that the gov't protect their rights.

The former is nothing less than your right to life. If someone can take that right from you then you didn't defend it effectively. If you want to keep your life, you either need to do what is demanded of you by those who control it or you need to fight for it.

Putting that responsibility in the gov't's hands is laziness.

[ladyphoenix]

I'm running in circles here. Tell me where to stop?

If I say it's my responsibility to protect myself, then I am responsible for protecting myself in every respect, up to and including protecting my own rights.

However, if I am a voter, and the government is my servant, how does it not then follow that by voting I am indeed protecting my rights?

Just a thought. I do see where you're going with that, though it took me a bit... it didn't seem all that clear to me at first...

[brien]

If the gov't is responsible for protecting a thing, the gov't can do with that thing as it chooses.

I can't speak for OS, but I can state that it always has been my understanding that the BOR guarantees the rights of citizens that are enumerated in that document from infingement by government. The Constitution doesn't grant rights that "are endowed by our creator" but rather guarantees they will not be infringed upon by government. Leastways, that is the way I understand it.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: You say that it's the person's job to protect themselves and the government's job to protect their rights?

You can't have it both ways.

It is that way, and if you read the documents it is quite clear.

Government created laws, which are there to ENFORCE the rights of individuals, not repress them. They give legal standing to recognized and enumerated, not granted, rights.

Individuals deal in action, government deals in laws, which uphold or denounce the actions taken by an individual.

Police were not created by the Constitution, but by towns. Police are justified Constitutionally, because people have the right to organize an armed force to help law abiding citizens maintain and protect their rights, not to take the job FROM individuals, or usurp the individuals RIGHT to defense. Police do NOT protect you, they AID YOU IN PROTECTING YOURSELF.

ZNYFRH said: If the person is responsible for defending themselves, they should have unlimited freedom to do so as they see fit.

They do, within the respect of the equal rights of others, as dictated by the context of the threat to life the person is forced to encounter.

I can stop an attacker with a 2X4 with nails in it, as much as I can a shotgun, it will still be viewed as self-defense if there was a case of life threatening force, or clear intent to harm by the attacker.

ZNYFRH said: One cannot insist they should have the freedom to protect themselves while simultaneously insisting that the gov't protect their rights.

The government protects peoples rights LEGALLY from encroachment (that is their job, though they are failing, and have been for about 157 years consistently in many areas, mainly economic) and it is the police's job to be the "on the ground" aid to people in need or defense if possible, to pursue or to investigate where necessary.

The OBLIGATION of defense rests within the individual, the legal obligation of defense of rights in law, rests within the government, and ultimately, in the indiviudals who empower the government by sanction, compliance or the opposite, resistance and rebellion.

People hold the right to defense both against foreign and domestic threats, and one option for domestic threat is the armed and trained "agents" of government, should government become corrupt to the point of tyranny or police-statism, which we are nearing in many ways regarding rights of the indiviudal.

I think you tragically misunderstood my statements, and it could have been my wording, it was late when I posted.

[Poledancer]

5010 said: So let's say there are insane people filled with hate who want to bust caps. The gun stores won't sell to them. What prevents them from just building their own machine guns? Or other ways to get guns: steal them, buy black market. And maybe if it's too much trouble, they can just make bombs?

Actually if a person can just walk into a store and buy a gun, they will buy a gun. How many people actually know how to build a machine gun or a bomb and can be bothered to do it? I know that you can probably find the instructions on the internet etc. but it takes a lot more effort.

Buying on black market is easy though.


When I'm hungry, it is easier for me to phone for a pizza, than it is for me to look up a recipe on line, go into several stores and buy all the ingrediants, some of which are black market ingrediants and I can't get in a normal store. Practise cooking it until it is perfect and then eat it.

I know that killing people is not the same as cooking a pizza, but people usually go for the easiest route.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ladyphoenix If I say it's my responsibility to protect myself, then I am responsible for protecting myself in every respect, up to and including protecting my own rights. However, if I am a voter, and the government is my servant, how does it not then follow that by voting I am indeed protecting my rights? Just a thought. I do see where you're going with that, though it took me a bit... it didn't seem all that clear to me at first...

I think you have the gist of it.

You can't say that it's your own responsibility to protect all aspects of your life and then also say that it's the gov't's responsibility to protect you too. You can't have both.

Quote by: brien The Constitution doesn't grant rights that "are endowed by our creator" but rather guarantees they will not be infringed upon by government. Leastways, that is the way I understand it.

I agree with you there.

By denying the right to own guns, the gov't is not taking away your right to defend yourself. It's taking away your right to own a tool. I take an objective stance on this issue... I can own a gun but not a fully-automatic gun. A gun is a gun... why the difference? I'm saying all or none.

Quote by: Osborn Police do NOT protect you, they AID YOU IN PROTECTING YOURSELF.

You contradict yourself again.

I thought you said that self-protection was the sole responsibility of the person. Now you're saying it's the responsibility of the gov't to help you? Well what happens with those who choose not to help themselves?

Quote by: Osborn I think you tragically misunderstood my statements, and it could have been my wording, it was late when I posted.

It's probably because you have too much anti-current-American-gov't sentiment in what you have to say that it detracts from the point you are making?

I still disagree with you.

You want the gov't to be responsible for protecting your rights, but you don't want the gov't to take those rights away?

That's irresponsible.

There has to be a balance between responsibility and power. You can't give something responsibility for a thing and then respond with anger when they exercise their power over that thing.

A mentally diseased person does not, for the most part, possess the necessary social "awareness" to weigh the responsibility of having a gun with the power it gives them.

A gun is not only power, but it's power that is easy to use. That's a dangerous combination. Put that kind of power in the hands of those who lack a certain level of restraint, or remorse, and you are creating the very situation that will, literally, shoot you in the foot.

[brien]

Os wrote:

Police were not created by the Constitution, but by towns. Police are justified Constitutionally, because people have the right to organize an armed force to help law abiding citizens maintain and protect their rights, not to take the job FROM individuals, or usurp the individuals RIGHT to defense

Excellent point there Os. Can you imagine, back in 1800, when a farmer might have been sitting on his porch, or working in the barn, and a poacher came into his field to steal a cow or a horse. How would he have "called" the local sheriff, with smoke signals? I think the flintlock spoke for the farmer.

It is clear to me that since the incepton of this country, citizens were expected to protect themselves. The modern day police have those stupid decals on their cruisers that say: "To Protect & Serve". Laughable. I don't know who they think they are protecting, but it ain't me. I see the reason for police to keep law and order on a large scale, as in crowd control, but when citizens think they can rely upon them for 100% protection, they are certainly misguided and even to the extent that this misunderstanding can be deadly to them. A citizen that is prepared to protect him or herself, is a sensible citizen who understands their individual role in a responsible society.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: You contradict yourself again.

I have not contradicted myself, I simply worded my first point which you keep taking fault with, wrong. The logic as I have elaborated, is quite clear.

People are obligated to protect themselves if it is in their best intrest, and it is their right to do so.

Police were created to HELP law abiding citizens shoulder that burden, but do not usurp that power from the people, as the police themselves could at one time be a threat to those rights by the acts of government, meaning people have the inherant right to defense, as well as the right to ask others to aid in defense of those rights based on mutual conscent.

Law officers are employed by choice, and have an option to quit. They place their lives on the line by choice, to protect the rights of others. That does NOT give them the right to infringe on the rights of LAW abiding citizens, only to aid citizens in DEFENSE of their rights, using lethal force if necessary, the same as the rights of a citizen.

Police are not a Constitutional provision, the right to defense and to bear arms is.

ZNYFRH said: I thought you said that self-protection was the sole responsibility of the person. Now you're saying it's the responsibility of the gov't to help you?

Self protection IS the sole responsibility of the individual. The police AID individuals in shouldering that burden, but they are not LIABLE or RESPONSIBLE for that act of aid. You can't sue the police for not protecting you in your home, if your home is broken into and you are severely wounded, before they get there, even IF called before hand.

The RESPONSIBILITY lies in the individual for self-protection, and you have the RIGHT to ask for others to assist, and they have the right to refuse, based on MUTUAL CONSCENT. A policeman does NOT have the right to refuse, only to choose tactics, which sometimes, unfortunately puts the victim in a vulnerable position to protect the lives of "more" people, or bystanders. In this case, the person is totally left to themselves for defense, if they value life and the threat is life threatening.

How can I be anymore clear?

ZNYFRH said: Well what happens with those who choose not to help themselves?

They suffer the results of that choice, unless saved by the brave souls who dedicate their lives, by employment (police, military) or by actions (concerned individual, loved one, neighbor, etc) to protecting the rights of others, when possible.

Shrugging the responsibility of personal defense is a gamble with your life, and the life of your loved ones if they DEPEND on YOU to defend them.

ZNYFRH said: It's probably because you have too much anti-current-American-gov't sentiment in what you have to say that it detracts from the point you are making?

That a subjective call, but I have already stated it was late, and when I get tired like I was last night, when posting, I type a bit slower than I think, and sometimes make errors.

Was this my typing error that lead you to miss the logic in the other, later posts in which I further elaborated the points, and logic more clearly?

ZNYFRH said: You want the gov't to be responsible for protecting your rights, but you don't want the gov't to take those rights away? That's irresponsible.

LOL.... how so, possibly?

I have never said RESPONSIBLE for PHYSICAL PROTECTION, ever. I have said responsible for LEGAL protection, which is the definition of their job, as political representatives. Police are the physical arm of the law, and their rights are limited in protection, and certainly don't allow the infringement of individual rights in that protection of the rights of others unless imminent threat is obvious. There are several steps to the legality of law enforcement using force, and several criteria for determining after the fact, the justification of that use.

ZNYFRH said: There has to be a balance between responsibility and power. You can't give something responsibility for a thing and then respond with anger when they exercise their power over that thing.

Could you make that argument any more gray, or vague?

The penalty for not protecting yourself is death, if faced with life-threatening force. Who can be responsible for that? ONLY the individual.

The penalty for not protecting yourself in legal venue is imprisonment for actions taken within your rights. Who can be responsible for that? The elected politicians, who are CHARGED with protecting your rights, as an individual from federal, state or local infringement by "government agents" from police to federal marshall.

The police, are one small arm of AID in that defense, but are not responsible for your safety.

ZNYFRH said: A mentally diseased person does not, for the most part, possess the necessary social "awareness" to weigh the responsibility of having a gun with the power it gives them.

Subjective, inspecific, and I haven't said anything that would contradict that. One has to be able to respect the rights of others, in order to have their own rights recognized and upheld in law.

Be specific, give me an example, and I will be glad to specify my position.

ZNYFRH said: A gun is not only power, but it's power that is easy to use. That's a dangerous combination.

So is air, fuel and spark, but it happens in every internal combustion on the planet. So is war, but we are in one right now.

Point?

ZNYFRH said: Put that kind of power in the hands of those who lack a certain level of restraint, or remorse, and you are creating the very situation that will, literally, shoot you in the foot.

Parents are charged with raising their kids, that is their job as parents.

Adults are not kids, and the government has no obligation to protect them from THEMSELVES, nor a right to do so, moral or legal. If people want physical protection from all harm, they had better be able to pay for armed 24hr personal protection, because thats your only choice other than a competent means of self defense, until the police get there, at which time you may remain in danger for an unknown amount of time.

[Osborn F Enready]

Brien said: Excellent point there Os. Can you imagine, back in 1800, when a farmer might have been sitting on his porch, and a poacher came into his field to steal a cow or a horse. How would he have "called" the local sheriff, with smoke signals? I think the flintlock spoke for the farmer.

Thank you brien, and you picked up on the essential point I was trying to make. As if some sense of "entitlement" to protection COULD exist, by any government that wasn't literally providing "man to man" coverage for every citizen.

Brien said: A citizen that is prepared to protect him or herself, is a sensible citizen who understands their individual role in a responsible society.

I couldn't agree more, and well said.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I doubt I will ever comply with firearms registration or carry laws again, except by coincidence. I have carried many times, without incident, as I am a rights respecting, law abiding citizen, and my legally purchased firearms are my property, as is the body they are worn on if I choose to do so, context dependent of course.

What is the penalty in Ohio for breaking the gun registration and CCW laws? Are you prepared to suffer those consequences?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Agreed, private property owners certainly have that right. The government, city, state, or federal doesn't have the right to "limit the publics access to defense" in the name of "protecting the public" on public owned land.

Can you cite Supreme Court precedent to support this claim? To date, I know of no "gun-free zone" law that has been ruled unconstitutional.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That is not the governments job, and it can't be done with respect to privacy rights of individuals, which IS THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT.

We have background check laws already in place that prohibit sales of firearms to persons judged mentally incompetant. Have any of those laws been struck down as unconstitutional?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The right to usurp unjust power, and replace it with constitutionally just power, should the power in control become unconstitutional, and egregiously anti-rights.

Who decides what is unconstitutional---the individual? Other individuals can and do disagree--in particular the majority of Americans who consistently support strict handgun regulations. When differing interpretations of constitutional rights clash, the only recourse is amendment, political action, or civil war. At present, the pro-gunners have no additional amendments for consideration and aren't prepared to attack their fellow citizens over gun control, thankfully. That leaves politics, especially Supreme Court judicial appointments. I don't see the anti-gun control pendulum swinging your way any time soon.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn,

You are still consistently and repeatedly making contradicting points.

You're saying that the gov't should be responsible for aiding someone in self-protection. That's still putting the gov't in a position to decide how and who to provide aid. That means that gov't can give more protection to one group over another.

In the face of aggression that would overwhelm any average citizen, the ones who pull through it are the ones the gov't chooses to protect. Thus, the gov't has the power.

Legal protection is still power, and it's still physical. The simple reason for this is that breaking the law has physical consequences.

Really, though, your problem is statements like this...

Quote by: Osborn The police, are one small arm of AID in that defense, but are not responsible for your safety.

They are responsible for aiding me... or the gov't is responsible for protecting me legally (which is still physical), but are not responsible for my safety?

That's contradictory!

Think through it rationally. If someone has the responsibility of aiding you in a task for which you are responsible, they do not aid you, and you fail, they also failed in their responsibility.

This is why you see issues raised about police response times or other such issues, because the gov't is charged with protecting the citizens.

Denying a mental patient a firearm means that because that person has demonstrated they do not lack a minimal self-control they should not be given the ultimate in tools intended for personal harm.

In this case, the gov't is not denying the legal right to self-protection. They are denying the right to use of a tool.

The gov't can give you points for too many traffic violations until eventually you lose your license... your right to use a tool.

Hell, even on Volconvo the "gov't" can deny you the right to use a tool. You have the freedom to do the action the tool facilitates, but you no longer have that tool for easing the process.

I want it to be harder for a mental patient to get a gun.

Before you say that it won't stop crime, hold your tongue and think it through.

The type of patient who would go to the effort to get a gun illegally is the kind that wouldn't matter.

The type of patient this would stop are the ones who need the extra time to come down from wherever they go to in their minds. It would stop the ones who lack the ability and clarity to focus on the objective of killing another person.

[Mia]

You're asked on a drivers license application as well.

How extensive the checking is, I don't know.

I'm confused by the fact that commitment is supposed to be confidential.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I would agree to this if it also included being able to drive a car, make legal decisions, drink, vote and the like. If owning a gun is too hazardous, so should these other life and death and important decisions be taken from you as well. Why stop with guns? A doped up mad man with a car can do quite a bit of damage if he so chose.

[Mia]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 People who obey the law that closely don't own guns. Going from zero to zero would be a 0% reduction.

Patently untrue. My family is full of extremely law-abiding citizens, and everybody has guns.

They are a staple household/car/truck item in Texas

[Slevin57]

I think we should be careful about blaming the prescriptions. They may very well have an effect. Ms. Huffington will have to pardon me, but I would like some scientists to review these claims before I put merit to them.

I don't see how this issue could be tackled very easily. But it obviously needs to be. We do not know what medications would push someone closer to "the edge." For that matter, the food they eat could also play a factor in their over all mental health. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I think we are micro-analyzing this issue. The responsibility lies with the mental disorder they all clearly have.