OT: Please someone explain the dichotomy with these comments
- Thread starter Quest4Twelve
- Start date
Who says that I can’t even suggest a remedy ?
You ?
I clearly indicated that HIPPA, the privacy laws and our legal system have to be amended to specifically deal with mental illness.
You don’t need data to solve the issue, you need common sense.
Example, you have a 22 year old son that you as a parent are concerned about in terms of his suffering from mental illness.
What can you do about it ? Today, what can you do about it ?
Answer, almost nothing.
So let’s start with familial issues.
What should you be able to do as a concerned mother, father, sister, brother, daughter or son ?
I’ll let you go first then i’ll offer my suggestions, the ones you said I didn’t possess.
You're just talking in cliches. If you were giving a lecture the only ones who wouldn't walk out would be those who felk asleep.
What part of “Mandatory Sentencing” do I have to explain to you ?
How can you be so obtuse as to not understand the concept:
commit a felony with a firearm and you go to jail.
What difference does 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years or 5 years make ?
You have no substance !
I ask you to craft the regulations that you demanded and you can’t!
I ask you to offer suggestions to alleviate the mental illness problem and you have none.
You’re just a political hack with nothing constructive to add
We were talking about the 5 year no parole suggestion of TDIrish. I said it was a dumb idea and you said "what's dumb about it." Try to keep up.
You're a fool to expect a detailed plan in a post, and doubly so to think you made one with your "solutions."
Further proof that you didn't grasp comedy while watching it at the Catskills. The ultimate silence would be you doing schtick before a packed house. You should have added more emojis for greater illusory support.)Silent Banjo, have you considered changing your moniker to “silent brain”
OK, so give us your macro plan and we’ll drill down to the details at another time.
You’re a phony, you criticize but never offer constructive solutions.
You’re a political hack and an empty suit.
And you think you've offered a treasure trove of solutions? LMAO (rimshot!!!) Good one, Shecky.
Still no constructive suggestions or solutions from you.
No surprise there.
You have no substance, you’re an empty voice.
But I do have a little experience in dealing with mental illness and take the subject very seriously.
You have no suggestions or possible solutions, just negative comments about Trump and Republicans.
You’re a political hack
If someone needs to explain to you the need then you don't understand why our forefathers made that amendment the second one.
The supreme court has ruled on this.
AR 15s are no more of a military grade weapon then a shot gun, or a 45.
I am very familar with military style weapons spending 25 years in the USMC.
Who is the non normal person that is allowed to have these military type weapons?
If you are going to say the military, or some other government agencies then you really don't know why our forefathers made that amendment the second one.
Last edited:
You've offered nothing and you can't begin to provide a helpful definition of mental health that would profile a likely shooter. Friends of the Dayton guy said he was charming and easy going, as he seemed well past his HS issues. You're full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Are you that out of touch with reality.
All of the signs/signals were there, just like in Parkland.
And, the Dayton shooter was anti-Trump, a socialist and supporter of Bernie, Warren and Antifa
I asked you, who has been critical of this administration, to suggest some Constructive ideas and you failed to come up with a single suggestion, proving that you’re intellectually bankrupt.
I have a number of suggestions, including allowing direct relatives to have a path to a combination of the authorities and medical professionals, such that bona fide observations can be made that would confiscate any weaponry from the individual under scrutiny.
And, that the relative in question could be observed, examined and tested to ascertain their mental stability and that follow up monitoring would be put in place.
Who would be better than loving family members to try to help a troubled soul ?
You just don’t have the capacity to understand the issue and that’s just one of the reasons why you couldn’t offer any constructive solutions.
If you're going to say nothing, why do so in such a long and meandering post?
Only a fraction of the shooters have exhibited any sign of mental illness. Ostensibly, Steve Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, was a normal guy with a girlfriend and a lot of money. The nightclub shooter in Orlando also showed no outward signs of mental illness. So what if someone has certain political or organizational leanings? That isn't probable cause, especially if he functions OK in society, as his friends would attest.
All you've suggested is wholesale meddling, based on quirky suspicion, of well established privacy and confidentiality laws. You're a loser and continue to wilfully ignore the root cause of mass murders...guns.
Last edited:
It quotes Scalia from the Heller decision, which is more limited than what I think a lot of people think.
I'm sure you wouldn't trust any source other than an article from Guns & Ammo.
The author of the piece is a well respected and widely published constitutional scholar.
Exactly. All these constitutional scholars on the board either didn't read or didn't understand the holding in Heller. That case doesn't provide for an unlimited individual right to bear any type of weapon a person chooses. To the contrary, Scalia expressly writes that the court's opinion does not "cast doubt" on existing gun control laws.
From Heller (emphasis supplied):
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
Personally no new law would effect me and when i pass down my guns to my sons and daughter they know what to do
Has nothing to do with how long they've been around.
Sure it does. It it was the boogeyman the left is screaming about now then it would of been shut down decades ago.
But like i said prefer the colt .308
Or not:
The supreme court twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality.
That means that the court has recognized that the framers of the Constitution did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government – state and federal – from infringing upon it.
Shall not be infringed upon! What does that mean to you?
The right to bear arms That means the court has recognized it to be a natural right to self defense.
Neither state or federal can infringe about that right as expressed in the constitution.
It not rocket science here. It's plain speech.
May it's you how might want to read it again
It's been quoted to you already. You seem to regard it as a blanket holding. It's not. Scalia was clear on that from the language that has already been provided to you. If you don't want to read the decision, then don't.
I get it.
Big government cats just can't stand the second amendment.
I get you interrupt the leftist way possible......carry on
Again, copying what was above. I didn't realize that Scalia was a "big government cat".
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
And since 2007 it was been revised and since 2007 manufacturers are sti making these weopons and law abiding citizens are purchasing these weapons not for hunting but to keep the government in check as it was designed to do.
No one is saying to give felons or mentally ill people guns.
For you to interpret that law abiding citizens are to be subjected to an infringement is quite an over reach
Now these red flag laws which eliminates due process will mever be allowed to ve implimented
Scalia has stated that the "right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Heller was decided in 2008, so I'm not sure how it could have been revised a year earlier.
I think I'll take Scalia's interpretation over yours.
