Stand up against the Government!

[Timshel]

Since standing up to tyranny is the premise supporting the right to keep and bear arms those who support tyrants/tyranny should be stripped of their right to bear arms.

as a frame of reference, STY often argues against police abuse, has not been supportive of military adventurism and opposes the drug war, therefore he should retain his rkba.

Ditzy and ILA, on the other hand, are quite supportive of all forms of tyranny even make their allegiance to a foreign state that was based on tyranny known. As obvious supporters of tyranny, they have no legitimate rkba or to live in this country.

 

[Jarod]

Well, if you'd propose a solution that actually worked (Hey, remember all the school shootings when we could involuntarily commit crazy people? Neither do I).

Ah,, so you are okay to violate other portions of the Constitution?

 

[/MSG/]

Ah,, so you are okay to violate other portions of the Constitution?

No, but it does show where the ACTUAL problem lies. I've already detailed what I believe would be a good solution elsewhere.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Maybe I just lack imagination, but I honestly don't see the possibilities. To me, it's like prioritizing preparing for an alien invasion, or zombie apocalpyse (which some people do).

I can envision situations where we might have Marshall Law, or something like that - but there are a lot of checks built into those, as well.

so what you're saying is that you see absolutely no possibility that our federal government would ever attack any of it's own population or take over the country?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I have to point out that the ideas that have been brought about the people needing to go against the government are pittafull justification for allowing the killing of our kids to continue.

just WHO is allowing the killing of our kids to continue? would that be the ones who won't let teachers carry in the school or the ones who didn't commit a crime in the first place to give up more freedom??

 

[Timshel]

No, but it does show where the ACTUAL problem lies. I've already detailed what I believe would be a good solution elsewhere.

Why is this a good solution. Is there any indication that it would have helped in this case?

It does not aid the argument of those adocating for gun rights. Why should we do more to enable civil commitment but ensuring that guns are not available to those we might commit must be resisted as tyranny? We have to ensure their right to a gun but we can imprison them without a crime? That makes no sense.

I think the right wingers who support this betray the fact that they care nothing for rights or resistance to tyranny. Instead they are making some sort of cold calculation assuming that it will take the heat off of them. Frankly, those who stockpile guns and are preparing for some sort of standoff would be obvious candidates for civil commitment.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

so what you're saying is that you see absolutely no possibility that our federal government would ever attack any of it's own population or take over the country?

I probably wouldn't say "no possibility." But a possiblity so remote that it warrants no fear or consideration (like the idea of aliens invading).

 

[Howey]

just WHO is allowing the killing of our kids to continue? would that be the ones who won't let teachers carry in the school or the ones who didn't commit a crime in the first place to give up more freedom??

People who refuse to allow our laws to be modified to help prevent it?

 

[/MSG/]

Why is this a good solution. Is there any indication that it would have helped in this case?

It does not aid the argument of those adocating for gun rights. Why should we do more to enable civil commitment but ensuring that guns are not available to those we might commit must be resisted as tyranny? We have to ensure their right to a gun but we can imprison them without a crime? That makes no sense.

I think the right wingers who support this betray the fact that they care nothing for rights or resistance to tyranny. Instead they are making some sort of cold calculation assuming that it will take the heat off of them. Frankly, those who stockpile guns and are preparing for some sort of standoff would be obvious candidates for civil commitment.

And what might your solution be? And yes, it is likely that had the mother been able to commit her child, he would be recieving treatment he needed.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I think the right wingers who support this betray the fact that they care nothing for rights or resistance to tyranny. Instead they are making some sort of cold calculation assuming that it will take the heat off of them. Frankly, those who stockpile guns and are preparing for some sort of standoff would be obvious candidates for civil commitment.

and this is why we can't let government define mental illness, nor would I abide by any decision of theirs that did so.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I probably wouldn't say "no possibility." But a possiblity so remote that it warrants no fear or consideration (like the idea of aliens invading).

or the odds of a home invasion, the odds of being arrested wrongly by cops, the odds of being assaulted or raped by a cop. maybe the odds of a school shooting happening. where would you like to draw that line at?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

People who refuse to allow our laws to be modified to help prevent it?

prove that it prevents them WITHOUT infringing on my rights. That's how laws work, or at least are supposed to work when infringing on rights. There must be a compelling government interest and that law must be NARROWLY tailored and defined to prevent whatever it is you're trying to prevent.

 

[Howey]

and this is why we can't let government define mental illness, nor would I abide by any decision of theirs that did so.

I understand I should defer to you since I'm sure you have extensive experience in the definition of mental illness, but I just thought I'd point out to you that the government does not define mental illness, professionals in the field do.

 

[Timshel]

And what might your solution be? And yes, it is likely that had the mother been able to commit her child, he would be recieving treatment he needed.

But there is no proof that she tried to have him committed. It seems pretty strange to me that she would think him in need of being committed but make her guns available to him. She obviously did not seem to think he was dangerous which is the only possible justification for committing someone against their will.

Again, why would we make it easier to completely take away someones but we can't restrict their access to guns?

 

[/MSG/]

But there is no proof that she tried to have him committed. It seems pretty strange to me that she would think him in need of being committed but make her guns available to him. She obviously did not seem to think he was dangerous which is the only possible justification for committing someone against their will.

Again, why would we make it easier to completely take away someones but we can't restrict their access to guns?

Ok, before we go further we must define our parameters. Are you asking why we can commit someone, but not limit general access to guns? Or when you speak of limiting 'their' access, you are referring to the same people I am?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

or the odds of a home invasion, the odds of being arrested wrongly by cops, the odds of being assaulted or raped by a cop. maybe the odds of a school shooting happening. where would you like to draw that line at?

Those things actually do happen, so I'd draw the line before those things. I'm not advocating a complete gun ban. People should be able to defend their homes.

Abuses by the police are another issue.

 

[Howey]

prove that it prevents them WITHOUT infringing on my rights.

Nobody want to take away your rights. What needs to be done is amend the laws to ban certain weapons to prevent further massacres of children. I believe that is a compelling government (and social) interest.

Quite honestly, I'd much rather your rights be infringed than the rights of children. And so does a great majority of Americans, including members of the NRA.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I understand I should defer to you since I'm sure you have extensive experience in the definition of mental illness,

blah blah blah blah

but I just thought I'd point out to you that the government does not define mental illness, professionals in the field do.

at this time, yes. but with the increasing expansion of government in to medical care as well as the pervasive influence among medical board doctors, it probably won't be long until gov can define at least what mental illnesses afford people rights and deny people rights.

 

[Timshel]

Ok, before we go further we must define our parameters. Are you asking why we can commit someone, but not limit general access to guns? Or when you speak of limiting 'their' access, you are referring to the same people I am?

Yes and yes.

Prior to the shooting what did this kid do that should have given his mom the power to commit him? If she thought he was a danger then why didn't she limit his access to her guns?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Those things actually do happen, so I'd draw the line before those things. I'm not advocating a complete gun ban. People should be able to defend their homes.

so earlier this week when I brought up home invasions and magazine capacities to you and you countered with the odds, you were stumped for a better answer?

Abuses by the police are another issue.

why? are people not allowed to defend themselves against police abuses?