Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Again, regardless of what you may believe, the Rights in the US Constitution aren't unlimited.

You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater.
You have freedom of religion, but not freedom to commit human sacrifice.
You have the right to bear arms, but not in every location and under every circumstance.

You just don't. Try to deny it if you want, but you don't.

I haven't tried to deny anything
Actually, I believe exactly what you just said.

All I said was that more care needs to be taken both with the revocation of rights AND the restoration of rights. Especially when its about whether or not people can have firearms

It's a bigger deal than a drivers license, but its not treated that way in many states.

__

My mighty steed

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The Constitution does not grant someone the right to fly a plane of drive a car.

And regardless of what you may believe, the Rights in the US Constitution aren't unlimited.

You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater.
You have freedom of religion, but not freedom to commit human sacrifice.
You have the right to bear arms, but not in every location and under every circumstance.

You just don't. Try to deny it if you want, but you don't.

I didn't insinuate anyone did.
Do you like making stuff up and then arguing with yourself?
Try to deny it if you like, but that's what you just did,

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

I didn't insinuate anyone did.
Do you like making stuff up and then arguing with yourself?
Try to deny it if you like, but that's what you just did,

I'm pretty sure he was responding to me

__

My mighty steed

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater.

Sure you do. They cannot take you into custody under the suspicion that you may yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. In fact, you are PERFECTLY free to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. However, like the exercise of any rights, you have the responsibility of facing the consequences of that action through criminal law (i.e., causing a public distubance, inciting a riot, manslaughter or murder if someone dies, etc) and/or tort law (getting sued).

You also fail to consider that it is NOT that black and white. It is not the calling of "FIRE" in a crowded theater that would break any law. What is you are at a Great White concert in a crowded theater and a fire breaks out. Are you going to say, "Ohhh. I can't call FIRE in this theater. It's against the law?" No. Because if there IS a fire, you are free to run up to the mike and yell "FIRE" through it. (One must also consider that if what you say is correct, the Ohio Players would have not sang "Fire" when I saw them in concert in 2001).

It is FALSE speech that causes problems. And the "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" case was actually OVERTURNED in the sixties. I can't remember what case it was but speech may be banned (a prior restraint) only if it it likely to incite imminent criminal action. Example - somebody takes the microphone and starts talking about rising up against the blacks and says, "I call for all you to go collect up all blacks you see right now and..." If the police stopped the speaker from finishing then there is a legitimate chance it would hold Constitutional muster.

That's all it stands for - a person is free to say whatever he wants except LIMITED ways. However, the person faces consequences for the results. It's why fraud is not protected by the Constitution. But "false statements" are not fraud. For "false statements" to become "fraud" there must be some reliance on the statements and damages caused by that reliance.

Quote

You just don't. Try to deny it if you want, but you don't.

The problem is in turning everything into a Constitutional argument. The Constitution really doesn't apply to private transactions. Telling lies isn't Constitutionally protected unless nobody relies on the lies.

Quote

Try to deny it if you want, but you don't.

Indeed. There are shades of grey. Still, the exercise of rights is more of a "government cannot stop you from x." So you can do something, but if you cause damage as a result of your actions or speech then the government is empowered to provide a consequence.

Which leads to the initial problem - providing a consequence for a crime that has not happened is a problem. It's why a unanimous SCOTUS in the 1970's ordered that mentally ill be released from institutions where they were being held indefinitely - even though they were not present risks. Mental health institutions were de facto prisons.

And it's why the courts and legislation has consistently - since the late 1960's - recognized that mental illness does not preclude Constitutional rights. The mentally ill are more susceptible being abused by the public and the government than the general public BECAUSE of their illnesses.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

He responded to me first and then copied and pasted it to you too. Of course neither of us made the claim hes responded to. Like talking to invisible Bears I guess.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

He responded to me first and then copied and pasted it to you too. Of course neither of us made the claim hes responded to. Like talking to invisible Bears I guess.

Oh man. You mean I got a form letter?

__

My mighty steed

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>you consider the convenience of not finishing your future telepathy
>machine more important than the lives of others.

And the award for the most incomprehensible, convoluted and unrelated attack of the day goes to - Mike!

That would actually be kallend, what with his regular insinuations that gun owners are sociopaths that care nothing about the death of innocents.

Of course, when I make a mirror post to show the absurdity of his Monday morning quarterbacking, I get *your* reply - thanks for playing the ball and not the player, Mr. Green Text.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Quote

The Constitution does not grant someone the right to fly a plane of drive a car.

And regardless of what you may believe, the Rights in the US Constitution aren't unlimited.

You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater.
You have freedom of religion, but not freedom to commit human sacrifice.
You have the right to bear arms, but not in every location and under every circumstance.

You just don't. Try to deny it if you want, but you don't.

This is a very amusing thread.



Bill.... you said your wife is an Ortho MD right?

[billvon 3,008]

>Mr. Green Text.

Nice to see that you think that the color of someone's text is more important than the lives of others! And Hitler.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'm a shyster

Dude, you're too hard on yourself.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because when all people are entitled to certain rights, then they are called "human rights.". When something is not entitled to these rights, it therefore must not be human.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guns are a human right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the US - yep. The right to bear arms is a right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Since the Constitution has never been found to apply to dogs, rats, rocks, trees, algae, fungi, etc., it can be fairly stated that it applies to people.

Ah, so when you say "all people" you mean Americans and when you say Human Rights, you mean American Rights.

How very....American.

As for the issue regarding mental illness and guns. To me it would make sense that there would be a standard procedure in place to establish whether or not the mental illness (untreated) is severe enough to inhibit a person's ability to make rational decisions. Should such a limitation exist, I personally don't think ownership of firearms should be allowed.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Ah, so when you say "all people" you mean Americans and when you say Human Rights, you mean American Rights.

How very....American.

A deliberate misinterpretation on your part, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

How very....Canadian

However, we "Americans" believe these rights apply to all humans regardless of where they live, but the USA has no jurisdiction outside the USA so we can only apply them to citizens of the Unites States.

__

My mighty steed

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

However, we "Americans"

Really, you can speak for all Americans?

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Quote

However, we "Americans"

Really, you can speak for all Americans?

I'm speaking for the ideal that the founding fathers tried to incorporate into
our Constitution, not for each individual citizen.
Obviously not every person shares the same sentiment.

The usage was merely a response to your own (snide) reference to us as "Americans"

A distillation of this "ideal" can be found in the Declaration of Independance:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This ideal was not meat to apply only to US citizens, but we have no say in how other countries treat their citizens (although sometimes we try to)

__

My mighty steed

[lawrocket 3]

You make a good point. We give humans rights that other countries don't give. But our rights guaranteed to humans here are not guaranteed to, say, viruses (check out the genocide of small pox that the US masterminded). But here, all humans are guaranteed these rights.

I know that there is not even a written right to free speech in the UK. Some countries choose different rights to give all humans. These just happen to be the ones that the US gives. I did not intend it to be a reflection that the rights guaranteed by the US are superior. Merely that these are the rights all people get.

For those who argue that the mentally ill should not get what everyone else gets is to treat them as if they aren't people. Call them nutters, kooks, etc. It makes it easier to hold them down.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This ideal was not meat to apply only to US citizens, but we have no say in how other countries treat their citizens (although sometimes we try to)

Right. It meant everybody . . . except the slaves . . . and indigenous peoples of North America . . . oh . . . and women.

Everybody . . . as long as you were a white, male, land owner really . . .

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This ideal was not meat to apply only to US citizens, but we have no say in how other countries treat their citizens (although sometimes we try to)

Right. It meant everybody . . . except the slaves . . . and indigenous people's of North America . . . oh . . . and women.

Everybody . . . as long as you were a white, male, land owner really . . .

I really do get the feeling from the usual suspects here.. they LONG for those good old days... where that situation has returned to be their normal world... instead of this modern world where they cant seem to cope with the new reality.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

You make a good point. We give humans rights that other countries don't give. But our rights guaranteed to humans here are not guaranteed to, say, viruses (check out the genocide of small pox that the US masterminded). But here, all humans are guaranteed these rights.

I know that there is not even a written right to free speech in the UK. Some countries choose different rights to give all humans. These just happen to be the ones that the US gives. I did not intend it to be a reflection that the rights guaranteed by the US are superior. Merely that these are the rights all people get.

For those who argue that the mentally ill should not get what everyone else gets is to treat them as if they aren't people. Call them nutters, kooks, etc. It makes it easier to hold them down.

You mean like this ...?


http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Seven+dead+Michigan+shootings+suspect+surrounded/5068970/story.html

Quote

Family members said Dantzler had been released recently from prison, was very distraught and may have been bipolar and off his medication, according to press reports.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Right. It meant everybody . . . except the slaves . . . and indigenous people's of North America . . . oh . . . and women.

Everybody . . . as long as you were a white, male, land owner really . . .

The fact that they didnt practice what they preached doesnt change what it was supposed to mean.

It was a grand idea. Its too bad we humans suck at implementing it.

__

My mighty steed

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Quote

Family members said Dantzler had been released recently from prison, was very distraught and may have been bipolar and off his medication, according to press reports.

It doesnt specifically mention his legal status with regard to firearms, but given his criminal history I would bet that he was NOT legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm prior to this event, and did not walk into a store and purchase it legally.

That renders this incident irrelevant with respect to the original subject of this thread, what was whether or not people with a mental illness should be denied the right to bear arms.

__

My mighty steed

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Right. It meant everybody . . . except the slaves . . . and indigenous peoples of North America . . . oh . . . and women.

[lawrocket 3]

The guy didn't have a gun. We know this because he was a felon who had spent time in prison for attempted murder. A fine job thrre of pointing out an example of a criminal who may have had mental instability and had a known history of serious felony violence.

This was a guy who should not have had a gun and his having a gun was illegal. Compare a guy who has no history of violence.

But I must credit you on your thought process. A news article that states he "may" have had bipolar but did have a violent criminal history. Proof that mentally ill with non-violent histories shouldf have guns taken away. "Oh, no. He may have been bipolar! No guns for mentally ill."

Your lack of intellectual honesty is typical.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

You make a good point. We give humans rights that other countries don't give. But our rights guaranteed to humans here are not guaranteed to, say, viruses (check out the genocide of small pox that the US masterminded). But here, all humans are guaranteed these rights.

I know that there is not even a written right to free speech in the UK. Some countries choose different rights to give all humans. These just happen to be the ones that the US gives. I did not intend it to be a reflection that the rights guaranteed by the US are superior. Merely that these are the rights all people get.

For those who argue that the mentally ill should not get what everyone else gets is to treat them as if they aren't people. Call them nutters, kooks, etc. It makes it easier to hold them down.

You mean like this ...?


http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Seven+dead+Michigan+shootings+suspect+surrounded/5068970/story.html

Quote

Family members said Dantzler had been released recently from prison, was very distraught and may have been bipolar and off his medication, according to press reports.

Quote

Family members said Dantzler had been released recently from prison, was very distraught and may have been bipolar and off his medication, according to press reports.


CBS television affiliate WWMT said the suspect had a criminal record. In 2010, he reportedly pleaded guilty to assault and battery and served a prison sentence for about a year.


He also pleaded guilty 10 years earlier to assault with bodily harm less than murder and received a three to 10-year prison sentence.


He received a year's probation in 1997 for malicious destruction of property, and was charged in 1992 as a juvenile for breaking and entering.


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Seven+dead+Michigan+shootings+suspect+surrounded/5068970/story.html#ixzz1RY8dYW3w

Yep, no evidence he was prone to violence, there.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You make a good point. We give humans rights that other countries don't give. But our rights guaranteed to humans here are not guaranteed to, say, viruses (check out the genocide of small pox that the US masterminded). But here, all humans are guaranteed these rights.

I know that there is not even a written right to free speech in the UK. Some countries choose different rights to give all humans. These just happen to be the ones that the US gives. I did not intend it to be a reflection that the rights guaranteed by the US are superior. Merely that these are the rights all people get.

For those who argue that the mentally ill should not get what everyone else gets is to treat them as if they aren't people. Call them nutters, kooks, etc. It makes it easier to hold them down.

You mean like this ...?


http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Seven+dead+Michigan+shootings+suspect+surrounded/5068970/story.html

Quote

Family members said Dantzler had been released recently from prison, was very distraught and may have been bipolar and off his medication, according to press reports.

Quote

Family members said Dantzler had been released recently from prison, was very distraught and may have been bipolar and off his medication, according to press reports.


CBS television affiliate WWMT said the suspect had a criminal record. In 2010, he reportedly pleaded guilty to assault and battery and served a prison sentence for about a year.


He also pleaded guilty 10 years earlier to assault with bodily harm less than murder and received a three to 10-year prison sentence.


He received a year's probation in 1997 for malicious destruction of property, and was charged in 1992 as a juvenile for breaking and entering.


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Seven+dead+Michigan+shootings+suspect+surrounded/5068970/story.html#ixzz1RY8dYW3w

Yep, no evidence he was prone to violence, there.

RIIIGHT, we should definitely wait until a mentally unstable person shoots someone before deciding he/she shouldn't have a gun. Gotta have the evidence.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Right. It meant everybody . . . except the slaves . . . and indigenous peoples of North America . . . oh . . . and women.

Now they've narrowed all that down to everyone except the mentally ill. And they should never have the rights given to others - like sane criminals.

My wife is hotter than your wife.