nomi Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 NC Panel Recommends Gun Permit Changes For Mentally Ill "Attorney General Roy Cooper, who formed the task force two days after the Virginia Tech massacre that killed 32 people in April, said it's one step to improve campus safety." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazynotstupid Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Ha. Of course. I had a conversation with VE in chat a bit back. I think he said it best, along the lines of "I don't support any law based on DNA--I've seen Gattaca". Being from Montana, well--I tend to be a big supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. BUT if "not for me, then not for thee". Bitches. Bad enough that, having one misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence (what do you think led me to get treated?) I can't own (well "posses") a firearm--not due to a LAW but to a "federal RULE"--well as I said, key word "posses". Meaning I can't have one to protect myself. I'm treated as a felon. Therefore, my fiancee (also, my victim, ahem) is stripped of HER 2nd Amendment rights for MY misdemeanor conviction. Now...follow me here... We're both MI as well. Consider if just one of us were MI, and a law were passed denying such possesion of a firearm? Thusly the "normal" person has their rights stripped away merely for loving someone who is MI! OR, maybe, a parent(s) who care for a child who is MI! Whether or not you believe in gun ownership--we're talking a basic right here. There's like, others, and the first 10 rights (the Bill of Rights, as they're collectively known) are held to be rights of the Individual. If they can take one, because you're MI...? Ask one of our admins, Maddy...she is NOT allowed to vote! I mean, really--what next, we can't assit in our own defense, even if mentally capable, just cuz we're bipolar? They can wiretap you cuz you're schizo? (tinfoil won't stop THAT eh...) Forget free assembly! Sure, sounds, haha, nutty...first they came for my guns, and you didn't speak, cuz you don't like guns. Then they they said you can't asist in your court defense, but you don't break the law...then they dragged you into court cuz they said you were a danger due to your MI just, well, they could. And no one spoke up cuz...no one cared. It's a process. They started with my cigarettes and now they want my fucking KFC, I tell you, 10 years ago, who'd'a thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lysergia Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 i hate guns and yet this scares me. laws are scarier than guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophelia Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I thought that this article kind of relates to the topic: Bush Signs New Gun Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null0trooper Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 i hate guns and yet this scares me. laws are scarier than guns. Consider how many supposedly sane people are stupid enough to believe that this would keep a violent person from obtaining a gun. "But now it would be illegal to have the gun!" ... As if murder isn't illegal already! Maybe these people think that someone deranged enough to plan out a mass murder would be too ethical to steal weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 One interesting point I discovered while researching the Virginia panel report is that once you are flagged in the Federal database as mentally incompetent there is NO provision to change that, even if the entry is made in error. For example, in Virginia and Maryland, one can petition the courts with supporting affadivits from physicians to have your rights restored, however the Federal government does not recognize that judges ruling. Hence you lose all related rights without any recourse for correction. Law without common sense is what really makes me crazy. a.m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooster Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Reactionary bills based on single incidents rarely make good legislation because they are based on the "exception" rather than the "rule". Crazynotstupid, you make some good points about defending individual rights of any sort. However, I do not quite understand what prevents your partner from owning a firearm and keeping it locked and not giving you a key. Would that not be a way around the impinging on her rights without you violating the conditions someone has imposed on yours? The reason there is a federal law (Violence Against Women Act; VAWA) prohibiting people who have even a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence is based on a statistical reality that is highly more probable than a school shooting. When a partner leaves a "violent" relationship (as defined by law rather than individual perspective), that person is statistically more likely to have her/his life endangered by the person she/he is leaving. Significantly more likely. Especially if one or the both of them have access to a fire arm. On the MI front, in Oregon you cannot have a firearm in your possession if you are under the sanctions of the "psychiatric security review board" (PSRB), which basically means you have committed a serious crime and were either unable to stand trial because a judge says you were legally incompetent to either understand what's happening or to participate in your own defense; or you were found "guilty except insane" for a serious crime. I don't have an opinion on this. I'm much more ambivalent on this law than I am on the VAWA provisions. Even though I'm generally anti-gun except for hunting (like you go hunting with a hand gun? Come ON!), I understand the history but also the increased lethality of having guns so freely accessible. Peace, Wooster ETA: The flaw in the reasoning of the new bill Bush just signed is exemplified by the following two statements: "Had it become law earlier, it may well have saved the lives of 32 students who were killed at Virginia Tech by another mentally ill gunman," said Schumer. and Maybe these people think that someone deranged enough to plan out a mass murder would be too ethical to steal weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazynotstupid Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Crazynotstupid, you make some good points about defending individual rights of any sort. However, I do not quite understand what prevents your partner from owning a firearm and keeping it locked and not giving you a key. Would that not be a way around the impinging on her rights without you violating the conditions someone has imposed on yours? As I understand it (at least around these parts) "possesion" is generally viewed as "on the property". Basically--I could, depending on the party, beat her ass, or my parents, or whoever has the key, take the key, and kill them. And maybe go on a spree for shits and giggles. I mean really--my dad has a gun safe. I dunno where his key is. There's lotsa guns'n'ammo there. So, say, I'm declared incompetent, can't handle my affairs, lose everything and move in with them. I lose it and kill them one night with the baseball bat they use to help keep the sliding deck door shut. I have all the time in the world to find that key! See? No. Guns. In possesion. Hell, I could find the key to a storage locker even. Shit--stretch it. I could go into town RIGHT NOW and do my parents, find that key, and tomorrow a.m. it's spree time at work. Of course, if I knew of ANYONE with a gun (say, my boss, a hunter)...I could do this. Thusly making the whole argument rather ridiculous. Draw out the argument, you see how thin the justification really is, to a truly determined individual. For instance, my neighbor up the hill has a shotgun. He shot one of my dogs with it. Bet it could be mine in ten minutes! BUT I couldn't legally buy one EVER! So what, if I got it into my head, is to stop me from shooting my fiancee? (well, if I was THAT pissed, I'd simply...um, beat her to death? Stab her? Der...) Anyways. I DO go on. Even though I'm generally anti-gun except for hunting (like you go hunting with a hand gun? Come ON!) Yeah. Self defense at close range, and also to put down wounded game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
withing Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 It reminds me of a bumper sticker... When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns. I saw that in California in the 7Os when I was growing up, and it's always stuck with me. Making laws to keep guns away from people the government defines as "crazy" will not keep the guns from people who really want them (as Crazynotstupid so clearly pointed out). I don't know anyone here who has a gun, but I'll betcha that if I really wanted one, I could find a way to get one. And I'm a nice, white, middle-aged woman who just doesn't look like she'd hurt anyone. My madness had guns, and he was definitely MI. He brought them into my apartment when he moved in, along with a few changes of clothes and his tools, the shotgun (I think it was a shotgun, coulda been a rifle - I'm not familiar with guns) and handgun were all he brought. So, new laws won't keep weapons out of the hands of MI people. Especially if they already have them. As the old saying goes - "Laws are there to keep honest people honest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null0trooper Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Even though I'm generally anti-gun except for hunting (like you go hunting with a hand gun? Come ON!) Yeah. Self defense at close range, and also to put down wounded game. A number of hunters down here carry one in case of snakes... There are other opportunistic predators out there, but they usually cannot climb a tree as well as a copperhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lysergia Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 i grew up in the backwoods. most of what we ate for meat was shot on our property. there were a lot of families who would not have survived without that option. so i am all for hunting rifles etc. but not the ones designed to kill people. unless you plan to eat said people. i guess that's the only way i'm comfortable with killing at all. eating stuff that was alive. i suppose that's the crazy talking. - lysergia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazynotstupid Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 i grew up in the backwoods. most of what we ate for meat was shot on our property. there were a lot of families who would not have survived without that option. so i am all for hunting rifles etc. but not the ones designed to kill people. unless you plan to eat said people. Um, dear? ALL guns were designed to kill people. Or, kill in general. That's the idea, see. Now, the full autos--they were designed for war, and are specifically illegal. Also, very sucky for hunting, as they'd rip out a lot of meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null0trooper Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 so i am all for hunting rifles etc. but not the ones designed to kill people. unless you plan to eat said people. Aside from the obvious reminder of Soylent Green ... I can't help but wonder if this couldn't be applied to prison overcrowding and the tax monies spent on warehousing career criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.