Mental Illness, Politics, and Guns

[little2add]

[GreenScapularedHuman]

On 2/25/2018 at 7:28 PM, little2add said:

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, little2add said:

Far be it from me to question an internet meme but could that be cited/sourced?

[little2add]

1 hour ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Far be it from me to question an internet meme but could that be cited/sourced

No, because of HIPAA

 But it should be!

Edited March 12, 2018 by little2add

[little2add]

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

No, because of HIPAA

 But it should be!

Very strongly disagreed. But with these mass shootings we do have some information about these shooters. In the case of Dylann Roof (Charleston Church Massacre of 2015) and Adam Lanza (Newtown/Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre of 2012) both were not in mental health treatment and were NOT taking any psycho-medication as far as known facts go. The sources I provided before also dispute the idea that those who are are receiving psycho-medication are more violent/dangerous, rather it shows a rather sharp decline in just that.

I would like to think that the commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor" would summon Christians/Catholics to honor/promote intellectual honesty and objectiveness... This idle speculation without evidence even in spite of known evidence with internet memes to support your world views seems against this value and perhaps even a bit credulous.

[little2add]

7 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

mass murder's are sick in the mind, there actions are witness

 

[little2add]

[GreenScapularedHuman]

@little2add

[little2add]

@GreenScapularedHuman

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

17 minutes ago, little2add said:

@GreenScapularedHuman

 

So making available contraception, abortifacients, and abortion is killing babies... and should be banned. But simply more regulating firearms that are made available to kill people (and children) is outrageous.

I think you missed the point that there is an inherent fallaciousness and hypocrisy in there. And if you are not going to be intellectually honest and resort this to accusing me of being pro-abortion... Then there is no reason to continue this.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The point of guns being legal in the u.s I was told is in case a dictator rose to power the people could rise up and take back there freedom. Is this true? 

When were guns made legal? In the last 100yrs? Smells like warlock magic, and there planning on a civil war sometime in the future. I heard one of your Freemason presidents said that the last president of the u.s.a would be black and after that civil war would break out. I really hope, wish and pray it doesn't and I dont understand much about the world but for the sake of your nation let's not go there.

Calm down, be humble. Jesus and mama mary got this dudes, trust and believe.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

48 minutes ago, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye said:

The point of guns being legal in the u.s I was told is in case a dictator rose to power the people could rise up and take back there. Is this true? 

The American right to bear arms has a history in their British heritage. British common law granted subjects the right to not be unreasonably be disarmed by Parliament or the Crown. However later legislation was aimed at disarming Scotland and also Catholics within their realm, which if it was entirely effective is somewhat debatable, but it did take a lot of arms. So by the time the American authors of the bill if rights sat down the idea of the federal government disarming the States or the population was fresh in their minds and they saw these attempts to disarm British subjects for religious reasons as grossly illegal (but tolerated because the British common law just wasn't that very protective). So they imagined a more explicit right not to be unreasonably disarmed but too it a step further declaring it as a right in general because they felt that the right to not be unreasonably disarmed was not sufficient for a government that was actively trying to find ways around that... for example the British attempted to restrict the materials needed to make firearms and their ammunition to the American colonies which wasn't a disarming thus in the eyes of the British legal custom permissible. The purposes of this right was always imagined as self-defense of nation, community, or self.

The American population and political establishment by the time of the American revolution was very weary and suspicious of standing armies that had no immediate purpose, for this reason many States required that standing armies require the consent of the State legislature, and the federal constitution provided what its authors felt did just that in Article I Section VIII in one of the enumerated powers of Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Year". Which is why there is every year or two in modern America a required revisit if Congress wants to fund the military, now typically called the "Defense Authorization Act" which is unusually non-partisan and considered very high priority to passing (though in recent decades riders/earmarks have increased in these acts).

So the American revolutionaries imagined a government that had limited military powers, the citizenry would be chiefly responsible for its defense, and a federal government that couldn't disarm them. The second amendment was not intended to grant an individual right to firearms because the right at first only applied to the federal government and was not until the fourteenth amendment and subsequent incorporation in about 2010 that the federal Supreme Court guaranteed it as an individual right. But if the American revolutionaries saw the right to bear arms as more an individual or collective right is very debatable. Though they certainly put a lot of limitations and regulations on firearms for their time limiting them to able, white, male, twenty-one year olds who were of sufficient standing (meaning no poor, women, youngsters, non-northerneuropean whites, and to some extent non-protestants) even putting restrictions on storage, reporting who had a firearm, required training for persons with firearm (in the view of a citizens militia), restricting concealed carry, and restricting firearms out of urban areas. Meaning in just about every measurable way the American 21st century right to bear arms is quite expanded, more robust, more comprehensive, and more entrenched than what 18th century America.

The authors of such a right in the 18th century certainly imagined that a well armed population would be a deterrent to tyranny but deterrent is all it was since the right doesn't grant any right to actually use a firearm and the constitution explicitly prohibits rebellion and insurrection. The Whiskey rebellion in the very fledgling days of the new American union was just that, an act of rebellion against what they felt was a tyrannical tax policy, which they were put down. Which became a common theme through American history that the government (be it federal or state) had absolutely no respect, toleration, or patience to armed insurrection or rebellion no matter how lofty or justifiable its rationale was. So while a deterrent it is as much a deterrent as a scarecrow... moreover because in armed conflict organization and tactics are supreme over ragtag non-organized fighters. This reality is even more true since the 19th century's innovation of machine guns and especially so in the 20th century with the innovation of modern military technology. (As a fun note the Catholic Church traditionally abhorred the innovation of a machine gun and called it immoral, because it could kill so indiscriminately, in fact I've heard it argued on this notion that war in the modern world under a traditional just war evaluation may not be permissible at all).

So TLDR, did the right to bear arms intend allow citizens to fight for their liberty against the government, not really but it is certainly a 'de facto' reality of arming a population that they cold if they chose to use those firearms against the government even if not a 'de jure' right and is highly illegal. But the authors of such rights did imagine the right as a deterrent and prevention of tyranny. But more specifically they imagined the right to bear arms as a means of limited but common and individual defense.

Edited March 19, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[GreenScapularedHuman]

Please excuse my typos. I would correct them But I cannot because of limitations/restrictions on edits.

[little2add]

9 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I think you missed the point

the 2nd amendment is a necessary evil, needed in order to defend myself against unstable looney bins who decide to try to kill innocent people for no apparent reason, where as abortion is killing defenseless babies in the womb.    

Edited March 19, 2018 by little2add

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

the 2nd amendment is a necessary evil, needed in order to defend myself against unstable looney bins who decide to try to kill innocent people for no apparent reason, where as abortion is killing defenseless babies in the womb.    

The point you are grossly missing is that pro-unrestricted-firearm-right advocates like to pretend that regulation will have no beneficial affect at all... which is a little bit strange because they think that regulation of other things like contraception, abortion, lgbtq-matters, and I could go on DOES have a beneficial affect to the end they want.

It is sort of like a case of Christian Scientists who don't believe in modern medicine being accused of child neglect which resulted in the death of their child, their child has a common and well-treatable condition, they argued their religious liberty entitled and protected them to believe that prayer was sufficient. But the really glaring contradiction and hypocrisy in their argument is that both of them wore glasses. Basically saying 'medical science can't do anything, we should just pray, unless its for us then its really great'.

And it is largely a myth that a 'good guy with a gun' and stop a 'bad guy with a gun'... I mean even well trained police have difficulty stopping shooters even when they are coming in with a lot better equipment and backup. Might as well in this logic 'pray the shooter away'.

Edited March 19, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman