Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
I have enough to put you on ignore, now that I've had my fun
Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
I have enough to put you on ignore, now that I've had my fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=7FPELc1wEvk
As I said, we already have and have had for quite some time, laws for that. And frankly, we didn't have the mass shootings then like we do now. Were we a "richer" country to afford such luxuries then? No. Did we have more institutions? No. Did we have more psychs? No. What we did have is a society that frowned on families that coddled the mentally ill so families with mentally ill were more inclined to take responsibility and not pass off their mentally ill onto the public. You know, the mean old days. They days when a mother of a mentally ill young adult would be ostracized for coddling or otherwise not doing something to keep that child from the public.The days when Forest Gump was not a social butterfly as is portrayed today. Something changed and it was not the resources we spend.
That piece of commentary says nothing about the contradiction of deeming an individual as not a threat to himself or others to be released to the public while making the opposite claim that he is a threat that cannot be allowed to have his Constitutional rights. If the guy is threat if he fails to take his meds, he is a threat, period. No mother that has a child abused and/or murdered by strangulation by such an individual is going to be happy that at least the guy didn't have the right to bear arms. The mother is going to wonder why, if the guy was determined to be too big a threat to have a gun, he was not considered a threat to her child.
History is full of acts by the majority throughout the world where the majority was clearly wrong. Hitler, Salem witches, slavery and the list goes on. All around the world and all throughout history. I feel no obligation to bend to a "majority" opinion. That's how otherwise good men find themselves raping a girl at a frat party or committing genocide for a country. I wholeheartedly reject your argument that "majority" means "correct". It is a piss poor argument.
Last edited:
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
And my whole argument for these last few pages has been expressing my agreement with the rational basis of those laws.
Yes, sadly it's frowned upon now if parents lock their mentally ill kids away in the basement (stripping them of their rights), and that means we need to spend more on mental healthcare. Of course, we have a lot more mentally ill people now as well, both due to simple population growth, as well as other factors.
Glad to see you agree with this. Of course, that means even more people to institutionalize, and stripping these people of far more rights than just the right to bear arms, but no big deal, right?
And here all this time I thought it was NYPD Detectives that discovered the Emails on Weiner's Laptop and contacted the FBI! They setting this guy up as a cutout target?
VIDEO: Meet FBI Hero John Robertson Who Revealed Trove of Hillary Emails on Weiner Laptop – Blew the Lid on Comey-Strzok Criminality
REVEALED: FBI Hero John Robertson Discovered Hillary Clinton Emails on Computer During Child Sex Investigation
VIDEO: Meet FBI Hero John Robertson Who Revealed Trove of Hillary Emails on Weiner Laptop – Blew the Lid on Comey-Strzok Criminality
REVEALED: FBI Hero John Robertson Discovered Hillary Clinton Emails on Computer During Child Sex Investigation
I see you are prone to cherry picking my comments, ignoring some points and taking some out of context.
I consider that type of discourse as inherently dishonest. Because it is. That's unfortunate.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
I see you are prone to cherry picking my comments, ignoring some points and taking some out of context.
I consider that type of discourse as inherently dishonest. Because it is. That's unfortunate.
You guys have been cherry picking bits and pieces of my statements from the get-go, but sure, you're a victim. Here's your prize:
Don't spend it all in one place chief.
From dishonesty to insults..............................
And you wonder why I don't trust you and others to restrict your stripping of rights of individuals to only certain people? It's that inherent dishonesty that would or could strip me of my rights. All you have to do is cherry pick and take things out of context just like you have been doing.
If you can't be honest in your conversations I'm not inclined to believe you'd be honest in your actions. That's how people lose their rights at no fault of their own. They allow inherently dishonest people to set the narrative. Dishonest narratives breed dishonest actions.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
You sound like a leftist, whining about how unfair it is that I picked apart the weak points in your statements, as if I must disagree with / address all of them. Too fucking bad. You made the statements you made, and I replied to the points that I felt like replying to. That you apparently have no further counterargument, except to attack my character, isn't my problem.
Ohh please. I'm not stripping anybody of anything. We're having a hypothetical conversation on a vaping forum. Get over yourself. Besides, as you said, the laws already exist, and the odds are pretty good that they aren't going anywhere.
no..you ignore the points that blow your arguments out of the water and hope nobody calls you on it.
To the contrary. I'm arguing on behalf of people keeping their rights. You are arguing against. And you are using dishonest tactics to do so.
Now who sounds like a leftist?
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
To the contrary. I'm arguing on behalf of people keeping their rights. You are arguing against. And you are using dishonest tactics to do so. Sounds leftist to me.
From what I've read in the post you claimed I cherry picked, you're arguing on behalf of letting a treatable paranoid schizophrenic nominally keep his right to bear arms, in exchange for either having his parents lock him in a basement away from society, or getting involuntarily institutionalized by the state. Yeah, you're a fucking saint fighting for freedom man.
...and your so called concern for the public saftey is a threadbare canard....if American lives were of interest to you gun control would be way down at the bottom of the list.... in fact there is more than ample proof the more guns a state has the safer it is....Chicago has all kinds of gun controls....hows that working out for the public saftey.
well seeing as how Planned Parenthood is probablly the biggest killer of Black Childeren in america,, and the Democrats support it....it would only make sense in a Democrat state Black Childerens Lives don't really matter.....
Correct. Either he is threat or he is not. If he can not be trusted with a firearm he cannot be trusted around my family and should be treated as such. If he can be trusted around my family he can be trusted with his rights. Relatively speaking, of course. I don't neccissarily trust some sane people.
There is that dishonesty again.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
You could have just said that, and saved a couple pages worth of arguing back and forth.
So you're not a saint fighting for fucking freedom?
This is starting to look like you've been entertaining a punk troll from Annapolis.
I'm sure you mentioned some part of this briefly but..
The crux of this argument (Should those considered to be mentally ill be able to own guns)
is that some people likely to be considered possible enemies of the state are also likely to be determined to be mentally ill
and therefore likely to have their Right to Bear Arms violated.
1) during Obama’s first term the Department of Homeland Security issued a listing of “potential terrorists” that notably does not mention any of the Islamic Jihadists groups but does list evangelical Christians, returning veterans, Second Amendment supporters, conservatives, and patriotic supporters of the U.S. Constitution ; 2) the F.B.I. published a brochure shortly thereafter listing the same groups as potential terrorists as threats, (this brochure is able to be viewed on the FBI website); 3) These lists have gone to the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force which has been conducting training sessions recently that identify well known and respected Christian organizations as potential terrorists, extremists and hate groups.
---------------------------
There are many articles by distinguished psychologists, psychiatrists who have published articles explaining how
fundamentalism and other Bible based religious denominations are or can easily become mentally ill.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013...-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.
Kathleen Taylor, who describes herself as a “science writer affiliated to the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics,” made the suggestion during a presentation on brain research at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia
The relationship between religion and schizophrenia is of particular interest to psychiatrists because of the similarities between religious experiences and psychotic episodes; religious experiences often involve auditory and/or visual hallucinations, and those with schizophrenia commonly report similar hallucinations, along with a variety of beliefs that are commonly recognized by modern medical practitioners as delusional.
https://www.verywellmind.com/religious-factors-in-bipolar-disorder-380485
Included on the list of mania and hypomania symptoms is "increased focus on religion or religious activities.
-------------------------
https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter09/articles/winter09pg10-14.html
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that PTSD afflicts:
Almost 31 percent of Vietnam veterans
As many as 10 percent of Gulf War (Desert Storm) veterans
11 percent of veterans of the war in Afghanistan
20 percent of Iraqi war veterans
https://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/ptsd-overview/basics/how-common-is-ptsd.asp
The number of Veterans with PTSD varies by service era:
Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Enduring Freedom (OEF): About 11-20 out of every 100 Veterans (or between 11-20%) who served in OIF or OEF have PTSD in a given year.
Gulf War (Desert Storm): About 12 out of every 100 Gulf War Veterans (or 12%) have PTSD in a given year.
Vietnam War: About 15 out of every 100 Vietnam Veterans (or 15%) were currently diagnosed with PTSD at the time of the most recent study in the late 1980s, the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS). It is estimated that about 30 out of every 100 (or 30%) of Vietnam Veterans have had PTSD in their lifetime.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd#1
(PTSD) is a serious mental condition that some people develop after a shocking, terrifying, or dangerous event. These events are called traumas.
--------------------------------
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/mental-health-reporting/
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits any person from selling or otherwise transferring a firearm or ammunition to any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.”
In 2013, following the Sandy Hook school shooting, then-President Obama first suggested the original regulation, which required the automatic reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) of Social Security recipients whose benefit payments are sent to a designated “representative payee” because the recipients are considered incapable of maintaining their own financial affairs. Inclusion in the NICS effectively prohibits a person from purchasing a firearm. This is an obvious restriction of Second Amendment rights, as well as Social Security recipients’ rights to due process.
---------------------------------
The bottom line.
Most supporters of the 2nd Amendment and other constitutionalists consider The Gun Control Act of 1968
a restriction on constitutional rights. Many conservatives, Fundamentalist Christians, and Veterans
think that the government might readily declare them as mentally deficient, especially if said government
and/or it's bureaucrats are Democrats, socialists,leftists, or globalists.
Since the first move made by incoming authoritarian administrations is always to disarm the citizenry
the above sentiment cannot be considered paranoia.
----------------------
Note: The author of this post will not entertain sophomoric arguments from the peanut gallery
I did. It's been the center point of my argument. You have simply ignored until now.
You can't have a person be deemed safe and sane enough for the community at large but also be deemed not safe and sane enough to retain his/her rights. Those things do not mesh. If he is not safe and sane enough to retain his rights, he is not safe and sane enough to be in public. Are you getting it yet? If he is not capable of having his rights you don't need a separate law to strip those rights because he should not be out and about in the first place.
The other thing you have not addressed is the fact that even current law goes too far and people, specifically Veterans, are being stripped of their rights when they are not a threat as it is.
So you're not a saint fighting for fucking freedom?
No. I'm not a Saint. And I am one of those 230,000 Veterans that had my rights stripped. I know first hand what it means to have your rights stripped for arbitrary reasons. You might not give a fuck now, but you will when they get around to you.
Last edited:
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
It's not relevant to what I'm saying. Yes, laws can be abused by a tyrannical government. That's pretty much what they do. The NSA could conceivably hack into an "undesirable's" computer, plant child pornography, and give an "anonymous" tip to the FBI. That's not an argument against laws barring the possession of child pornography, that's an argument against tyrannical government.
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Sort of. We've fleshed out what constitutes a threat now, so your opinion makes a little more sense to me.
"It's not relevant from the standpoint of a discussion on the forums"
So then, just what is it that you're discussing? Apples and oranges?
Didn't I say I'd not entertain "sophomoric arguments"?
Of course it's relevant. You're arguing for restricting gun ownership for citizens deemed mentally defective.
The counter-point is that citizens can be determined to be mentally defective on a rather loose set of criteria, usually political in nature
and that the US Constitution makes that a violation of rights.
Indeed tyrannical governments can be abusive of laws
and any law which regulates gun control, especially based on subjective and unscientific criteria lends itself to be easily abused.
If a person is indeed a sick puppy (likely to hurt himself or others) said person should be under the care of professionals
who would or should keep the person away from any instrument (not just guns) with which he/she might hurt himself or another.
To specifically prohibit gun ownership is not necessary and lends itself not only to be misused but also facilitates
the establishment of a tyrannical government.
As you say, possession of child smut is not an argument against possession of child smut.
Likewise, possession of a gun is not an argument against possession of a gun.
you seem to enjoy ludicrous arguments
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
Gun control laws I'm unopposed to on a hypothetical level. Being applied to a particular situation may change my opinion, because lets face it, reality vs hypothetical isn't apples to apples.
And yet here you are
Remind me, who would be making that decision to involuntarily commit such a person, if not the exact same corrupt professionals and judges who you fear would strip your right to bear arms without just cause?
The threat is the mentally ill man, not the gun. So, it seems more logical to control the mentally ill man, not the gun.
Considering that the mentally ill man can still commit a violent act, without the gun. But the gun can not commit a violent act, without the mentally ill man.
Last edited:
Steve-M
Member For 1 Year
The threat is the mentally ill man, not the gun. So, it seems more logical to control the mentally ill man, not the gun.
Considering that the mentally ill man can still commit a violent act, without the gun. But the gun can not commit a violent act, without the mentally ill man.
I agree. It seems to me the main concern remains though: if it's the same corrupt psychs and judges taking away your guns as it is tossing people into padded rooms, it's still a problem w/ respect to a tyrannical government. Even in the best of times, it requires very careful oversight.
In any case, I think we're understanding each other at this point, so at least there's some progress.
In case you haven't been paying attention the very officials you are talking about just took a Hillary Clinton paid for false opposition research dossier fabricated by Christopher Steele & Nellie Ohr and leaked its contents to the media and falsely claimed to a FISA Court Judge on 4 separate occasions it was legitimate to illegally spy on a presidential campaign, candidate, President Elect, POTUS in an attempted coup against a duly elected president in an overt act of Treason going right to the Obama Whitehouse. They further tried and failed to rig the 2016 Presidential Election by allowing 5 to 8 million illegal aliens to vote, Ballot stuffed all over Chicago by double passing ballots into scanners, used rigged Sorros owned voting machines in many states, and set up a man in the middle vote rigging scam led by Eric Smidt from the White House to change the vote totals by hacking into several states election offices remotely to change the vote totals remotely (that was blocked in all but 5 out of 13 states by IT Techs in the State elections offices hurriedly protecting the targeted spreadsheets cells once they caught onto the man in the middle scam). [After all that she still lost]I agree. It seems to me the main concern remains though: if it's the same corrupt psychs and judges taking away your guns as it is tossing people into padded rooms, it's still a problem w/ respect to a tyrannical government. Even in the best of times, it requires very careful oversight.
In any case, I think we're understanding each other at this point, so at least there's some progress.
Do you want these people making decisions about whether or not you are mentally fit to own a firearm?
wha...wha...wha....you don't trust the goverment or something?.....Yep we gotta make sure none of the loonies get their hands on a 9mm.....I guess one of these days will get around to all the psycopaths who have the ability to use our military to wage war on an industrial level....got get your priorities straight after all. it's not like they are a threat to the American people.
Gohmert on FBI’s Claim That No Evidence Was Found Regarding Hillary Clinton Server Breach
https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398653
https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398653
Here Are Horrifying Things The Media’s Not Showing You From Inside The New Mexico Terrorist Compound
The evidence known to date, including some just discovered, strongly suggests the Wahhaj family had turned their rural compound into a terrorist training camp.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/29...exico-terrorist-compound/#.W4caGvLrNJA.reddit
The evidence known to date, including some just discovered, strongly suggests the Wahhaj family had turned their rural compound into a terrorist training camp.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/29...exico-terrorist-compound/#.W4caGvLrNJA.reddit
Cuomo Received $25,000 From Weinstein Lawyer’s Firm as He Suspended Probe
Co-published by Sludge
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo halted an investigation into the Manhattan DA’s handling of the Harvey Weinstein case just as the law firm representing the Hollywood producer gave Cuomo’s campaign $25,000.
https://capitalandmain.com/cuomo-re...stein-lawyers-firm-as-he-suspended-probe-0829
Andrew Cuomo Received $25,000 Donation From Weinstein Law Firm Before Halting His Sexual Assault Case
Co-published by Sludge
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo halted an investigation into the Manhattan DA’s handling of the Harvey Weinstein case just as the law firm representing the Hollywood producer gave Cuomo’s campaign $25,000.
https://capitalandmain.com/cuomo-re...stein-lawyers-firm-as-he-suspended-probe-0829
Andrew Cuomo Received $25,000 Donation From Weinstein Law Firm Before Halting His Sexual Assault Case
Last edited:
Moscow Says Syria Is Ready To Accept One Million Returning Refugees
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35208/moscow-says-syria-ready-accept-one-million-kassy-dillon
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35208/moscow-says-syria-ready-accept-one-million-kassy-dillon
- Status