Inappropriate propagandizing during CHL class

[apostate]

I'm not an expert nor am I a policymaker, but it sure seems wrong to me that a certifiable nut like Loughner can legally purchase a firearm. Don't you think we should take steps to prevent that? I'm sure a really smart person could devise a reasonable mechanism for this purpose.

Do you mean something like court-ordered commitment to an inpatient mental health facility?
http://www.texasbar.com/Content/Navigat ... edures.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[matrix]

First, let's not go reductio ad absurdum (fancy, huh? ) with the tossing of guns into the same category with knives, poison, etc.

Why? All have been used to kill people as well as help people. Each item you listed is a tool. Depending on how a person uses it makes it a weapon. Heck, one evil person with a bunch of poison can kill more people than one evil person with a bunch of guns.

Ok, watermelons it is. Here's why: because it leads into absurdity. The argument devolves into either:

a) you must regulate every single thing in the world as if it was a deadly weapon

or

b) you cannot regulate deadly weapons at all

Knives and poison have legitimate purposes that would not get them designated "deadly weapon." Do you use your gun to chop your onions or a kitchen knife? Poison - kills rats, other unpleasant creatures. Guns - deadly weapons. Don't think your point is lost on me. It's not. But it doesn't make sense in the real world. You can't regulate how big somebody's hands are, and I assume you would agree that really large hands can cause a lot of damage to a face on the receiving end of a punch. That doesn't mean that you can't regulate guns. OK? Let's stick to more practical matters.

[VMI77]

While I agree that such political comments are inappropriate in a CHL class I also realize that people are apt to make such comments when they believe they are addressing a friendly audience --and I suspect there aren't too many gun toting Obama supporters: that's sort of like being an anti-abortion feminist. If you voted for Obama, and are an Obama supporter, you voted for, and support and administration that wants to take away your right to own guns and your right to defend yourself, as well as other Constitutional rights. The Gun Walker program was INTENDED to covertly undermine 2nd Amendment rights and he nominated an anti-gun zealot to head the BATF --no doubt to implement policies via the BATF that he cannot pass through Congress.

Fortunately we haven't yet reached the point where a president can simply do whatever he wants --because if Obama could do whatever he wanted your guns would already be gone and you'd be subject to prosecution for self-defense --like people in the UK. If that's what you want vote for Obama again and help the gun grabbers seat more anti-gun judges on the Federal bench, perhaps get another anti-gun judge on the SC to reverse the recent 2nd Amendment victory, and enable more covert anti-gun policies. But if you're that anxious to get rid of your guns, why wait? I'm sure some of us here on this board will be willing to take them off yours hands.

VM, let's get out of our preconceived notions about what people are supposed to be like based on one or two of their characteristics. Labels are simple and easy, I understand the allure, but they're also simplistic and the assumptions that go with them are often wrong. Even many of the people who you would consider gun-grabbing liberals own guns and aren't anti-gun at all, just simply favor some common sense gun regulations (such as closing the gun show loophole), and oppose some of the totalitarian craziness coming out of the NRA (like their opposition to closing the gun show loophole). And let's not forget that the current system does not protect against mentally ill people legally purchasing firearms. You can be mad as a hatter (Jared Loughner, anyone?), and still walk into any gunstore and purchase a firearm. Some common sense reforms are not EVIL LIBERALS STEALING MY GUNS!!! Calm down. All this talk about the president wanting your guns has no basis in reality. It's all based on what you think he may do, not anything he's done in his first 3 years as president. Tell you what, instead of reflexively going on about how the president wants my guns, why don't you tell me a specific action he has taken as president to take my guns... Patiently waiting.

Wow, you must be an amazing guy, so superior to the rest of us with no preconceived notions, unaffected by the allure of labels, and like, so "complicated" and not at all simplistic like us mouth breathers. And at the same time you describe opposition to closing the supposed "gun show loophole" with such a level headed term like "totalitarian craziness" --so I guess it must be true and common sensiscal, not some kind of simplistic label or preconceived notion. And you're so "calm" and all, unlike us agitated inbreds.

And you must be into the "diversity" thing too....as a gun owner spouting language right out of the Brady Bunch playbook --like "common sense gun regulations." Such a beautiful phrase too, since it leaves everyone to fill in the blanks, from anti-gun zealots to people like you who fancy themselves to be politically progressive, rejecting all us fools who merely revel in the "allure" of political labels. Frankly, your repetition of Brady Bunch language has me doubting that you own guns or have a CHL, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The term, my friend, is meaningless, intentionally meaningless. It allows you to believe in the fantasy that politicians like Obama are only going to do what you think is "reasonable" while appeasing the zealots who believe "reasonable" is something else entirely. You've been had.

And just who is going to decide who is "mad as a hatter." Tell us how you'd have stopped Jared Loughner from buying a gun without abridging the rights of people who aren't "crazy?" Perhaps a panel of advanced thinkers like you will make that decision? He was not diagnosed as mentally ill, so you must have some other method for this determination in mind? Perhaps anyone deemed wacky by the SPLC? Maybe anyone who says something you think is a little off --like me?-- should subjected to a forced psychiatric evaluation? Oh, I get it, anyone who wants to buy a gun should have to pass a psychiatric evaluation --that sounds like the kind of "common sense" you're espousing.

'll repeat myself in plainer language. Obama hasn't taken any overt actions (which is why I used the word "covert" to describe his actions) and is very unlikely to in this administration. That may change if he gets reelected. Obama isn't stupid --he knows the anti-gun stance is not a winning political issue at the moment-- and he's not going do anything overtly anti-gun before the election. In the meantime he's filling important positions with anti-gun zealots. You obviously aren't interested in knowing anything about Obama's gun and self-defense ideology because if you were you'd already have done the research yourself instead of asking me for references. But here's a reference I found in about five seconds by doing a search on Obama + guns: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -and-guns/

Here are some excerpts (actually hard to post excepts, since the entire article contains examples of his anti-gun and anti-selfdefense attitudes):

During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama’s own handwriting.)

In 2004, he said he was “consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry,” and that he’d back “federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.” Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders - such as domestic violence victims - to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama’s world, “authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed,” he said.

In 2003, while serving on the Illinois state Senate’s Judiciary Committee, Mr. Obama voted for a bill that would have banned (as so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons”) most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns.

He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. On Mr. Obama’s watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation’s most aggressive gun-prohibitionist group.

Illinois lawmakers proposed legislation that would make self-defense an “affirmative defense” against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette. Mr. Obama voted four times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois’ anti-gun governor, Rod Blagojevich, a long-time Obama ally.


But hey, BO has probably changed his mind about all that, seen the error of his ways. Keep kidding yourself if it makes you feel better.

[matrix]

I'm not an expert nor am I a policymaker, but it sure seems wrong to me that a certifiable nut like Loughner can legally purchase a firearm. Don't you think we should take steps to prevent that? I'm sure a really smart person could devise a reasonable mechanism for this purpose.

Do you mean something like court-ordered commitment to an inpatient mental health facility?
http://www.texasbar.com/Content/Navigat ... edures.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would do nothing to address the problem of mentally ill people purchasing firearms. But I assume you knew that. And what do you mean anyway? Not all mentally ill people should be committed, but almost all should not be able to purchase a firearm.

[matrix]

Wow, you must be an amazing guy...

Why thanks, I try.

Calm down, friend.

[VMI77]

What does walking in to a gun store and purchasing a gun with an NICS check have to do with the so-called "gun show loophole?"

Nothing. Hence the gun show loophole, and not the gunstore loophole.

How do you propose preventing someone as mad as a hatter from purchasing a gun in a gun store? (or a knife, a baseball bat, tire iron, matches, lighter, gasoline, rat poison, etc., etc., etc.) A psychiatric exam?

First, let's not go reductio ad absurdum (fancy, huh? ) with the tossing of guns into the same category with knives, poison, etc. We're talking about guns, OK? Otherwise we might as well be talking about heavy watermelons (tossing one of those from a 2nd story window and nailing somebody on the head sure seems like it would do some damage).

Second, I don't know. I'm not an expert nor am I a policymaker, but it sure seems wrong to me that a certifiable nut like Loughner can legally purchase a firearm. Don't you think we should take steps to prevent that? I'm sure a really smart person could devise a reasonable mechanism for this purpose.

Right, you come here espousing "common sense" gun regulation, and specifically cite as an example, preventing people you think are crazy from buying guns, but you haven't given the slightest bit of thought to how this could be done. I'm confused, because in your postings you seem to consider yourself to be really smart; then you go and say a "really smart" person, or some kind of "expert,' needs to figure out how to implement what, according to you, is merely common sense. You mean a smart guy like you doesn't have a common sense solution? Then I must ask, how could the solution merely be "common sense" if you have to leave it to a really smart expert to figure it out?

You know what, I think you just went and got all agitated about Obama and gun regulations, and came here to vent. Maybe you should follow your own advice and just calm down. Take it easy. Hope and Change is on the way.

[apostate]

I'm not an expert nor am I a policymaker, but it sure seems wrong to me that a certifiable nut like Loughner can legally purchase a firearm. Don't you think we should take steps to prevent that? I'm sure a really smart person could devise a reasonable mechanism for this purpose.

Do you mean something like court-ordered commitment to an inpatient mental health facility?
http://www.texasbar.com/Content/Navigat ... edures.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would do nothing to address the problem of mentally ill people purchasing firearms. But I assume you knew that. And what do you mean anyway? Not all mentally ill people should be committed, but almost all should not be able to purchase a firearm.

I believe the government shouldn't deny someone's constitutional rights without due process of law. But I suspect you knew that.

In any case, if someone is too crazy to be allowed to purchase a firearm, they're far too crazy to be allowed to vote.

[G26ster]

Knives and poison have legitimate purposes that would not get them designated "deadly weapon."

From the Texas Penal Code
Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:

(17) "Deadly weapon" means:

(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or

(B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

[matrix]

I'm not an expert nor am I a policymaker, but it sure seems wrong to me that a certifiable nut like Loughner can legally purchase a firearm. Don't you think we should take steps to prevent that? I'm sure a really smart person could devise a reasonable mechanism for this purpose.

Do you mean something like court-ordered commitment to an inpatient mental health facility?
http://www.texasbar.com/Content/Navigat ... edures.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would do nothing to address the problem of mentally ill people purchasing firearms. But I assume you knew that. And what do you mean anyway? Not all mentally ill people should be committed, but almost all should not be able to purchase a firearm.

I believe the government shouldn't deny someone's constitutional rights without due process of law. But I suspect you knew that.

In any case, if someone is too crazy to be allowed to purchase a firearm, they're far too crazy to be allowed to vote.

I agree re: denying constitutional rights and due process, totally. But you contradict yourself in your 2nd point. A clinically depressed person should not be allowed to buy a firearm, but I see no reason to take away their other constitutional right, the right to vote.

[mr surveyor]

this:

b) you cannot regulate deadly weapons at all

[matrix]

Knives and poison have legitimate purposes that would not get them designated "deadly weapon."

From the Texas Penal Code
Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:

(17) "Deadly weapon" means:

(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or

(B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

G26, my quote that you have there still stands. Yes, yes, trust me, I understand that anything can be a deadly weapon. But that doesn't invalidate my previous statements.

[matrix]

this:

b) you cannot regulate deadly weapons at all

Well why don't we all just get RPG's then? Or better yet, how about our own personal nuclear device?

Can't we just get off that road?

[apostate]

this:

b) you cannot regulate deadly weapons at all

Well why don't we all just get RPG's then? Or better yet, how about our own personal nuclear device?

You were saying something about reductio ad absurdum earlier? Oh, right...

WATERMELONS!

[VMI77]

A clinically depressed person should not be allowed to buy a firearm, but I see no reason to take away their other constitutional right, the right to vote.

So depressed people give up their right to self-defense? Very generous of you not to take away their right to vote --probably because you think depressed people are more likely to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

You've obviously not given a wit of thought to your "common sense" regulations. Just what do you think depressed people are going to do if they know getting treatment is going to result in stigmatization and denial of their right to self-defense? Did it occur to you that taking away basic rights based on vague psychological concepts might cause people to avoid treatment? That makes the denial of gun and self-defense rights self-selective. So obviously, treatment will have to be coerced, and just as obviously, anyone who displays anything that might be considered signs of depression will have to be coerced into treatment, or everyone buying a guy will have to have a psychiatric evaluation --otherwise, depressed people will still be able to buy guns.

[G26ster]

On a different track related to the political side:

In a recent interview with Time magazine, retired Justice John Paul Stevens was asked to name the most important majority opinion he disagreed with. His answer - "I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong." It will take just ONE more judicial appointment like Justice Stevens, and you can kiss your CHL and Second Amendment rights goodbye. That's enough for me.