Inappropriate propagandizing during CHL class

[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?

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

Yes, I was all for not going there. And several members of the forum still went there. And it got absurd. Who woulda thunk it?

[matrix]

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.

VM, your vitriol and obvious attempts to get personal with me make it hard for me to respond to you. Unless you cool off a little bit, this will be my last response to you. I'm not sure what the exact definition of a troll is on this forum, but I'm pretty sure you're trolling me. Let's calm down and talk, OK?

Clinical depression is not a "vague psychological concept." It is a real disease with real symptoms. Depressed people are much more likely to commit suicide or at least have suicidal ideation, so I would submit to you that it's probably not a good idea to put a gun in their hands. They are also much more likely than the general population to go on murder-suicide sprees (a la Grapevine, TX yesterday, or any number of other such incidents). And no, it's not "obvious" that treatment will be coerced. What is obvious is that clinical depression should be a disqualifier from buying a firearm.

[G26ster]

Yes, I was all for not going there. And several members of the forum still went there. And it got absurd. Who woulda thunk it?

There is a fundamental difference in thinking between you and other members here. I reiterate that you believe guns are unique amongst deadly weapons that need regulating. Other disagree that a gun in and of itself is NOT a deadly weapon unless used as such, and that there are many other tools/devices/objects that can do as much damage as a gun in the wrong hands and with criminal intent. It's not absurd to others, just to you it would appear. There is simply a difference of opinion.

A 22lr rifle is mainly used for target shooting and plinking, for sport or pleasure. But, it is also a deadly weapon. A large kitchen knife is mainly used in the kitchen, but it too is a deadly weapon when used with criminal intent. Why regulate one and not the other is the point of the opposing argument. Why is the gun different? To me the comparison I just made is not absurd at all. But, we can disagree.

[matrix]

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.

I don't think that's necessarily true. SCOTUS is big on precedents. A precedent has been set now. Let me give you an example. The same argument you're using about the 2nd amendment could have been used by a liberal regarding Roe v. Wade. Imagine back before there was a 5-4 conservative majority on the SCOTUS and imagine that you're a liberal fellow (I know, horrifying). You would be making the argument that we can never allow a conservative majority on the court because the moment there is one, Roe v. Wade is out the window and bye-bye reproductive rights. Well, we've had a 5-4 conservative majority for some time now, and last time I checked Roe v. Wade was still on the books. Just like the 2nd amendment decision would be if there was a liberal majority.

[Thomas]

ab·surd/əbˈsərd/
Adjective: (of an idea or suggestion) Wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate: "so you think I'm a spy? How absurd!".

The thing is, you have a different view of what is illogical here.

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).

Absurd in my opinion, is saying let's not be absurd, and then following it with an absurd sentence dealing with watermelons.

Anyway... back on topic:
Wait, the last dozen or so posts are off topic.

Original Post:

Now, here's the thing. Where I stand on this type of thinking and these claims is irrelevant; that's not the point of this post. I just think that this behavior was distasteful in light of the fact that I was there to obtain my CHL, not listen to somebody's political opinions/rants. The examples I outlined above have nothing to do with the purpose of the class: making sure that I am competent to carry a firearm lawfully. Is this type of thing a common occurrence in CHL classes? And what is the opinion of the esteemed forum members about this activity?

emphasis added

Response to Question 1: No, that is not a common occurrence (if any at all). Please feel free to PM me the location, date, and name of the instructor of the class.
Response to Question 2: As you can tell by the first page of posts, we don't like it. It's not appropriate, which is why the answer to Question 1 is what it is.

[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.

I don't think that's necessarily true. SCOTUS is big on precedents. A precedent has been set now. Let me give you an example. The same argument you're using about the 2nd amendment could have been used by a liberal regarding Roe v. Wade. Imagine back before there was a 5-4 conservative majority on the SCOTUS and imagine that you're a liberal fellow (I know, horrifying). You would be making the argument that we can never allow a conservative majority on the court because the moment there is one, Roe v. Wade is out the window and bye-bye reproductive rights. Well, we've had a 5-4 conservative majority for some time now, and last time I checked Roe v. Wade was still on the books. Just like the 2nd amendment decision would be if there was a liberal majority.

It may be apples and oranges using the Roe v. Wade and Second Amendment issues. You are addressing Stare Decisis. There have been few challenges to abortion law, but many on the Second Amendment, especially recently. As for Stare Decisis:

From Wikipedia

In the United States Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases:

Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.
—Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932)[2] (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.[7] The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.
—Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).[3]

The United States Supreme Court has stated that where a court gives multiple reasons for a given result, each alternative reason that is "explicitly" labeled by the court as an "independent" ground for the decision is not treated as "simply a dictum."[8]

[matrix]

Thomas, what's your point? I just followed where the posts led. Don't forget, it takes 2 (or in this case, upwards of 6 to tango). Also, sanctimony doesn't look good on anyone.

[Thomas]

Thomas, what's your point? I just followed where the posts led. Don't forget, it takes 2 (or in this case, upwards of 6 to tango). Also, sanctimony doesn't look good on anyone.

[matrix]

G26, you're getting a little too deep into it now for my level of understanding that issue. I guess i just don't know for sure what would happen, but neither do you. I find it a little hard to believe that the 2nd amendment has had more challenges than Roe v. Wade. The anti-abortion crowd is nothing if not...let's say dedicated. But either way, I wouldn't base my political opinions on a quote from a single former SCOTUS justice. There are other issues that I care about as much or more. Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, how exactly would the government go about banning guns in this country? There are upwards of a hundred million guns/gunowners in this country. I'm just not too worried that somebody's gonna come and take them all. Logistics and all.

[G26ster]

G26, you're getting a little too deep into it now for my level of understanding that issue. I guess i just don't know for sure what would happen, but neither do you. I find it a little hard to believe that the 2nd amendment has had more challenges than Roe v. Wade. The anti-abortion crowd is nothing if not...let's say dedicated. But either way, I wouldn't base my political opinions on a quote from a single former SCOTUS justice. There are other issues that I care about as much or more. Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, how exactly would the government go about banning guns in this country? There are upwards of a hundred million guns/gunowners in this country. I'm just not too worried that somebody's gonna come and take them all. Logistics and all.

I choose to own guns legally, not illegally. Just as I like my freedom of speech and my other rights. I don't want to hide in my basement, or someone else's to exercise them. Ask the citizens of all the European countries, Australia, and all the other countries that lost their gun rights how it happened. It happened because they let it happen. Those against guns won the majority rule, and away went their rights.They were ordered to turn them in, and those that did not are criminals in the eyes of the law. In other cases, dictators took them away.

As for just " a single justice," that's all it will take. I'm just not willing to take that chance. I'll be 70 in two months. I've lived through dozens of rodeos, a few goat ropes, many circuses and a war. I simply don't like the direction my country is headed in, so yes there are many other issues I care about also.

[Medic624]

Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, how exactly would the government go about banning guns in this country? There are upwards of a hundred million guns/gunowners in this country. I'm just not too worried that somebody's gonna come and take them all. Logistics and all.

Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, how exactly would the government go about banning guns in this country? There are upwards of a hundred million guns/gunowners in this country. I'm just not too worried that somebody's gonna come and take them all. Logistics and all.

Well this has devolved from the OP to a 2nd Amendment issue...Huh...

IMHO (for what it's worth) I don't think logistics would be as much an issue as much as a nuisance to those who feel with every fiber that the 2nd Amendment is what is standing between them and...
1. Disarming the general populace
Or...
2. Using a real (not perceived/rumored) threat of disarming as a means to gauge the "real" mettle of the millions of "legal" gun owners in this country in order to completely eradicate our Republic to the annals of history.

The 2nd Amendment (to me) is the lynchpin that holds the fibers of our founding documents together. Without the ability to protect ourselves from either a car-jacker or some misguided individuals entrusted by the Federal Government to attempt to disarm the populace it is the 27 words that comprise the 2nd Amendment that ensures our continued freedoms.

But, to answer your question posed to G26... Banning them wouldnt be all that difficult (if given the right ppl sitting on the SCOTUS) THAT isn't the issue... it's the confiscation that would be the difficult part. Not difficult in the sense of arranging, collecting, destroying etc... Difficult as in the possibility of civil uprising as a result because IMHO many will see the move as an attack on every freedom that makes them an American.

If we simply use the numbers of registered hunters in any given state as well as those who are simply shooting enthusiasts who use their weapons on a somewhat regular basis and extrapolate that out to include those who fall into that category across the nation they would quickly outnumber the standing Military and municipal police forces combined. Not to say they would ALL stand and defend their right to own a firearm but I would surmise it probably would be enough that it is as real a deterrent as anything we can conjure. That issue in of itself makes it a fool hearty idea even to make such an attempt by the Federal Govt. But, that type of thinking requires common sense and an understanding of what makes up the American Spirit... Two items that are lost on many who are far left leaning...

Edited for continuation of a thought...ha ha

[longtooth]

I need the popcorn icon.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thomas, what's your point? I just followed where the posts led. Don't forget, it takes 2 (or in this case, upwards of 6 to tango). Also, sanctimony doesn't look good on anyone.

You joined about 14 hours ago and at this point you have made 21 posts. You complain about something you claim is inappropriate, then you later admit that the instructor's comments were very short and didn't impact his presenting of the class material. Numerous times throughout your posts you have used Brady style comments on gun issues.

In short, you are clearly a troll. Stop now or you're gone. You aren't here to ask legitimate questions or to discuss issues; you are here to start an argument and pitch anti-gun rhetoric. Don't respond with yet another argument or a denial, just stop.

Chas.

[longtooth]

Guess my popcorn box is close to empty & I can do something more constructive than eat & watch now.