I appreciate your candid responses. I came here because of the liberties and freedoms that were bestowed upon gaining my Citizenship.
I enjoy a good debate and one without emotion or name calling.
I have given this law a great deal of thought and the responses were at the least thought provoking and made me look at it in a different light. I try very hard to think for myself and it's rare that I can be steered away from something that appears valid.
I have reconsidered my position and with the comments and responses posted here, have come to the conclusion that ANY law that infringes on my rights should not be implemented. I was looking at the black letter law proposed and not the slippery precipice upon which it stood.
I lost my rights to own guns in the Country I came from. I have been there and it started with Fox hunting. A totally innocuous sounding law that didn't apply to me, as I didn't Fox hunt. I was wrong! It made me angry. I needed this and I thank you all for allowing me to advocate what is now a skewed point of view.
I appreciate the responses and am currently writing to the Honorable Governor to VETO this law.
FL Mental Health Bill
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: FL Mental Health Bill
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
-
lbuehler325
- Member
- Posts in topic: 6
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm
- Location: DFW-ish
Re: FL Mental Health Bill
cprems wrote:I appreciate your candid responses. I came here because of the liberties and freedoms that were bestowed upon gaining my Citizenship.
I enjoy a good debate and one without emotion or name calling.
I have given this law a great deal of thought and the responses were at the least thought provoking and made me look at it in a different light. I try very hard to think for myself and it's rare that I can be steered away from something that appears valid.
I have reconsidered my position and with the comments and responses posted here, have come to the conclusion that ANY law that infringes on my rights should not be implemented. I was looking at the black letter law proposed and not the slippery precipice upon which it stood.
I lost my rights to own guns in the Country I came from. I have been there and it started with Fox hunting. A totally innocuous sounding law that didn't apply to me, as I didn't Fox hunt. I was wrong! It made me angry. I needed this and I thank you all for allowing me to advocate what is now a skewed point of view.
I appreciate the responses and am currently writing to the Honorable Governor to VETO this law.
RLTW!
TX CHL (Formerly licensed in PA, MA, KY)
MOPH, VFW, GOA, NRA, 82nd Airborne Division Association
TX CHL (Formerly licensed in PA, MA, KY)
MOPH, VFW, GOA, NRA, 82nd Airborne Division Association
Re: FL Mental Health Bill
This mental health bill, or whatever you call it, is a travesty, totally unnecessary, totally useless, and unConstitutional.
This thing twists the very concept of "rule of law" into something evil and unrecognizable, and denies the existence of rights, replacing them with privileges from The State.
We know that mass shootings are going down. Yes, the media makes a bigger and bigger fuss over them every time, digging into the shooter, interviewing survivors and families, and allowing politicians to pontificate upon the victims' graves. Yet, if you look at the numbers, they just don't happen that often. In fact, you are many, many times more likely to be struck by lightning and killed, than to be involved in a mass shooting incident. And as the "gun culture" becomes more and more prevalent, the mystique and aura of the taboo which has been built around guns, dissipates even further, rendering them less and less a tool of the deranged.
It's useless, too. As the Boston bombers showed, it doesn't take much to build and deploy a weapon to kill lots of people. In fact, anyone determined enough can find all kinds of weapons to attack mass numbers of innocents with. In China, they use knives a lot. Guns get a lot of play, but cars have been used before. Anyone with a basic, high-school level of knowledge of chemistry can be dangerous. Anyone who has access to the keys for heavy machinery can be dangerous. Anyone who works on farms, ranches, etc, has access to some really nasty stuff. That accidental explosion in West, TX, shows that to be true. So... why are the guns so important again? Short answer, they're not, unless you're attacking the victims, not the aggressors. You can attack -OR- defend with a gun, or sometimes a knife (if you're good with it), but I have yet to see anyone mount a defense using pipe bombs, volatile airborne chem-lab experiment rejects, or a John Deere loaded with a ton of hydrochloric acid, and all of which can inflict injuries and deaths far more horrifying than a gunshot wound.
I mentioned that it's unConstitutional. I tend to disagree with the Supreme Court on this; the Second Amendment is not incorporated via Privileges and Immunities, nor through the 14th (?) Amendment. Read through it, and it's self-incorporating, against ALL levels of government. Due Process only comes into individual cases, where someone is being criminally tried, and a conviction would result in the loss of their rights.
Where, tell me, where is Due Process in a law that essentially requires anyone who, voluntarily or not, sees a psychological professional, to be treated as "guilty until innocent" based solely on the word of said professional? That requires said person to petition the -government- for the return of their rights? If our rights are so fragile, so transitory, as to be taken away by the whim of a shrink, and so dangerous we must beg permission to exercise them once more, then they are not rights. They are privileges.
I propose a new Amendment. Any legislator or elected official, at the State or the Federal level, who betrays their constituents and votes for, enacts, or proposes any law, bill, or regulation, in violation of the Constitution's strict enumerated Federal powers, and or in violation of any of the Bill of Rights, to include Amendments 9 and 10, shall be held personally liable to their constituents, and their possessions and affairs forfeit, the proceeds to be distributed to the same, and shall be held criminally liable to the Nation, punishment not to exceed ten years in prison, and banishment from the United States. Any hired official, bureaucrat, or other hired employee of the government, who acts to uphold or enforce any law, bill, or regulation, in violation of the Constitution's strict enumerated Federal powers, and or in violation of any of the Bill of Rights, to include Amendments 9 and 10, shall be held personally liable and their possessions and affairs forfeit, the proceeds to be distributed as appropriate to those victimized by the upholding or enforcing of the law, bill, or regulation.
I am well aware that this amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance in Houston of passing, but seriously, we need some teeth to punish those who rise to office on broken promises, and proceed to betray their very Oath of Office. The Second Amendment represents one tooth, and a very big one, but it's very much an "all or nothing" tooth, and a gamble and a prayer. I want to add to that safety net, but this travesty of a bill/law cuts half the threads of that net without adding so much as a belay line or a single piece of padding.
This thing twists the very concept of "rule of law" into something evil and unrecognizable, and denies the existence of rights, replacing them with privileges from The State.
We know that mass shootings are going down. Yes, the media makes a bigger and bigger fuss over them every time, digging into the shooter, interviewing survivors and families, and allowing politicians to pontificate upon the victims' graves. Yet, if you look at the numbers, they just don't happen that often. In fact, you are many, many times more likely to be struck by lightning and killed, than to be involved in a mass shooting incident. And as the "gun culture" becomes more and more prevalent, the mystique and aura of the taboo which has been built around guns, dissipates even further, rendering them less and less a tool of the deranged.
It's useless, too. As the Boston bombers showed, it doesn't take much to build and deploy a weapon to kill lots of people. In fact, anyone determined enough can find all kinds of weapons to attack mass numbers of innocents with. In China, they use knives a lot. Guns get a lot of play, but cars have been used before. Anyone with a basic, high-school level of knowledge of chemistry can be dangerous. Anyone who has access to the keys for heavy machinery can be dangerous. Anyone who works on farms, ranches, etc, has access to some really nasty stuff. That accidental explosion in West, TX, shows that to be true. So... why are the guns so important again? Short answer, they're not, unless you're attacking the victims, not the aggressors. You can attack -OR- defend with a gun, or sometimes a knife (if you're good with it), but I have yet to see anyone mount a defense using pipe bombs, volatile airborne chem-lab experiment rejects, or a John Deere loaded with a ton of hydrochloric acid, and all of which can inflict injuries and deaths far more horrifying than a gunshot wound.
I mentioned that it's unConstitutional. I tend to disagree with the Supreme Court on this; the Second Amendment is not incorporated via Privileges and Immunities, nor through the 14th (?) Amendment. Read through it, and it's self-incorporating, against ALL levels of government. Due Process only comes into individual cases, where someone is being criminally tried, and a conviction would result in the loss of their rights.
Where, tell me, where is Due Process in a law that essentially requires anyone who, voluntarily or not, sees a psychological professional, to be treated as "guilty until innocent" based solely on the word of said professional? That requires said person to petition the -government- for the return of their rights? If our rights are so fragile, so transitory, as to be taken away by the whim of a shrink, and so dangerous we must beg permission to exercise them once more, then they are not rights. They are privileges.
I propose a new Amendment. Any legislator or elected official, at the State or the Federal level, who betrays their constituents and votes for, enacts, or proposes any law, bill, or regulation, in violation of the Constitution's strict enumerated Federal powers, and or in violation of any of the Bill of Rights, to include Amendments 9 and 10, shall be held personally liable to their constituents, and their possessions and affairs forfeit, the proceeds to be distributed to the same, and shall be held criminally liable to the Nation, punishment not to exceed ten years in prison, and banishment from the United States. Any hired official, bureaucrat, or other hired employee of the government, who acts to uphold or enforce any law, bill, or regulation, in violation of the Constitution's strict enumerated Federal powers, and or in violation of any of the Bill of Rights, to include Amendments 9 and 10, shall be held personally liable and their possessions and affairs forfeit, the proceeds to be distributed as appropriate to those victimized by the upholding or enforcing of the law, bill, or regulation.
I am well aware that this amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance in Houston of passing, but seriously, we need some teeth to punish those who rise to office on broken promises, and proceed to betray their very Oath of Office. The Second Amendment represents one tooth, and a very big one, but it's very much an "all or nothing" tooth, and a gamble and a prayer. I want to add to that safety net, but this travesty of a bill/law cuts half the threads of that net without adding so much as a belay line or a single piece of padding.