Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

I think you need to read a little more about the history of being politically correct.

The Kennedies supported the group home model of care for people in need of persistent daily supervision such as the mentally retarded whose families did not have the ability to care for them themselves. The move towards group homes continues today (I have a friend who has worked in several as a caregiver) but the problem is there are substantial wait lists to get into one and as usual, the budgeting for them is a problem. It was never a Kennedy plan to abruptly defund wards containing schizophrenics or people with mental handicaps overnight and pour them out into the street, as happened in California under Reagan. It was intended to be a transition from a model which had proven not just costly but often abusive and neglectful (large, over-populated institutions where inmates had all their teeth removed and laid around sedated all day, were beaten or raped by orderlies, etc. These things were common in the mass institution/nut farm days.)

Rushing to the simplest bottom line when trying to start a blame game often skips past a bigger picture, and that bigger picture rarely looks good for Republicans Jack.

 

[EastMed]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

This tragedy is more about how the treatment of mental illness is failing and not about the guns.

Navy Yard, Sandy Hook, Aurora-Colorado, Tucson-Arizona -- all the men were under the care of mental health professionals at the time of their murder sprees.

Lack of mental healthcare provision does not appear to explain the cancer of gun violence, according to this recent study:

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

"Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit by bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US," the doctors write.

"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

http://www.amjmed.com/

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

I think you need to read a little more about the history of being politically correct.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness.

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

Yeah not so much.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

Lack of mental healthcare provision does not appear to explain the cancer of gun violence, according to this recent study:



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

http://www.amjmed.com/

In the end the people who irrationally want to reduce gun regulations after every preventable tragedy, will end up blaming unicorns and moonbeams before they will admit there is a gun problem in this country that has to do with SHOCK guns.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

Have you not been reading ANYTHING Buzzer and I have said in this topic?

???

I was responding to what you'd said.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

Just like buzzer said. Willing to stomp on every right to keep the ONE that you're obsessed with.

No rights get stomped on by what I recommend.

Let me repeat it, cause you clearly haven't gotten the memo: THERE. IS. NO. MILITIA. THERE. HASN'T. BEEN. ONE. FOR. CENTURIES.

Not according to the law, or the courts. Cling to your fantasy if you will, but it doesn't change things.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

Not according to the law, or the courts. Cling to your fantasy if you will, but it doesn't change things.

According to the law and the courts it's also legal to regulate firearms.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

You are correct that the framers intended a responsibility in the citizenry of watchfulness and that this was expressed in part through the statement that IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A WELL TRAINED MILITIA the right to bear firearms would not be infringed.

Which is why I am a bit puzzled that you rather routinely insist that the right for every Tom Dick and Harry to have massive firepower is an entitlement that should continue to remain an entitlement regardless of whether or not any militia exists or any form of responsible training or qualification is required, as would logically follow from an express statement that the right to bear firearms is directly tied to the maintenance of a citizen militia.

I have no problem with a State Reservist or National Guardsman with the proper training having a firearm. I have a problem with the fact that any slovenly off-meds person who posts hate about black people on facebook or is really pissed off about his layoff can walk into stores and get guns and high capacity ammo clips.

I expound what the grammar and words mean, which is what those who fought for ratification explained the amendment meant.

The militia clause gives a reason, not the only reason. It's like this statement: Because it was hot outside, I had iced tea with lemon. in that case it's very clear that "because it was hot outside" is not the only reason for having iced tea with lemon -- other motivations such as thirst, preference for tea, liking lemon, and such are plainly present. That's obviously the case with the Second Amendment, given both other proposed drafts and the discussion involved. They considered the reason of self-defense obvious enough not to mention, along with usefulness for hunting and for protection of property against animals.

Additionally, the law still contains the same definition of militia that the amendment uses: we are all the militia.

As for your "problem", I have the same one -- I just maintain it has to be dealt with using the authority the Constitution grants Congress, not by trampling the Constitution. The only authority Congress has here is to either ditch the Amendment (not gonna happen) or apply Article 1 Section 8. Why Democrats aren't rallying around the latter baffles me -- it's the obvious approach, given their oaths of office, and besides it would put Republicans in a very uncomfortable position of having to justify not wanting a well-regulated militia (i.e. one trained and effective and responsible).

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that an individual right to keep and bear arms is not limited by the announced purpose (for a well regulated militia) that is enumerated in the Second Amendment. [Link]

For simple reasons:

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment.

All they had to do was read what the people who fought for that amendment wrote. They went beyond that -- and I presume that they took note of the numerous times the Court had previously listed the Second as covering an individual right along with most of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

According to the law and the courts it's also legal to regulate firearms.

And in context with Miller, that means that states have the authority to make sure that all firearms in possession have a military purpose.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

For simple reasons:



All they had to do was read what the people who fought for that amendment wrote. They went beyond that -- and I presume that they took note of the numerous times the Court had previously listed the Second as covering an individual right along with most of the Bill of Rights.

Since we could agree that no well regulated militia would want mentally unstable people in it, we can agree that it follows that psych evals for private gun ownership do not conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

But I will hold my breath on that one.

 

[Rolyo85]

Not according to the law, or the courts. Cling to your fantasy if you will, but it doesn't change things.

Calling a dog a horse doesn't make it a horse. Just because an obsolete law calls you militia doesn't make you one.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

Calling a dog a horse doesn't make it a horse. Just because an obsolete law calls you militia doesn't make you one.

Well and there's another thing too, and it's the reason why, I believe, Kul did not respond to the point raised to him about the framers of the Constitution enshrining into law human bondage. It makes you grapple with two truths that I think are uncomfortable for purists like Kulindahr:

1) The founding fathers were not right on everything, they were not infallible, and they did not give us a perfect or completely just system worthy of defending verbatim without change according to original intent in the 18th century for all the rest of time.

2) That not everything as originally intended in the 18th century framing was, or is, appropriate to apply to modern times or modern sensibilities or to our sense of inclusive democracy or social justice as it IMPROVED over time from the one they had at the time of the founding of this country-- including, but not limited to, the issue of slavery.

Kul would set the goalposts so that no change could ever contradict the intended meaning of the framers at the time the Constitution was written. Unfortunately, under that same ruleset, women would not be voting today, nor would non-landowners, and blacks would be human property.

 

[Rolyo85]

Well and there's another thing too, and it's the reason why, I believe, Kul did not respond to the point raised to him about the framers of the Constitution enshrining into law human bondage. It makes you grapple with two truths that I think are uncomfortable for purists like Kulindahr:

1) The founding fathers were not right on everything, they were not infallible, and they did not give us a perfect or completely just system worthy of defending verbatim without change according to original intent in the 18th century for all the rest of time.

2) That not everything as originally intended in the 18th century framing was, or is, appropriate to apply to modern times or modern sensibilities or to our sense of inclusive democracy or social justice as it IMPROVED over time from the one they had at the time of the founding of this country-- including, but not limited to, the issue of slavery.

Kul would set the goalposts so that no change could ever contradict the intended meaning of the framers at the time the Constitution was written. Unfortunately, under that same ruleset, women would not be voting today, nor would non-landowners, and blacks would be human property.

That bears repeating. It is the EXACT same situation as "well, Christianity has evolved in its understanding of the Bible when it comes to slavery and owning your wife but gays are gross and we hate them BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!" (Yes, I know that's not exact, I'm making a point.)

 

[rareboy]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

As usual, the US is already moving on from this shooting and is blaming anything other than guns. By next week, because these were all 'civilians' the debate will be strangled again as everyone blames video games and the unsolvable mental health care system for this latest tragedy. Hell, some of that has chewed up most of this thread and I suspect that we won't even see page four and if we do, it will be the same sterile debate about the 2nd Amendment versus the preservation of a civil society.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

As usual, the US is already moving on from this shooting and is blaming anything other than guns. By next week, because these were all 'civilians' the debate will be strangled again as everyone blames video games and the unsolvable mental health care system for this latest tragedy. Hell, some of that has chewed up most of this thread and I suspect that we won't even see page four and if we do, it will be the same sterile debate about the 2nd Amendment versus the preservation of a civil society.

It is an irony for sure that the 2nd Amendment fanatics who rest their argument on a watchful and responsible citizenry are safe in the status quo they wish to keep only because of an attention-deprived, apathetic citizenry.

 

[palbert]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

As usual, the US is already moving on from this shooting and is blaming anything other than guns. By next week, because these were all 'civilians' the debate will be strangled again as everyone blames video games and the unsolvable mental health care system for this latest tragedy. Hell, some of that has chewed up most of this thread and I suspect that we won't even see page four and if we do, it will be the same sterile debate about the 2nd Amendment versus the preservation of a civil society.

Could it be we've got newer mass shootings?

 

[rareboy]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

^ This is so depressing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

Since we could agree that no well regulated militia would want mentally unstable people in it, we can agree that it follows that psych evals for private gun ownership do not conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

But I will hold my breath on that one.

If the evals were paid for by the government, that's an arguable case. But "conservatives" won't want to pay the cost to have the militia thus evaluated, even though it would help -- to use the Amendment's language -- the security of a free state.

I'd have such evals as part of a standard program beginning about age twelve -- along with training on how to treat firearms safely (for twelve year olds that's easy: unless under the direct supervision of a responsible adult, leave them alone).

And in the meantime, any time a public institution like a college notes that someone is too dangerous to have on campus, that data should be in the NICS!

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Breaking News: Shooting At U.S. Navy Yard In Washington, D.C.

Calling a dog a horse doesn't make it a horse. Just because an obsolete law calls you militia doesn't make you one.

Actually it does. Being a member of the militia is what makes a person eligible to be called up for the military. If screening were done as a normal part of life, it would save lots of trouble if Congress ever decides we nee a draft again -- the services could look at the evals and training scores, and know who not to bother calling.