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

[Jack Springer]

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

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/not-diagnosis-voices-head-more-common-thought-4B11186594

I have a lot of trouble with this. Hearing voices? Something is very obviously wrong. "Voices" seem to not tell one to garden.

It's all about being politically and socially 'correct'.

 

[rareboy]

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

Sorry, I was wrong, he did purchase a shotgun as recently as Saturday ... but not sure he had it with him.

Remember to keep looking over your shoulder as you are pedalling backwards.

 

[Jack Springer]

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

Remember to keep looking over your shoulder as you are pedalling backwards.

At least I'm honest and admit when I'm wrong. Something you don't do.

 

[Rolyo85]

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

Which is why a new Militia Act should provide for mental health resources for everyone, any time.

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

 

[Rolyo85]

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

The question is whether anyone carrying a firearm around, or with access to do so, should even have the choice to avoid getting care.

Keeping and bearing arms is a right, but it is also, in terms of being a member of the militia, a responsibility. Those choosing to carry must have the conviction of their choice, and that includes being sure that they are actually competent to participate in providing for the security of a free state. Those not competent should be eager to be denied access to arms, knowing that for them, such access is a detriment to the security of a free state.

We need to begin thinking about this altogether differently, not in terms of politics as usual, but in the terms the FFs and Framers thought in, that citizenship includes responsibility. We have to begin at the point of membership in the militia, and the solemn duty involved there. Wayne La Pierre loves to cry about rights, but he rarely ever utters a single word about responsibility -- but the two cannot be separated. Someone exercising the right to keep and bear arms by carrying in public must also acknowledge and accept the responsibility of having volunteered to participate in providing for the security of a free state, and that means accepting proper discipline.

Just like buzzer said. Willing to stomp on every right to keep the ONE that you're obsessed with. Let me repeat it, cause you clearly haven't gotten the memo: THERE. IS. NO. MILITIA. THERE. HASN'T. BEEN. ONE. FOR. CENTURIES.

 

[palbert]

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

The question is whether anyone carrying a firearm around, or with access to do so, should even have the choice to avoid getting care.

Keeping and bearing arms is a right, but it is also, in terms of being a member of the militia, a responsibility. Those choosing to carry must have the conviction of their choice, and that includes being sure that they are actually competent to participate in providing for the security of a free state. Those not competent should be eager to be denied access to arms, knowing that for them, such access is a detriment to the security of a free state.

We need to begin thinking about this altogether differently, not in terms of politics as usual, but in the terms the FFs and Framers thought in, that citizenship includes responsibility. We have to begin at the point of membership in the militia, and the solemn duty involved there. Wayne La Pierre loves to cry about rights, but he rarely ever utters a single word about responsibility -- but the two cannot be separated. Someone exercising the right to keep and bear arms by carrying in public must also acknowledge and accept the responsibility of having volunteered to participate in providing for the security of a free state, and that means accepting proper discipline.

I am reminded of Professor Pangloss and Candide:

1) Pangloss teaches that everything is for the best and that man lives in the "best of all possible worlds."
2) When Pangloss explains that Cunegonde has been killed, Candide passes out. Upon awakening, he muses, "Ah, best of worlds, what's become of you now?

http://www.novelguide.com/candide/toptenquotes

 

[xbuzzerx]

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

The question is whether anyone carrying a firearm around, or with access to do so, should even have the choice to avoid getting care.

Keeping and bearing arms is a right, but it is also, in terms of being a member of the militia, a responsibility. Those choosing to carry must have the conviction of their choice, and that includes being sure that they are actually competent to participate in providing for the security of a free state. Those not competent should be eager to be denied access to arms, knowing that for them, such access is a detriment to the security of a free state.

We need to begin thinking about this altogether differently, not in terms of politics as usual, but in the terms the FFs and Framers thought in, that citizenship includes responsibility. We have to begin at the point of membership in the militia, and the solemn duty involved there. Wayne La Pierre loves to cry about rights, but he rarely ever utters a single word about responsibility -- but the two cannot be separated. Someone exercising the right to keep and bear arms by carrying in public must also acknowledge and accept the responsibility of having volunteered to participate in providing for the security of a free state, and that means accepting proper discipline.

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.

 

[opinterph]

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

… 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.

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]

 

[xbuzzerx]

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]

Yes, and it needs revisiting.

 

[opinterph]

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

Yes, and it needs revisiting.

Any substantive change would probably require an Amendment to the Constitution.

… The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. [LII]

 

[palbert]

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

Any substantive change would probably require an Amendment to the Constitution.

​

No doubt true, but subject to SCOTUS' finding of what constitutes "arms."

A strict constructionist might be in a bind here if the court finds that multi-shot weapons were not contemplated by the FF and thus do not constitute "arms."

The definition of "arms" could be revisited as SCOTUS finds.

 

[xbuzzerx]

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

No doubt true, but subject to SCOTUS' finding of what constitutes "arms."

A strict constructionist might be in a bind here if the court finds that multi-shot weapons were not contemplated by the FF and thus do not constitute "arms."

The definition of "arms" could be revisited as SCOTUS finds.

Indeed. I know the discussion was already touched upon here, months ago, that the founding fathers did not mean that individual citizens should keep cannons and similar as private home defense against the government weaponry. Under the interpretation that the pro-gun camp would have us accept, there is absolutely no reason that our right to have private live-armed tanks and combat helicopters and nuclear warheads should be restricted in any way, yet they are.

 

[chrisrobin]

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

.
Is it okay if I keep a shoulder-mounted SAM (surface to air missile)?

 

[xbuzzerx]

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

.
Is it okay if I keep a shoulder-mounted SAM (surface to air missile)?

The ironic thing is that while you're not allowed to have that, that's more in line of what you'd need in any realistic scenario of using your private weapons to fight government tyranny one day than a handgun.

 

[Jack Springer]

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.

 

[Rolyo85]

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

Yeah, no, that's not the tragedy. Spare us the sanctimonious bullshit please.

 

[xbuzzerx]

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.

That's because seeing a therapist yesterday, or a week ago, or a month ago, is not a guarantee that a severely disturbed person won't go on a rampage and murder 20 people.

They'd have a much harder time doing that if they didn't have easy access to firearms with high capacity ammo clips and semiautomatic firing rates.

Btw Jack there are NO cures for some mental disorders, and schizophrenia is one of them. So you can flap your lips till they're bloody about how this is a failure of mental healthcare but as long as you support and defend this being a country where guns are laying around in huge numbers with minimal regulations on acquiring them, there will be the combination of deranged people and guns capable of these kinds of rampages.

Btw severe mental disorder including schizophrenia are highly overrepresented in the homeless population. Isn't it interesting that so few of these mass public killing sprees are conducted by homeless people. Could it be because they don't have the ability to purchase guns, financially and otherwise? Hmm.

 

[palbert]

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.

First, I can think of 12 people and more families that might take exception to your casting of the precipitating cause of this tragedy.

Second, I have not seen that this miscreant fully disclosed to mental health professionals the scope and symptoms of his disorder. It is difficult to see how the profession failed him.

 

[opinterph]

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.

And the Fort Hood shooter was a psychiatrist himself.

 

[xbuzzerx]

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

First, I can think of 12 people and more families that might take exception to your casting of the precipitating cause of this tragedy.

Second, I have not seen that this miscreant fully disclosed to mental health professionals the scope and symptoms of his disorder. It is difficult to see how the profession failed him.

I very much get the impression that the gun camp is happy believing in magical-presto that if someone at any point encounters a mental health professional, the threat in society of high firepower weapons being everywhere and available on extremely minimal checks (with no comprehensive component for mental health) should somehow be magically taken care of. There are disorders that can't be treated. There are disorders that take months or years of treatment and medication and in any of that time someone might go off meds or have a very bad episode and go on a rampage (Virginia Tech). Simply saying mental healthcare failed the shooters and there is no gun problem in the U.S. is magical thinking at its finest.

I also suspect based on everything I've seen and heard argued that the gun camp would vehemently oppose a system like Israel's, where you need a formal psychiatric evaluation before you may purchase a firearm. I also suspect that for as much as we're repeatedly told that gun owners are a far superior breed to the everyday man, a great many of them would not pass such an evaluation in this country were it implemented.

Blaming mental healthcare if one wouldn't support what the gun lobby in this country would UNDOUBTEDLY label as an unconstitutional violation of privacy by requiring a mental health check prior to the purchase of any firearm is simply blame shifting, simple as that. Because they aren't interested in a real solution with any shot of actually reducing the problem, merely trying to get everyone to blame a problem that can't be solved (like poverty, mental illness or whatever else) and not blaming the one thing that could actually be worked on in any practical manner to prevent massive firepower + very disturbed, angry or disgruntled person from gunning down a crowd.