Also, it's not funny at all that "the public" ignores blatant violations of the constitution and people's individual liberties; it's sad. It shows that many people only pretend to care about the principles this country is supposed to aspire to, and in fact support or ignore policies that take us in the direction of a police state.
You failed to respond to a single one of my arguments.
Obviously you don't like this solution, but the fact that one person doesn't like it doesn't mean it's bad.
Given the fact that psychology produces far too much bad science, and the 'experts' would rely on it, yeah, it's bad. Oh, and homosexuality was once a mental illness. You're just setting yourself up for arbitrary rights violations, where 'experts' arbitrarily decide that you're not enough of a person to own a gun.
You'll find that I'm far from the only one who questions psychology's status as a science.
Supporting the cause of freedom to the point of giving guns to people who are not responsible enough to handle them safely is insane.
It's not doing so that is insane to me. You've offered zero workable solutions, and your only solution is so unworkable that it's hilarious. And I think that freedom is more important than your safety, so I'd never support it to begin with.
What is left behind is a document that is interpreted by the supreme court (as defined by the constitution itself).
You might want to refer to Thomas Jefferson's words: "The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal"
Don't put the Supreme Court on some holy pedestal and act as if they're absolutely right. I have a feeling that that's where this was going. They've been wrong many times, and I doubt even you would agree with all of their nonsensical decisions.
Stopping mentally incompetent people from harming themselves or others is not punishing a thoughtcrime.
When you punish them by preventing them from exercising their second amendment rights because they think in a certain way that you do not approve of, you are, in fact, advocating that we punish people for what is essentially thoughtcrime. It disgusts me.
It's not perfect but it is far better than the alternative.
It's not just "not perfect," it is a horrendous solution based on pseudoscience that will lead to the violation of people's constitutional rights, and it has zero constitutional basis.
What you are suggesting is liek saying our justice system is not perfect, therefore we should open up all the jails and allow every prisoner onto the streets.
Nope. That's your own delusion. The justice system is a necessity to some extent, but preventing people who you don't like from owning guns is not. I suggest punishing people who do use their guns to hurt others, not preemptively taking away their rights.
It is also obvious to me that the constitution does not (and never did) apply to the mentally incompetent
How is that clear to you? You're arbitrarily deciding that certain people don't have rights. Unless the constitution explicitly says as much, you are wrong.
Children, the mentally incompetent, animals and plants are not responsible for their actions.
The constitution often refers to "the people." It says nothing about the mentally incompetent. Nor does it say that people lose their rights when others such as you arbitrarily decide they're not responsible for their actions. It's just an irrelevancy.
Face it. You're just trying to take away the rights of people you don't like, because freedom isn't something you truly desire. You don't even give a shit about what the constitution says; you just want to modify it with invisible ink and then pretend it never applied to undesirables.
Again, if you would stop pretending that the constitution says a damn thing about "mentally incompetent" people not having 2nd amendment rights, and suggested that we amend the constitution, you wouldn't seem like such an idiot. But as it is, I see you as a traitor to the principles this country is supposed to aspire to. And yes, that means giving up most 'safety' for freedom.
The right not to be observed is not an inalienable right.
The right to not have your private communications spied on is a fundamental right. Furthermore, had the British used such technology against the founding fathers, they very likely would've explicitly forbade it in the constitution, much like they did with numerous other tactics that were used against them. This is a blatant violation of people's fundamental liberties, and the spirit of the constitution. Don't pretend it's anything else, authoritarian.
As I said, you're an idiot. You have no respect the principles that this country is supposed to aspire to, its constitution, or freedom. If you're going to downplay this hugely important issue, then I see no reason for you to pretend that you even care a bit.
In case you failed to notice, I actually did supply logical arguments to go along with my insult. There's absolutely nothing wrong with insulting your opponent. In fact, I'd say that it's you oversensitive princesses that are the problem.
It must be nice to be so idealistic.
Like "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is supposed to be? That's not an insult.
There's nothing immoral about it.
I think it's quite immoral to haphazardly spy on innocent people, wherever they may live.
No, I am saying that certain people can/should be determined not to be mentally competent, and therefore do not have the same rights as other people, due to the danger they pose to themselves and others. This has nothing to do with turning people into non-people, merely determining which people can be behave responsibly.
And you have failed to show a workable solution. You haven't even defined what constitutes as a "mentally ill" person. The current state of affairs is that it's trivial to be diagnosed with some mental illness because psychology as a field of science just doesn't produce quality research like other fields, and this will continue for some time. What do you suggest doing until then? How long will this take to get fixed, and how many people will suffer in the mean time? Or will you wait who knows how long before implementing your proposed solution?
By your definition of what constitutes support of the 2nd amendment, only a very small minority of Americans actually support the second amendment.
Correct. You'll find that I'm no fan of most people. We have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, the drug war, etc. Most people support at least one of those things.
It's not like we can ask them, but I'm pretty sure even the founding fathers that drafted the 2nd amendment wouldn't want mentally incompetent people with weapons.
It doesn't matter what you think they would have wanted. What matters is what they left behind.
1. That's not the *only* way you can determine that.
Do you have a credible method, or are you suggesting that we strip people of their rights for thoughtcrime?
2. Even having committed violent crimes before does not prove that someone will continue to commit violent crimes.
Yes. Agreed.
You think you can absolve yourself of denying people their 2nd amendment rights by detaining them against their will and simply saying "the owner of this building doesn't allow guns"? That's bullshit.
I think the constitution should be amended. That's another difference between you and me, apparently. I actually want to go through the correct processes to get this whole thing resolved, although I do not agree with taking rights away from "mentally ill" people. I also do not agree with unlimited punishment after one has served their time.
If a crazy person who has never committed a crime starts building a nuclear bomb, would you do anything to stop them? How could you? If they have never committed a crime, and since there is no way perfect way of determining someone is crazy, and the 2nd amendment is absolute in allowing people to obtain weapons of any kind. Would you just let them build the weapon?
Until the constitution is amended...
You're an idiot. This is a blatant violation of the highest law of the land, and our fundamental rights. They can use this information to harass anyone questions the status quo (like MLK, who was spied on) and find ways to destroy them. Yet, this obvious move towards a police state doesn't bother you. And don't say it does, because if it actually did, you wouldn't be trying so desperately to downplay the issue as if it's nothing.
The mass violation fundamental liberties and our constitution is one of the biggest problems of today.
That's a different problem (if it exists). The solution to this is to fix our system of determining mental competence and not simply assuming everyone is mentally competent to own a gun.
It's not a different problem, because these same terrible standards that our society uses to judge whether someone is "mentally competent" are going to be used for this.
Court systems are easily abused.
"too easily" There is also the question of if it's a necessary evil. Safety in this way is not at all necessary. Not even a little bit.
FYI, I'm opposed to anything the government can too easily abuse, or powers that it simply shouldn't have. Listing off other powers that could be abused isn't going to help you. If you managed to show me that a power that the government currently has is too easily abused or some other such thing, I would only agree with you. So don't waste your time. My position has absolutely nothing to do with anarchy, though I am an advocate of an absolutely minimal level of government interference. This is not such a case.
Most bullets miss people. That doesn't make it ok to shoot at people.
No, it doesn't, and that has to do with intent. If some *individual* decides to do that, then you may arrest them and handle that in court. But don't infringe upon an *entire group's* individual liberties simply because some of them are Bad Guys.
It's not punishment to deny gun possession to those that are not capable of bearing such a responsibility (e.g. children, mentally incompetent adults, and psychotic people).
You're literally turning them into unpeople and denying them basic rights that the constitution says they should have, and without even having a coherent definition of any of those things. The worst part is, you don't seem to be advocating for any sort of constitutional amendment. Unless you are, I'm even more opposed to what you're saying.
If you actually surveyed people in the "pro-gin crowd" whether they'd want guns in the hands of mentally incompetent people, I think you'll find that they generally don't.
Then guess which group they belong to? They certainly don't care about the 2nd amendment. Quit pretending to be a supporter of the second amendment.
Oh, some other thing I forgot to mention. In case it isn't clear, I believe that freedom is far more important than safety, so I'll never agree with your standpoint on forbidding "mentally incompetent" people from owning guns. I want to live in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," not a land where people mindlessly chant that phrase and then support policies that take us in the exact opposite direction. I'd rather risk letting 'undesirables' have guns than infringe upon their rights. Period.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're so scared of someone deciding to shoot people with guns (And really, the only real way you could determine if they're such a person is if they've done similar things before. Anything else is thoughtcrime.), they shouldn't be walking around freely to begin with, assuming they've committed crimes before. And if they are, they get the rights that normal citizens get.
Get real. It's a nasty world out there. If all that ever happens to you is someone eavesdrops on your private conversation count yourself lucky.
"X is worse than Y, so you should just stop criticizing Y. Worse things exist! Get over it, whiner!" Not a particularly logical response to a real problem that impacts people's fundamental liberties. Or any problem, really. I'm not going to count myself "lucky" when a real problem like this exists.
And besides, I'm not sure you want to downplay the significance of the government being able to selectively oppress anyone who angers them with their massive amount of information. A police state would love this, and people who pretend that the government is full of perfect angels only inch us farther and farther away from being "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
With all the injustices in the world someone spying on me ranks about number 18,038,047. There's too much really bad shit going on for ranting over this crap.
Right. So let's just drop everything and tackle world hunger.
We can tackle more than one problem at once. Furthermore, ignoring actual problems and letting scumbags get away with their injustices just makes you part of the problem.
You also keep overlooking the fact that *anyone* can be determined to be "mentally incompetent." Psychology produces mostly bad science, 'experts' can be paid off, 'experts' can be wrong, etc. Being a homosexual was once considered a mental illness, for instance. There are all kinds of problems with trying to restrict "mentally incompetent" people's rights, and none of it leads to a good result. It's just too easily abused, and I would never support such a thing.
And also, just like most gun owners won't murder people, most "mentally incompetent" people won't, either. If you support restricting them, you support collective punishment, which is absolutely intolerable. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from the anti-gun crowd.
Because children and the mentally incompetent share a lot of the same qualities, the most relevant to this conversation being the one where the constitution does not apply to them in the same way that it applies to mentally competent adults.
But it *does* apply.
Do you think free speech zones, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, etc. are constitutional? You think something is constitutional just because judges say so, or it's accepted by our society? That isn't how it works at all.
Or is it really every single US citizen's right from newborn to psychopath to own a nuclear weapon?
Look, if you proposed a constitutional amendment that said the government has the power to restrict ownership of WMDs, I'd be right behind you. Until then, knock this crap off.
You're mistaken. I am well aware that these scumbags think no one has any rights, and it's people like you who cheer them on. Innocent people in foreign countries also have inalienable rights, and shouldn't be spied on.
I don't give a fuck what the NSA's mission is, or how many countries conduct these immoral activities; it's immoral. The end.
There is no safeguard that will stop them from abusing the data if they have it. You can't possibly keep this government and all future governments under control.
Not to mention, just them collecting the data violates fundamental privacy rights and the constitution, so that alone is unacceptable. You should be worried.
I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.
