board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Northern Illinois University Shootings

Post Reply   Page 3 of 3  [ 54 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3
Author Message
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 1:09 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
There are certain medical conditions (both physical and mental) that can get you stamped as unfit to operate a motor vehicle; seems like the same process could be applied to firearms. But: With cars the logic is that the government owns the roads, so the government has the right to say who drives on them.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 1:30 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
With people, the logic is that they elect a government to govern them, so the government gets to pick who gets guns.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 1:52 pm
 
 
There's actually a very easy answer to the questions posed. Hospitals would be required to notify a central medical database in their state with certain information. When a person submits a background check for a firearm the ATF&E (Alcohol, tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) will contact this database and request if this person can be permitted to purchase a firearm. The database simply provides a yes or no answer. No exchange of medical information.

Now, if a person feels that this is incorrect they can appeal this decision and contact the ATF&E. If applicant so chooses he/she can provide medical information to prove that they are fit to own a firearm.

With that being said, I think it needs to be handled very carefully. Simply because someone is now on medication they are not fit. I can give you close to 100 names of people that we deal with on a consistent basis because they stop taking their meds. They'll be fine for a year or two then we are dealing with them again.

This is similar to alcoholics, who are not permitted to buy a firearm if adjudicated as one. I am sorry it should be VERY difficult for someone who has been found mentally unstable to purchase a firearm. It's just not safe because so many people with mental issues get them under control and then slip because they stop taking their meds or the meds become ineffective.

freddy


Top
Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 3:19 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Alatar wrote:
With people, the logic is that they elect a government to govern them, so the government gets to pick who gets guns.

This isn't entirely related to this discussion, I'm just curious about something and this is a convenient subject to use, So if you'll humor me, do you mind answering this hypothetical question:

Let's say that our Bill of Right's 2nd Amendment was blatantly clear on it's intention, that it very clearly said "The federal government shall not infringe on any [hu]man's right to bear any arms." Or something like that. Something in our Constitution that straight up says The People can have guns. Do you think that your view of the logic of this situation would still apply the same?

(This is not at all intended as a baiting, pro- or anti- anything question. As I said, I just curious about something.)


Top
Profile Quote
Pippin4242
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 3:34 pm
Hasta la victoria, siempre
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Outer Heaven
 
Well, and I know you were addressing Alatar, but this is interesting... I don't think Americans exactly voted on the Bill of Rights, but they do vote for their government. There's a difference there, but I don't know exactly what that means in terms of your question. Hmmm. :scratch:

*~Pips~*

_________________

Avatar is a male me, drawn by a very close friend. Just don't ask why.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 3:40 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Personally I'd be looking for a vote to change the constitution in that case. Frankly, I think you should anyway. Its an outmoded, outdated statement being used to support an argument it was never intended to support.

Sometimes the Constitution is just plain wrong and needs to be fixed. Thats why you have amendments.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 3:48 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Sure, but with the scenario that that hypothetical amendment is in place (and given how hard our Constitution is to change, likely would be for some time), would you still say "so the government gets to pick who gets guns"? Would you think differently about the issues being discussed, like licensing and such?


Top
Profile Quote
Pippin4242
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 4:08 pm
Hasta la victoria, siempre
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Outer Heaven
 
In that case it's more important that the elected government intervenes than before. Because if the constitution said loud and clear that guns were okay for everyone, then that would just be foolhardy.

_________________

Avatar is a male me, drawn by a very close friend. Just don't ask why.


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 4:14 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
Alatar wrote:
Sometimes the Constitution is just plain wrong and needs to be fixed. Thats why you have amendments.
Except that modern politicians find it more convenient to ignore rather than amend.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 5:23 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Alatar wrote:
With people, the logic is that they elect a government to govern them, so the government gets to pick who gets guns.
But taken to its logical conclusion, that implies that anything a legitimately elected government does is ok.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 7:44 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Dave_LF wrote:
Alatar wrote:
With people, the logic is that they elect a government to govern them, so the government gets to pick who gets guns.
But taken to its logical conclusion, that implies that anything a legitimately elected government does is ok.
I often ask the question of "do you have a limit" to statements such as that, but seldom get an answer.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 7:45 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
halplm wrote:
The key thing here is... what mental illness results in a loss of the rights the rest of us have?

criminal behavior results in a loss of rights. Does mental illness? What mental illness?

I'll concede that some mental illnesses make you dangerous, but where is the line drawn? And if we all believe that medication can solve said mental illnesses? When do you regain the rights you lose from that mental illness?

this is not an easy question, especially as mental illnesses are so poorly understood.
In more despotic countries, disagreeing with the party line is considered a mental illness.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 9:07 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Ever heard of Oppositional Defiant Disorder? It sounds like a joke, but it's an actual defined mental illness that amounts to "doesn't do what he's told".
Quote:
-Deliberately annoying people
-Blaming others for own mistakes
-Easily annoyed
-Angry and resentful
-Spiteful or even vengeful
Little did we know that _every teenager in the world_ is mentally ill!


Top
Profile Quote
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 21 Feb , 2008 11:28 pm
I took the stars from my eyes, and then I made a map, And knew that somehow I could find my way back; Then I heard your heart beating, you were in the darkness too - So I stayed in the darkness with you
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 7067
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:44 pm
Location: On my tush!
 
I have two brothers so thought that behavior was normal clearly they both have mental disorders :D.

_________________

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 3  [ 54 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3
Jump to: