Mental Disorders and the Second Amendment - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Mental Disorders and the Second Amendment

  1. #21
    Distinguished Member racer88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    8,568
    Quote Originally Posted by OHEng View Post
    Those aren't straw men, a straw man is a false argument erected for easy knock down and those clearly aren't that. .
    Ummm.... you need to look up the definition.

    Reductio ad absurdum is just an extreme straw man. But, they are effectively the same... exaggerating your opponent's argument to make it arguably false or untenable.

    Make YOUR point without resorting to logical fallacies (which you just admitted to doing), and I'll listen. Until then, I'll just make fun of you.
    Last edited by racer88; 08-09-2019 at 01:31 PM.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Life Member

    "Dances with guns."

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Florida panhandle
    Posts
    2
    Any provision related to gun ownership and mental health that goes beyond what currently exists will be abused. To think otherwise is to trust politicians, legislators and the various legal administrators including law enforcement in general. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes into play.

    Additionally, trusting an entity as subjective and umbilical-cord connected to government as the psychiatric industry, the author of standards and evaluations, raises questions about the mental health of that very trusting person.

    On the surface it all sounds good. Nobody wants mentally ill individuals to possess or use guns. But the more dangerous thing about the mental health card being ramped up to in order to get these mass shootings under control is the use of the psyche industry and its moronic tool of subjectivity applied to the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

    A "new and robust" mental health evaluation related with gun purchase and ownership won't stop there. History knows it. Next, a federally-mandated mental health evaluation will be required to simply exist in the U.S..

    Your federally-mandated mental health evaluation will depend more largely upon what you say - or have said, easily obtained through social media posts. Provisions will undoubtedly be made for neighbors, co-workers and relatives to chime in with juicy gossip as to their opinion of you - and your mental stability. Your political and religious views will not go unnoticed during the evaluation. Would a "Sermon on the Mount" Jesus pass a mental health evaluation? or a locust and honey-eating John-the-Baptist pass the test? or a prophetic Elijah?? The psychiatric community is not exactly appreciative of fundamental Christianity in case you haven't noticed.

    It has all the potential of an old Soviet Union State where the KGB weeds out dissenters and free-thinkers who resist government and or complain about the status quo.
    Last edited by GlennDis; 08-09-2019 at 02:37 PM.

  3. #23
    Distinguished Member racer88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    8,568
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennDis View Post
    Any provision related to gun ownership and mental health that goes beyond what currently exists will be abused. To think otherwise is to trust politicians, legislators and the various legal administrators including law enforcement in general. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes into play.
    Additionally, trusting an entity as subjective and umbilical-cord connected to government as the psychiatric industry (the author of standards and evaluations), raises questions about the mental health of that very trusting person.
    On the surface it all sounds good. Nobody wants mentally ill individuals to possess or use guns. But the more dangerous thing about the mental health card being ramped up to in order to get these mass shootings under control is the use of the psyche industry and its moronic tool of subjectivity applied to the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
    Yup! Good 2nd post!
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Life Member

    "Dances with guns."

  4. Remove Advertisements
    FloridaConcealedCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24
    Senior Member Coops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Flagler County
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_1950 View Post
    I think we try to justify not seeing a problem with ..... the dreaded words ...gun violence. Call it any thing..or object to calling it certain things, but people shooting and killing innocent people by the dozens is certainly not within the allowable ..."rights" of any human being. As gun owners we get angry when people want to include all gun owners as the problem, but we do not accept the fact some gun owners are the problem. We yell and scream "it is not the gun, it is the person"...well think about that. You can not have it both ways that without recognition of the truth that it is a person and not the gun, so those murdering individuals should not have a gun. Most in here do not accept abortion as being acceptable...killing an innocent baby on some sterile table or a bullet ..neither is allowable and we should do everything we can to stop both procedures. I own and carry a gun to help protect my grandkids, so why would I want to allow someone that wants to kill my grandkids to be carrying a gun? Really, repeat that and let it sink in and you will maybe have second thoughts about not coming to terms with something has to be done to stop mentally ill people from owning guns.
    Murder is already against the law. You have a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to kill a dozen people or even one.
    I have good reasons for having a gun but nobody else should have one? That seems to be what you (and all of Hollywood) are saying.

    We live in a society with 330,000,000 other people. Some are going to be insane. In fact, one half thinks the other half is insane. If you can identify them, make sure they are not being railroaded and give them representation, and subsequently find that they are mentally unfit to have rights then by all means take their guns. But ask yourself, is that going to stop them from doing harm? What about knives, bombs, vehicles, poisons, and yes, even guns that they are not supposed to have.

    I look at it like this. We have a legal system that presumes innocence and bends over backwards to make sure innocent people are not found guilty even it that means a few guilty ones go free. Tolerating criminals and insane people in a free society is a price to pay for being free. Don't fool yourself that because you have a gun that means no harm can come to you or your grandkids or that some insane person who is not supposed to have a gun cannot do some insane stuff.

    Gun violence is NOT A PROBLEM. Murder is not even in the top ten causes of death according to the CDC. It is responsible for 0.5% of deaths. In fact, murder in the US is at 5 per 100,000 and is clustered at the lowest rate in the Western Hemisphere (save Canada). It's even lower if you take out Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore. Mexico has a problem at 25 per 100,000. And guns are banned in Venezuela and they lose 56 per 100,000.
    If you want to protect your family from murder, moving to Canada is far more effective than banning the mentally ill from having a gun.

  6. #25
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Ocala
    Posts
    2,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Coops View Post
    Murder is already against the law. You have a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to kill a dozen people or even one.
    I have good reasons for having a gun but nobody else should have one? That seems to be what you (and all of Hollywood) are saying.

    We live in a society with 330,000,000 other people. Some are going to be insane. In fact, one half thinks the other half is insane. If you can identify them, make sure they are not being railroaded and give them representation, and subsequently find that they are mentally unfit to have rights then by all means take their guns. But ask yourself, is that going to stop them from doing harm? What about knives, bombs, vehicles, poisons, and yes, even guns that they are not supposed to have.

    I look at it like this. We have a legal system that presumes innocence and bends over backwards to make sure innocent people are not found guilty even it that means a few guilty ones go free. Tolerating criminals and insane people in a free society is a price to pay for being free. Don't fool yourself that because you have a gun that means no harm can come to you or your grandkids or that some insane person who is not supposed to have a gun cannot do some insane stuff.

    Gun violence is NOT A PROBLEM. Murder is not even in the top ten causes of death according to the CDC. It is responsible for 0.5% of deaths. In fact, murder in the US is at 5 per 100,000 and is clustered at the lowest rate in the Western Hemisphere (save Canada). It's even lower if you take out Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore. Mexico has a problem at 25 per 100,000. And guns are banned in Venezuela and they lose 56 per 100,000.
    If you want to protect your family from murder, moving to Canada is far more effective than banning the mentally ill from having a gun.
    Well said!
    "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt

  7. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennDis View Post
    ...
    A "new and robust" mental health evaluation related with gun purchase and ownership won't stop there. History knows it. Next, a federally-mandated mental health evaluation will be required to simply exist in the U.S...
    Perfect !!
    Because that would mean our politicians (who exist in the US) would have to pass a federally-mandated mental health evaluation.

    Sure would solve a lot of problems.

  8. #27
    Super Moderator
    BeerHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    PBC
    Posts
    23,798
    Quote Originally Posted by racer88 View Post
    Ummm.... you need to look up the definition.

    Reductio ad absurdum is just an extreme straw man. But, they are effectively the same... exaggerating your opponent's argument to make it arguably false or untenable.

    Make YOUR point without resorting to logical fallacies (which you just admitted to doing), and I'll listen. Until then, I'll just make fun of you.
    -BH

    Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, GOA, NRA Endowment Life
    FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-S-PPITH
    Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-Present
    Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org

    “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

    "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are commuting violence on their behalf."
    -- George Orwell


    "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
    -- Herbert Spencer

Sposors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •