Color me unsurprised: Gun controllers want a blacklist

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/02/13/why_privacy_shouldnt_trump_public_safety/

...The truth is, colleges aren’t ivory towers, and student-age gun owners tend to be more dangerous, not less, than the general public. “Their brains are still developing, and they don’t have the same impulse or judgment control as adults,” says Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “So there’s a much greater danger when young people get access to firearms.” Harvard researchers have also found that student gun owners are less law-abiding than their peers and more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as binge drinking....

....For whatever reason -- privacy rules, a lack of explicit threats -- Pima apparently did not then communicate its concerns to outside authorities. So when Loughner sought to buy a gun two months after the suspension, his background check turned up clean. Something is wrong when a man is judged too dangerous to remain in school, but not too dangerous to own a gun.

Those concerned about such security gaps must push for national legislation that lays the groundwork for greater collaboration between our universities and federal and state authorities. We need a revitalized Brady Act, one that targets young Americans and encourages universities and high schools to always share information about troubled students....

[rl6214]

1. I took my 21yo son with me when I got my concealed carry

I scored 99% on the written part, 249out of 250 on the shooting portion. He scored a 99% as well and 247/250 on the shooting. This was 2 years ago. He graduated from the US Naval Academy last year with an engineering degree is temporarily assigned to the Naval Academy and will be an officer on a destroyer when he is completed with his assignment at the academy. I think his brain is formed quite nicely.

[sharesunited]

2. I don't think your side can have it both ways. If people sign a petition to ban you, you're banned.

The problem is mustering up the courage to sign the petition.

Because until the kook is disarmed he can start killing anyone who signs.

Until he kills everyone.

[PavePusher]

3. "If people sign a petition to ban you, you're banned."

Heh. Hee-heeeee.... hah! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa....... whew.

Yer killin' me, Smalls...

[sharesunited]

4. Look at the Lochner case in the OP.

Who among all those concerned citizens was going to commence an involuntary commitment proceeding against him?

You tell me how an armed paranoic should be handled BEFORE his mass slaughter gun crime is an historical fact.

[Callisto32]

23. Wait, why didn't they just call the all-powerful "authorities?"

They can handle everything, for us, right? Isn't that exactly why we DON'T need the tools to be self-sufficient?

[petronius]

5. What are you trying to say - that people are afraid to advocate anti-gun laws

because gun rights supporters might shoot them? Is that actually a problem in your world? :shrug:

[sharesunited]

6. Hypothetical. If a law you thought was draconian was passed, and they came to your door

for your guns...

Would you start shooting?

If your answer is anything other than no you would quietly tender your weapons, then you might begin to understand my perspective in advocating an anti-gun position as safely as possible.

[petronius]

7. What does your hypothetical have to do with the OP or petitions?

Frankly, I don't understand either of your posts - it sounds as though you're saying you feel compelled to advocate the strictest possible anti-gun laws because you fear that gun rights supporters will shoot any anti-gun person at the drop of a hat. If that's the case, I think you need to step back and read the pro-RKBA posts around here a little more carefully...

[sharesunited]

8. Those posts of theirs are phrased in the most principled way possible,

by people whom I must assume, from their strong declaration of principle, would shoot at anyone coming to confiscate their guns.

So someone who says I Want To Confiscate Your Guns should obviously be at least somewhat fearful. Or no?

How LESS strict does one need to be in how they advocate against guns and ammo in order for them to feel as safe as you argue they should feel regarding a threat from a principled gun owner?

A principled gun owner who thought they were losing the argument, and for keeps, might behave quite desperately.

[petronius]

11. If that's truly how you feel I suggest you stop making assumptions - you aren't very good at it

Bottom line, I see no evidence to believe that you can't advocate whatever you please without fear of anything other than disagreement and mockery. But, if you and your handful of compatriots around here want to believe that you are courageously risking martyrdom to speak up for the fear-silenced ranks behind you, that's your business. (That last bit was the mockery; I did warn you it was coming...)

[sharesunited]

12. Then I'ma git you sucka.

[petronius]

15. I ain't askeered a you

I'm sleeping in a concrete bunker with a plasma rifle under my pillow and a pack of rabid attack-weasels at my feet. So bring it, grabby...

[one-eyed fat man]

26. So making your position clear

You are perfectly in favor of confiscating guns as long as you can hire it done? Isn't it rather cowardly that you have no principles worth fighting for?

Did you just assiduously avoid military service?

[rrneck]

33. It depends on your motivations

and whether or not I trust you.

[guitar man]

35. I wouldn't necessarily shoot them

depending on the circumstances, I may hide them like the Australians did when their big gun grab occurred.

And I certainly wouldn't shoot unarmed people coming to confiscate them. I'm sure in the scenario you would propose you could never support armed people coming to take our guns away since you have repeatedly chastised the "guns as a solution to guns" position. ;)

[RSillsbee]

18. Having actually served in the military

I'd like to see the bureaucracy that can't manage hot chow in the field, on post, during peace time, pull off a nation wide gun grab w/ out starting a war.

You do recall the reason the militia was mustered at Lexington green right?

[Callisto32]

24. Lulz.

This is great. It's like when you point out to "conservatives" that they believe that the government is so big, bungling, non-responsive, stupid, poorly managed, and generally incompetent that it can only be trusted with the MOST VERY IMPORTANT THINGS.

[one-eyed fat man]

27. I see the blame differently

"...the bureaucracy that can't manage hot chow in the field, on post, during peace time..."

I'd be having a "YFG meeting" with your platoon sergeant and the mess sergeant. The First Sergeant should have had that handled as a matter of course. "Beans and bullets" and making sure the troops have plenty of both is one the First Sergeant's main responsibilities. It's always been, "Take care of the horses; take care of the men; take care of yourself."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. I suppose we can cure rape by lacing the water with saltpeter n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

44. My good guns would be well hidden. I would turn over some junk guns. N/T

[RSillsbee]

46. Isn't that the whole reason people buy Llama firearms? NT

[right2bfree]

54. Talk about Paranoia !!!! nt

[S_B_Jackson]

47. Certainly not......

I'd advise them that I had experienced a tragic accident when a friend's boat capcized a month previously in the middle of Galveston Bay. Sadly, all of my firearms would have been lost, except for my cheap F.E.G. that I would dutifully hand over, along with a copy of the Coast Guard incident report of the accident of course.

[krispos42]

50. Or, you could just let sleeping dogs lie

Let's face it, you're not expanding civil rights when you advocate this kind of stuff. You're actively saying "you have a civil right that you shouldn't have. The right you have I aim to eliminate as quickly and as completely as possible if I can get the politicians and the (gun-toting) law enforcers to obey my will".

[sharesunited]

52. What kind of civil right do you call that? One which empowers you to put bullets in someone's hide?

And based solely upon your determination that bullets should GO in their hide?

That's not civilization.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. What do you call self-defense?

Corner any creature and see if it doesn't fight? Do you think that we should not offer any resistance to predation? Do you think that the weak and helpless should just quietly suffer the disparity of force? Little old ladies confronted by teen-aged thugs should just give up their pension and hope the beating will not be life threatening?

Why do you insist that civilization somehow requires that criminals be accommodated and that they should not be subject to being shot by those who prefer not be to victimized?

If you were physically attacked on the street and unable to outrun your assailants would you just resign yourself to whatever fate they decided to mete out? If it became clear they intended to kill you, what level of resistance is appropriate if any?

[krispos42]

55. The right that empowers me to put bullets in someone's hide is the right of self-defense

against death or serious injury. Same right that empowers me to stab with a spear, slash with a machete, or bash with a baseball bat. And no, that right is not based solely on the determination by me, either. At some point, probably very shortly after I exercise that right to self-defense, I will be defending the exercise of that right to my lawyer, the police, the district/state's attorney, and, possibly, a jury of my peers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. That post was incoherent, even for you

[sharesunited]

10. I'm satisfied with it. You may disagree with it, but calling it incoherent is just mudslinging.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Sorry, but it just does not parse

[sharesunited]

14. Parse my arse. Real professors have highly developed reading comprehension skills.

But some do actively filter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. We do. We also tend to call out people when they write nonsense

[slackmaster]

16. That's called mob justice or vigilantism

[Callisto32]

25. Very small rocks?

[oneshooter]

48. I like your sig. n/t

[Callisto32]

49. Thanks.

A compliment on the post I wrote this in inspired me to make it my signature. I guess a compliment on it as a signature means I should keep it around for a while.

[jody]

20. Name, address, SSN of each person signing that petition should be published in the Federal Register.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. What about DUE PROCESS OF LAW?

Do you want to have a Constitutional right revoked simply by the testimony of people around you?

What about due process of law?

[kudzu22]

34. +1!

Due process -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

[MicaelS]

30. So if we get enough people to ban you from DU...

Then you're tombstoned? :headbang:

[Bold Lib]

37. I don't think a petition would constitute Due Process of Law. . .

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law

[cleanhippie]

41. Does the same work in reverse?

[old mark]

17. Bullshit. Loughner was not "judged" to be dangerous...his former college suspended him...

which carries NO legal connotation at all and they "for some reason" falied to notify the police of this...because he did nothing illegal or at least nothing remarkable enough to cause his actions to be recorded on some legal database...A person must be judged by a JUDGE and in a court even to remain in a mental institution against hie or her will, and even then this must be repeated every 6 months or the person must be discharged. This is not a situation where some school administrator can just call up the cops and tell them what to do...it is a protected right of US citizens under the Constitution.

If I don't like what some anti is saying here, I can't call the cops and have them arrested or have them thrown out of the internet...even those assholes have a right to freedom of speech and opinion.

A right is a right, even if you don't like it...those supporting this list are exactly the same as those who want to end a woman's right to choose or a minority person's right to vote...there is NO difference.


mark

[Euromutt]

28. As has been noted before in this forum, AZ state law goes further than most

The article in question was this one http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/arizonas_mental_health_law_mig.php in which the author points out that Arizona is one of the few states in which Loughner's behavior at Pima CC would have been sufficient for the college authorities to request Loughner be subjected to an involuntary psychiatric evaluation, which in turn could have led to the evaluating psychiatrist requesting a court hearing (in which the patient would have legal representation) concerning whether the patient should be subjected to involuntary treatment (so due process would, as far as I can tell, be observed).

But that particular ball appears to either not have picked up, or dropped somewhere along the way (the Arizona mental health system isn't very well funded).

[old mark]

45. ...but evidently the school did not do that. It is pretty hard to have someone

involuntarily committed...the person must have a real diagnosable illness, and not just be "quirky"...and also must present a danger to self or others.

I don't know if he would meet the criteria even now...he is certainly dangerous...but was his terrible act in response to some internal stimulus or did he do it because he wanted to be famous or he just felt like it...If he is a sociopath, he is not really treatable-he should go to prison rather than an institution where there is always a possibility of release in the future.

When I worked in a state mental hospital, I worked with several persons tried for murder and then institutionalized because they were found not guilty by reason of insanity...but that it very rare and they would likely be sent to prison these days.


mark

[Tejas]

21. 20-21yr old Fascist copying/pasting Brady for a book report = yawn...

[Callisto32]

22. As a person with training in political science, and a L/libertarian...

It has always amazed me how much we focus on "left/right" in American politics. A much more useful categorization seems to be "authoritarian/libertarian."

Authoritarians want blacklists and bans. The only difference between a left authoritarian and a right authoritarian is what they want to control/ban/blacklist.

It's all bullshit. Authoritarianism is immoral and a terrible use of resources no matter the other associated "philosophy."

[MicaelS]

32. The only real difference between right and left authoritarians..

Is the former wants to ban something to save someone's soul, and the latter wants to ban something to save someone's life.

As the evil Union Redleg Officer said in "the Outlaw Josey Wales", "Doin good ain't got no end."

[spin]

36. +1000 (n/t)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. yes. well said.

very.well.said.

[Callisto32]

43. Thanks.

I have decided to make it my sig line.

[guitar man]

39. exactly

And I couldn't agree more, I'm also a left-libertarian/progressive and I balk at authoritarianism every time.

What never ceases to amaze me is how adamant some of the anti's are about the threat of an armed citizenry but have no qualms about pointing guns at others by proxy, ie, "only the government/police/feds/military should have guns."

I know there are a lot of well meaning albeit naive people advocating gun control, they think they are going to make the world a better place and bless them for wanting that, but I have no illusions about what their handlers want. Power, control, authority over the lives of individuals.

[slackmaster]

40. A left jack-boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack-boot up your ass

According to a Chinese man with whom I used to work.

[guitar man]

42. a wise man indeed nt

[Glassunion]

51. Who's Jack and why does he want to put his boots in my ass?

[AzNick]

56. I am for a law abiding citizen card

Just like CCW cards can be used to purchase a firearm without an FBI check and to carry concealed, I believe a "law abiding citizen" card should be granted by request to those who committed no felony, have no R.O. or were not discharged dishonorably.

This card would also allow you to buy certain types of ammunition, high capacity magazines (ok: go define high capacity) and suppressors.