Poll: Mentally incompetent citizens have a right to arms.

Arms for the mentally incompetent?

  • Yup. The Constitution says ALL men. No choice.

    Votes: 29 24.4%

  • Nope. The Framers weren't being quite that rigid.

    Votes: 90 75.6%
  • Total voters
    119
In my opinion firearm laws need to be less restrictive for legal owners, but becoming eligible to become a legal owner should be more regulated. I think there should just be some competance testing that would be FREE to anyone who wants to apply and then get an owners card. A common sense test for anyone 18 or over, this means 18 year olds who pass the safety test can buy handguns from ffl dealers and also machine guns could be legal.

Morons, mentally ill, people who dont know gun safety, and general fools couldnt get access to firearms. To us firearms are enjoyable and are for protection, in the hands of a fool, and yes fools can get them in most states they are hazardous to the fool and to others. An example of a fool would be your average college guy joking around with a loaded gun in front of friends.... I witnessed this in person and made him put it away.

To buy ammo online you just type in your license card but again that would be free to get and would help out a lot with the liberals in my opinion, solve both problems and let us get our hands on the stuff we want, like full auto.

Something like this would help. Nothing unconstitutional and it's similiar to how they get it in Switzerland only in Switzerland the owners card is for 3 guns, this owners card would be for unlimited guns and no waiting periods. Anything appeasing these gun-hating liberals and also making it safer is a good idea dont you think?
 
Handy,
The 9th makes that impossible.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...
Thus any punishment would violate the 9th if we went with your interpretation.
 
agent provocateur

a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provacateur seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.
 
rangermonroe,

if you're looking for homogeneity of opinion, this board is bound to be a disappointment to you. There are plenty of places online that permit only one philosophy or opinion, but this is not one of them.

Someone with a different opinion, philosophy or debating style is not automatically an "agent provocateur".
 
Besides, an 'agent provocateur' tends to be alot more subtle. I respect anyone who has the cojones to voice an opinion he knows isn't going to be well received and sticks to his guns.
 
Goslash,

I must be slow on the pickup. How does the Ninth apply? We are talking about the denial of rights via law. The Ninth seems to be talking about the denial of rights do to a perceived conflict with OTHER rights. The Ninth is about preserving rights, not suggesting situations where they might be removed.

I may be missing the logic.




Rangermonroe, I've been posting here for many years. All 8000 some posts are available for your review. Why not do a little research?
 
Poll: mentally incompetent citizens

I voted no, but what worries me, is who makes the determination? If I do not agree with the philosophy of those in power, will I be considered mentally incompetent? What if my religious beliefs are not what is considered the norm? A pandora's box could be opened. That being said, I do not wish to have psychotic people having guns in their possession. Hey, they may not like my "good" looks!
 
Handy,
Handy said:
If you want to be a strict constructionalist a better presumption is that the "loss of liberty" allowed by that Amendment refers to any liberty that ISN'T a guaranteed right under the BoR.
Click to expand...

And I'm pointing out that the 9th says that there's no such thing as a "liberty that isn't a guaranteed right under the BoR". It may not be listed, but it still exists.

Point in fact I'm not a strict constructionist but rather an 'original intentist'. The Constitution is our nation's highest law and it means whatever they meant it to mean, *not* what we'd necessarily like it to mean or what we literally interpret it as according to our modern usage.
In the case of the 2nd, they clearly intended for the general population to be armed with military weapons. As this has not been amended, it still holds true and will continue to do so until it *is* amended.
 
Goslash,

That argument gets us nowhere. The Fifth only provides for the methodology of a loss of liberty. It still provides no reasoning about why it happens or which liberties or rights are to be denied. Your point only demonstrates that taking liberties may happen for enumerated rights and those not specified, but not which ones.

The Ninth actually provides a good argument against your reasoning. You're saying that the Fifth's mention of a loss of liberty is tantamount to an acceptance of that situation. But the Ninth is telling you that you that you are NOT to construe that the right to due process (or any other) denies or disgarages other rights.


I too fully believe that the Second Amendment is there to allow people to arm themselves against tyranny. But nothing about that right, in view of the way other rights are handled, is not subject to regulation, as long as those regulations are not judged to be "infringements".

You could call nearly anything an infringement on firearms ownership, if you wished. Sales tax, price increases from liability suits, insurance, background checks to determine who has lost their firearms liberties prior to sale and EPA regulations on gunmaking methods are all factors that negatively impact citizens' ability to arm themselves. The reasonable man question is: When does a limitation or requirement becomes an infringement or denial? At the slightest sticking point, or when it actually means they are not armed as they should be when they should be?


For instance: If you agree that there are people that have lost, through due process, the Second Amendment right, then there must be a method of determining who they are. And if that method is fair, fast and reasonably accurate how is it truly an infringement?
 
When the original writers of the constitution wrote "men" we know they did not mean to include women, slaves and children.

Why?

Do you think that any part of your answer is applicable to your question?
 
Hey John, how you been?


I don't believe that is correct. While women didn't have all the liberties of men at the time (like voting), they certainly retained all 10 BoR protections when it came to law, at least.

Slaves certainly didn't have rights - that would have been an even more ridiculous double standard than just having slaves in the first place. But free men and women, black or white, did have rights under law. They were at least consistant in that it was impossible to make a slave out of someone who wasn't already born one, and I believe the import of slaves had altogether ceased by that time.


Like many things, "man" appears to be an inclusive word, despite the fact of negative societal attitudes toward woman and minorities to this day. I don't think it is a conflict but really just a stylistic choice similar to that found in the King James Bible and other literature of gravitas.
 
The Fifth only provides for the methodology of a loss of liberty. It still provides no reasoning about why it happens or which liberties or rights are to be denied.
Click to expand...
The point of my whole argument is the methodology. I think the problem stems from the fact that the word "liberty" remains undefined.

The 5th says that "liberty" cannot be infringed without due process. Corrolary, it can be infringed with due process. It does not specify which liberties may or may not be infringed, but the ninth specifies that all liberties are constitutionally protected.

So where does that leave us? 3 choices: all rights may be revoked with due process, some rights may be revoked with due process, no rights may be revoked with due process.
The last choice is clearly out since it contradicts the 5th.
 
Actually, it only implies that some liberties can be revoked. As you point out, "liberty" is not defined. So it doesn't necessarily follow that a "liberty" is synonomous with a "right". Liberty is a broader term that encompasses both rights and priveledges.

The last choice is actually a possibility since it is rather hard to imagine a due process to remove an inalienable human right.


So it may be going too far to presume that a discussion of the removal of liberties implies a loss of rights at all. Especially rights that are grouped together with ones that are obviously aimed at those who have lost their liberties.


Again, which liberties might be in jeopardy is unknown. The Founder's might be horrified to know that we deprive those in prison of the freedom from warrantless search and seizure. It doesn't say.
 
Are all rights absolute?

Are there any circumstances that are so dangerous and so serious that individual liberties can be curtailed for the greater good by the courts? I think this is a thin line that requires careful examination, but is ultimately necessary.

With regard to guns, if a person commits a felony and is convicted, he loses his right to bear arms unless the court restores it. I think that this is reasonable. Just as it is important that the BG gets a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers as guaranteed by the constitution. But In the end, the BG has chosen to voluntarily give up his liberty and certain rights through his own actions. I think that this is perfectly acceptable.

If a person is an habitual user of controlled substances or is so mentally defective that he cannot discern right from wrong, reality from delusion and has demonstrated that he is a danger to himself, others or is gravely disabled, it is important to keep him and the rest of society safe. Lets say that the patient has schizophrenia and ASPD and has command auditory hallucinations that tell him to kill all redheaded people in the name of god. Do you think it is acceptable to let him have a weapon? What about someone who is a rapid cycling bi-polar and has decided to kill her family and herself to end the misery, is that person a good candidate for firearm ownership? What about the tweakers in the clan-lab down the street that think every car going by are the cops? Should they be allowed to carry guns? Of course not.

Though I am strongly pro-second amendment, I understand that there are people who are so dangerous that they must not be allowed to possess weapons. There is no such thing as an absolute right. On the other hand, there has to be a darn compelling reason to restrict any of those rights and it must be done through due process of law.

Shooter429
 
I think we have to be careful who we call "mentally competent". I know a man who has suffered from Cerebral Palsy all his life. for his first sixteen years he was housed in a state hospital and declared mentally incompetent. Then the State changed the rules and he was 'allowed' to live outside the hospital in a loosely suprvised home.
Now we know that he is extremely intelligent but is simply unable to talk or walk. He gets around in a motorized wheelchair and has invented a computer interface that allows him to "converse" with people around him. With the aid of those tools he has traveled around the country giving talks to other groups of similarly impacted people.
We once discussed guns and he said that he thought it might be fun to try except he didn't know how he would be able to hold one and pull the trigger. Knowing him, I wouldn't be surprised if he invented a way!
 
Doing pretty well, thanks--how 'bout you?

Well, it took a constitutional amendment to allow women to vote, so it would seem logical that the framers did not mean "women" when they said "men" or a constitutional amendment would not have been necessary to give them the same voting rights as men. Clearly children and slaves did not enjoy the same benefits as "men" under the constitution.

Regardless of whether or not they enjoyed SOME protection under the BoR, clearly they didn't enjoy FULL protection. Women were denied the right to representation (through voting) as were (and are) children, and slaves were denied pretty much everything.

So, why did those exclusions (explicit or implicit) exist? And how do those exclusions (in that timeframe and reference) relate to the exclusions that exist in our timeframe and reference?
 
+1 Oldphart. :)

Definitions change. Today's demonic posession is tomorrow's epileptic. I'm not comfortable with disarming anyone based on some nebulous definition of mental ability. The disabled deserve defense from tyranny like anybody else.
 
So what about my scenerios?

It sounds like you are confusing all disabled people with those who are certifiably insane. If a group of medical, legal, LE, social work professionals decide that someone is so sick that they are an imminent danger to others, and the court agrees and commits him/her to a mental hospital, you think they should be allowed freedom to carry guns? Can you justify your rational?

Perhaps none of you have spent time with people coming out of prison who are defined as dangerous mentally ill offenders. Those people who have no conscience, who love to hurt peopls and do it time and time again. Did any of you ever see the movie Silence of the Lambs? There are really people out there like that. You think those people should be allowed to have guns? So they can kill a schoolyard full of kids and then skate because they are insane.

This sounds pretty insane to me.

The definitions are not of a nebulous nature. In fact, they are well defined and codified in law. As far as medicine advancing, one has to go with the best information one has at the time. Someday there might be a surefire treatment. There are none at this time. Think about that. There are no cures for these people. At best, if they are under intensive management, they might improve somewhat. That is the most you can hope for. If some time in the future, they are miraculously cured, they can petition the courts to get their rights back.

I think you ought to learn more about how dangerous some of these people are. Nami will tell you that they all are harmless. They are just poor, misunderstood, disabled people like those with autism or Downs or the hearing impaired. That is a bunch of hogwash. I know firsthand how scary these people can be.

A must read is The Professor and the Madman. You will get a better idea of the dangers that you are dealing with.

Shooter429
 
Shooter429, we're right back in the arguement about convicted felons getting their guns back.

If a person is too dangerous for us to allow him/her to possess a gun he/she shouldn't be on the streets. Dangerous people should be locked up until they are no longer a danger to anybody. That society has cut a few corners to allow space for drug offenders to be incarcerated rather than keep the true bad guys locked up is a subject for a whole different thread and one we've visited many times already.
People who cannot interact with society, whether from mental illness or just plain meaness need to be kept away from society. I'm no fan of Islam, but if someone commits murder in a Muslim society, he/she will be killed unless the victim's family forgives him. That happens very rarely.
MY wife cares for disabled people on an on-call basis, so I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of them. Some can't control their bodily functions or even feed themselves, but none of them are mean. With one exception, they're all as pleasant as they can be under the circumstances of their disability. The one exception does get a bit nasty from time to time because her mind is perfectly normal and she'd really like to be married and raising kids, but her body just won't permit that.
 
Oldphart

I am not sure where the confusion lies. It seems that you are talking about people who are physically disabled or retarded and I am talking about the criminally insane. Again, the law is specific as to who gets to keep their rights and who loses them. I don't know if you are purposly trying to convolude the issue or not. For clarity, I am talking about people who have been encarcerated and or hospitalized, involuntarily due to drug-related psychosis or other serious mental illnesses that render the person dangerous.

I have worked with the differently-enabled. Everything from Downs to autism to CP as well as dementias and many other disorders as well as with the criminally insane. The law does not say that a person with disabilities is prohibited from firearm ownership. It prohibits certain people who have severe psychiatric disorders and who are dangerous from legally having weapons. There is a difference. I have taught disabled persons how to shoot. No problem. As long as they were not otherwise DQd from ownership, more power to em.

Anyway, back to the question...should people who are insane and deemed a danger by medical experts be allowed to legally carry guns?

I say no.

Shooter429
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top