Man with Concealed Weapons Permit, May Have Mental Problems, Shoots 3.

[401don]

I'm not 100% positive, but I think 401Don is in Canada. If so, that would mean he is still somewhat under the "tyranny of Britain".

You are correct sir. Please don't tell the Queen though. She might send that crazy naked grandson Harry over to get me eh!

[firstandten]

problem with that is, most people are not "documented insane" until AFTER theyve committed a crime like this. otherwise youre discriminating against/stigmatizing a class of people, who happen to be pretty sensitive about being labeled, not to mention now youre treading into doctor-patient-confidentiality-law ground here, which is a whole 'nother can of worms my friend. shall i lobby for a law taking away your ability to legally drive a car, just because you were prescribed xanax or prozac once? you'd probably say that i was infringing on your rights or descriminating against you.

THAT SAID however, i do know a person or two from my past who i wish didnt have the ability to own guns...



uh, excuse me? as far as i know, it's already pretty illegal to commit murder, especially with a gun, and the penalties ARE pretty severe. those laws are already on the books, my friend.

THEYRE NOT WORKING.

we have THOUSANDS of gun laws on the books in this country. we have new ones every year. but every year, the carnage increases, and we cant build prisons fast enough to keep all the murderers in for their whole sentences! we have to let them out on good behavior to make room for the new murderers!

laws only keep honest people honest. it's time for a different approach.

While you are correct in saying we have too many laws and we should not discriminate against a class of people because of maybe a mental breakdown that perhaps was only temporary, there are situations that a person should be deemed unsuitable to own a gun. Of course, these would be situations that were a matter of public record. Many times there are documented cases that a person is mentally unstable before that person commits the crime that will put him behind bars for the rest of his life. In my mind the penalty for committing a crime with a gun is not severe enough. For example if the crime you committed nets you 30 years in Michigan if you do it with a gun its 30 + 2. I have long been a proponent that if you commit a crime with a gun, the amount of time tacked on for using a gun should be at least an additional 8 to 10 years.

[ccal]

While you are correct in saying we have too many laws and we should not discriminate against a class of people because of maybe a mental breakdown that perhaps was only temporary, there are situations that a person should be deemed unsuitable to own a gun. Of course, these would be situations that were a matter of public record. Many times there are documented cases that a person is mentally unstable before that person commits the crime that will put him behind bars for the rest of his life. In my mind the penalty for committing a crime with a gun is not severe enough. For example if the crime you committed nets you 30 years in Michigan if you do it with a gun its 30 + 2. I have long been a proponent that if you commit a crime with a gun, the amount of time tacked on for using a gun should be at least an additional 8 to 10 years.

Those types of laws are already on the books, you get enhanced sentencing for using a gun in the commission of a felony while already being a felon and its much more than an additional 8-10 years.

[WaCoTS]

I'm not 100% positive, but I think 401Don is in Canada. If so, that would mean he is still somewhat under the "tyranny of Britain".

ok....so then why is he shouting across the Detroit River at us about our American rights & issues?

if you don't want people to think your a bit of a crackpot you shouldn't say stuff like this.

you are right that the constitution says nothing about nukes, that's why I think the second amendment is as relevant as the third amendment today.

oh so i have to speak in ONLY ABSOLUTE SPECIFICS at all times, or face the wrath? a guy can't speak candidly on certain topics without being labeled a crackpot? what gives? i don't jump all over somebody and try to discredit them for speaking candidly about 1st Amendment issues if they feel like doing so, so why should i get lambasted for doing the same with the 2nd...?

anyway the only point i was making with that statement was that the gun argument with the 2nd Amendment often centers on "what kind of hardware" citizens are "allowed" to have, based on what the founding fathers thought, and whether it applies to assault rifles, etc. and then i made AN ADMITTEDLY CANDID comparison [[please forgive me!) to the debates over whether the current gigantic standing army of the U.S. was something that the founding fathers intended. the arguments there are similar in the sense that people are trying to guess what the founding fathers "intended" and whether the modern technology and bloated, *potentially* tyrannical capabilities of today's military is covered under what constitutes their idea of the standing army this country should have--if it should have one. it sure seemed to me that they were NOT FOND of a permanent, "standing," professional army, and instead preferred a volunteer citizen militia.

now why, pray tell would you guess that to be the case? oh, perhaps because they had just finished breaking away from the tyranny of a standing army--ie, the British one? they were extremely wary of creating a situation where our own new gov't could become just as oppressive as the British one, if given too much power. which is why they made for the 2nd Amendment, etc. doesnt seem like rocket science to me....problem is, we've let our gov't get too big over the past 150yrs or so.







SO, back to your statement about the 3rd Amendment...
YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S RELEVANT? my friend...i think you might wanna think that position over a bit. like all of the tersely worded sections of the Constitution, it was left intentionally brief and open-ended to allow for interpretation. it says:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

doesnt that kind of sound similar to other rights, like habeas corpus, and the 4th Amendment? the 3rd Amendment is about privacy, and of citizens having a right to security from the agents of the state being placed forcibly within their personal space. nowadays, thanks to technology, "agents of the state" can be present without being physically there. now i can just sense youre itching to call me a conspiracy crackpot again, but didnt George W Bush just try getting rid of habeas corpus rights? and others? do you trust him that it wouldve stopped there? something tells me billionaires dont have our best interests in mind. if you dont believe me that the 3rd Amendment applies to privacy law, there are some Supreme Court cases that have cited or invoked it as such. it exists as a means to tell the federal govt that it does not have the power to use a standing army on our own soil, against citizens, or to enter or seize property militarily, without consent or due process of law. i agree there is some overlap with the 4th Amendment, but that is probably intentional. either way, the Bill of Rights was written not to assign powers or rights to the government, and it was not written in a sense that our govt was granting us rights, but it was written to list the basic rights that Americans had despite the government.

I just can't understand why people are so eager to dismiss, and even seemingly hate on our Constitution as something thats "old," and "outdated". THIS IS OUR BILL OF RIGHTS! didnt you guys pay attention in history class? why would you not want to know your rights!? or do you actually trust these elected bozos we have to "keep them in a safe place" for you? do you think these thug police we have now care about your rights?

trust me, when you start picking and choosing which rights are "important" and letting the lesser ones go, or dismissing them because you can't see their relevance at the moment, you start a dangerous precedent...youre basically saying that we feel fairly cavalier about our basic rights, and that we arent that attached to them. wrong message to send!

there is no such thing as an "irrelevant right" my friends. youre setting yourself up for disaster like that--it's written all over human history. some people would call YOU a crackpot for saying that. look at the rest of the world. much of it is populated by people under fairly oppressive regimes. you want that here, too? im sure the people of a few certain other countries would just LOVE to have your leftover 3rd Amendment rights, if you dont want them.

and again, i can already hear people saying,
"no one is 'coming' to take our rights, you wacko!"
no? thats because you cannot simply enslave an armed people. i dont support the 2nd Amendment because i believe we will have to fight an armed conflict against our govt...i support the 2nd Amendment because i believe we WON'T have to.

[southen]

it is ridiculous to think that citizens nowadays could stop our modern military with a few assault rifles. I also think its silly to think it would ever get to that point in modern America and that only the 2nd amendment makes sure that doesn't happen.

the constitution is not gospel, it's a living document which is why it has changed as the country evolved. we don't have to worry about quartering troops anymore because it isn't frontier America anymore. the reason we added civil rights and suffrage amendments is because the document isn't perfect and it changed as times changed. looking at gun related or military related amendments written in the time of muskets and applying it to today is stupid.

i won't make the mistake of implying what your saying is a bit over the top again. I'll let others read the ramblings and come to their own conclusions.

[firstandten]

Those types of laws are already on the books, you get enhanced sentencing for using a gun in the commission of a felony while already being a felon and its much more than an additional 8-10 years.

Yes, but what if you are not already a felon. The law as I understand it, is 2 additional years tacked on to the years you get for using a gun. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. My point is the penalty for using a gun illegally should be so severe it will make the person think three times before picking up that gun whereas now people will pick it up without thinking.

[ccal]

Yes, but what if you are not already a felon. The law as I understand it, is 2 additional years tacked on to the years you get for using a gun. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. My point is the penalty for using a gun illegally should be so severe it will make the person think three times before picking up that gun whereas now people will pick it up without thinking.

Do you really think that will deter someone shooting another person,to do so is irrational in itself. Lets be realistic, a majority of people that are shooting don't give a damn about how much time they are looking at for committing said crime, that may deter you because that type of punishment is scary to you but don't think these folks have the same things to lose as you do so they aren't frightened by long prison terms. An example, drug dealers are aware of long prison sentences for minute quantities of drugs, it's no secret and is well known throughout the ghetto but that still doesn't give them pause when they sell drugs because they aren't scared of going to jail like you would be.

[drjeff]

oh, one more thing.

when's the last time our country had a balanced budget, huh? in my view, the primary role of our federal gov't is to keep the books in order. we all have household budgets, and we all know how to balance them. so why can't our glorious leaders balance the national one? the only difference is a bunch of zeros...
ill bet you their personal budgets in their own homes are balanced--arent they? so why cant they figure out the one we pay them to balance?

I WONT LISTEN TO ANOTHER WORD FROM THOSE BOZOS ON GUN CONTROL, ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE, FLAG BURNING, OR ANY OTHER SILLY NONSENSE UNTIL I SEE A BALANCED %^*&$#ING BUDGET!!

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK!??!

The last balanced budget was at the end of the Clinton administration. As soon as Bush took office, lowered taxes, and started wars on two fronts without increasing revenue, we were screwed. There is no going back to a balanced budget without BOTH significantly raising taxes and cutting spending until the economy grows a whole lot. And cutting government spending during an economic downtown, such as now, actually makes the economy a whole lot worse, leading to a downward spiral of less revenue, higher deficits, etc.

That trillion dollars we spent on Iraq for absolutely no reason would be awfully nice to have right now.

[WaCoTS]

it is ridiculous to think that citizens nowadays could stop our modern military with a few assault rifles. I also think its silly to think it would ever get to that point in modern America and that only the 2nd amendment makes sure that doesn't happen.

tell that to the Jewish resistance who fought Hitler's army on the streets of Poland and elsewhere.

looking at gun related or military related amendments written in the time of muskets and applying it to today is stupid.

ok, so then i guess looking at the 1st amendment written in the days of printing presses and applying it to modern day is "stupid" as well?

or looking at the 4th amendment in the days before wiretaps and applying it to day is "stupid?" have you seen the kinds of internet censorship bills that are being tried in congress lately?



what kind of bizarro-world am i living in where simply standing up for the Bill of Rights is considered maniac "ramblings", gets me called "stupid", "over the top"? hello...? anyone out there...? am i in the Twilight Zone...?

southen, can't you simply engage me in a civil manner without calling me "stupid?" you seem to have some kind of valid point youre trying to make, but instead youre just becoming infuriated and resorting to name-calling.

[southen]

well i guess you got a bit closer to modern day warfare... youve jumped from the revolutionary war to world war II, shame that it still isnt a valid comparison.

you are comparing the first amendment, which is about free speech and expression to an amendment about militias and guns, its apples to oranges. if the first amendment was being used today to justify things that kill people i would probably question its relevance in modern society as well. since you deem the bill of rights to be perfect, should we remove everything written after the founding fathers first draft? or are you willing to admit that things change just like the document has?

you can stand up for the bill of rights, i have no problem with that. dont confuse my "crackpot" line with your defense of the bill of rights, its the fact you sound like a conspiracy nut.

for the record i didnt call you stupid, i said an idea or concept was stupid. you appear to be very knowledgable albeit in a way that i feel is somewhat crackpot-ish. does that help clarify?

the document has been amended and should be amended as times change. taking into account how the world was when it was written is something people should do while defending the document. as for the 4th amendment i have never once said that what the government does is correct or should be tolerated. i am against the patriot act. i think you just made my argument for me though in regards to the relevance of other amendments. if the government can do what it wants with the 4th amendment which is still very much relevant today, do you honestly think the 2nd amendment is keeping them at bay? you admit to the 3rd having some overlap with the 4th by saying it was deliberate, but i think that just glosses over the fact that it is obvious that it simply states that the government just cant house troops in your home. why? because it was what the british were doing and after the revolution we didnt want that. you keep looking for deeper meaning while ignoring that these things were written in a way that reflected the times. some remain extremely irrelevant, while some arent. if the bill of rights were to be written today it would look different and contain different wording, because of that i will respect it but i certainly wont act like it is gospel.

[WaCoTS]

since you deem the bill of rights to be perfect, should we remove everything written after the founding fathers first draft?

i never said that, and i dont believe that--youre jumping to conclusions again. in fact, see my quote from above:

like all of the tersely worded sections of the Constitution, it was left intentionally brief and open-ended to allow for interpretation. it says:

the constitution is merely a document written down by imperfect men of differing opinions, in order to agree on a list of the "inalienable" rights of man, which [[according to what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence) were rights "endowed by our Creator," and not by any government of man. Preservation of self is one of those inalienable rights of man.


i am an agnostic, btw, but since we live in a litigious society, these rights were written down in a constitution for the sake of having a firm legal document from which to conduct legal arguments and inquiries in the future. i will not claim to be a certified "expert" or scholar on constitutional law, but i dont think the constitution was written in a way that it should NEED an expert to interpret. it was written so the common man could understand it readily.

yes, times change. yes, i am aware that things were different in the 1700s. but there are certain things that have not, and will never change. namely, human avarice, and greed. these are the motives that drive things such as the British tyranny that resulted in our nation's revolution. that same human greed and power hunger still exists today.

lol, please don't try to flatly deny that, or i will be forced to believe that you are a "crackpot" too. i dont think anyone of sound mind could possibly look at our modern federal gov't and say that it is not crooked as hell--whether you are a Dem or a Repub. [[i happen to be neither, but both parties have some good ideas). if there's one thing we can learn from history, it's that if the privileged class gets the chance, they often attempt to oppress the lower class for their own gain. [[or on occasion, you get a total lunatic like Hitler or Stalin as an added bonus).
Finally, I don't believe that the framers of the constitution were writing a document that would have stayed rooted in a certain era—it's preposterous to think that they were not aware that times would change. THIS is why they wrote it so loosely and open to interpretation. I.E., muskets today, rifles tomorrow...etc. im not saying they looked into the future and saw AK47s, im saying they wrote the 2^nd Amendment using the words “bear arms,” instead of “bear muskets.” simple.


in 1776, these guys were considered “crackpots” for wanting to revolt against Britain. Convincing the average American farmer to revolt was an uphill battle. But aren't you glad these “crackpots” did revolt? You wouldnt have the freedom to debate this with me right now if they hadn't. They didnt write amendments like the 2^nd & 3^rd for times of peace and freedom. They wrote them in case a similar situation manifested itself again in the future. Ill be the first to admit that the 3^rd Amendment doesn't get much use these days, in the sense of quartering troops. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. And likewise, the 2^nd Amendment hasnt been dusted off in a long time either. But that doesnt mean we should allow these clowns in Washington get rid of it. to me, that stinks of opening a door to tyranny. you can believe it smells like roses if you want.

if the first amendment was being used today to justify things that kill people i would probably question its relevance in modern society as well.

the 2^nd amendment is not being used “to justify things that kill people” either—at least not in the sense that you mean. The 2^nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, or self defense against criminals. As we've been discussing, it has only to do with throwing off the shackles of govt tyranny. Yes, guns have the power to kill people. But guns did not invent killing. Unfortunately, unjust killing will happen regardless of whether we have a 2^nd Amendment.


Crime [[like the shooting which started this thread) is a local problem, not a federal problem. Crime is dealt with by sheriffs and local police. For the constitution to deal with crime prevention is preposterous. For our federal politicians to pass gun laws to supposedly limit crime is preposterous. MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. But it still happens. MURDER WITH A GUN IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. But it keeps happening. Why do people commit crimes of passion, with no regard for the law? This is a topic that would need its own thread, but let me argue again that it is an issue which can only be addressed by the community. Our leaders obviously have no control over it—the prisons are full, and the laws arent working. We need stronger families and communities.

for the record i didnt call you stupid, i said an idea or concept was stupid. you appear to be very knowledgable albeit in a way that i feel is somewhat crackpot-ish. does that help clarify?

uhhhh, thanks....i think?

if the government can do what it wants with the 4th amendment which is still very much relevant today, do you honestly think the 2nd amendment is keeping them at bay?

our freedom is protected by a series of amendments in the Bill of Rights—“keeping them at bay” if you will. Our rights to the press, speech, assembly, are the first line of defense. Our rights against search, seizure, and imprisonment without due process are the second line of defense. The right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is the LAST line of defense. This is the crux of where you and I are not seeing eye to eye. You think im arguing the 2^nd Amendment is the ONLY line of defense, and I DO NOT hold that view.


Yes, guns make it easier for the average person to commit murder than say, a knife. But my argument is that it is not worth eradicating the 2^nd Amendment over. That would be foolhardy—youre throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because our society has failed at preventing people from committing acts like murder, you think we should toss out our right to resist tyranny in gov't? your argument does not make sense.

if the bill of rights were to be written today it would look different and contain different wording

yeah, unfortunately it would probably read:

1. You have the right to get your ass to work for peanuts until youre too old to move.
2. You have the right to pay taxes at all times, even after you die.
3. You have the right to shop at Walmart for all the best prices.
4. You have the right to fight for oil in whatever god-forsaken desert we tell you to.
5. You have the right to be prescribed xanax to forget your troubles, just so long you still pay taxes.
6. You have the right to vote for whoever you want just so long it's a rich man.

...etc