Another example of why "orders of protection" do not work

[tbop77]

Here's where I'm confused.  Conservatives argument that is not the gun, but mentally ill people who  kill people with the gun.  A person with an order of protection surely shows he has mental issues, but we cannot take his gun as his right to own one.  

Why can't they see their reasoning and logic makes no sense at all?  

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Apr 27, 2024 10:51:24 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Here's where I'm confused.  Conservatives argument that is not the gun, but mentally ill people who  kill people with the gun.  A person with an order of protection surely shows he has mental issues, but we cannot take his gun as his right to own one.  

Why can't they see their reasoning and logic makes no sense at all?  

Reason and logic are superseded by the constitution. 

[toomuchreality]

Apr 27, 2024 9:40:55 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 27, 2024 8:48:41 GMT -5 scgal said:

Guns are a tool, that tool can be used for sport shooting, hunting, protection and yes people can kill other people but it is still just a tool no different than a screwdriver or hammer. 
We are going to build a gun "tool" this gun will have 16 shot mini mag, infrared nite scope, and a 5 baffle suppressor. Thats right semi auto rifle that can be super quiet and you can see your target in the dead of nite. Why would anyone would want that you may ask it doesn't matter I want it and i'm allow to have it. 

A potential victim has a chance to fight off an attacker with "a screwdriver or hammer". A potential victim does not have a chance to fight off an attacker with a firearm who is standing 15 feet away.

This! ^^^

[toomuchreality]

Apr 27, 2024 11:33:32 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Apr 27, 2024 10:51:24 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Here's where I'm confused.  Conservatives argument that is not the gun, but mentally ill people who  kill people with the gun.  A person with an order of protection surely shows he has mental issues, but we cannot take his gun as his right to own one.  

Why can't they see their reasoning and logic makes no sense at all?  

Reason and logic are superseded by the constitution. 

Truth.

[toomuchreality]

I should and I will, because it's my right and I can? Hmm

[Tennesseer]

And the beat goes on....  They were not shot with a "a screwdriver or hammer".

Three men shot on Beale Street early Saturday morning, Memphis police say

Three men were shot early Saturday morning on Beale Street, Memphis police said.

Around 3:30 a.m., Memphis Police Department officers responded to a shooting in the 300 block of Beale Street. They found three men with gunshot wounds at the scene. All three were transported to Regional One, with one in critical condition.

A male suspect fled the scene wearing a white tank top and denim shorts. No arrests have been made and an investigation is ongoing, police said Saturday.

MPD is asking anyone with information about the shooting to call 901-528-CASH.

Three men shot on Beale Street early Saturday morning, Memphis police say

[toomuchreality]

Apr 27, 2024 11:56:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And the beat goes on....  They were not shot with a "a screwdriver or hammer".

Three men shot on Beale Street early Saturday morning, Memphis police say

Three men were shot early Saturday morning on Beale Street, Memphis police said.

Around 3:30 a.m., Memphis Police Department officers responded to a shooting in the 300 block of Beale Street. They found three men with gunshot wounds at the scene. All three were transported to Regional One, with one in critical condition.

A male suspect fled the scene wearing a white tank top and denim shorts. No arrests have been made and an investigation is ongoing, police said Saturday.

MPD is asking anyone with information about the shooting to call 901-528-CASH.

Three men shot on Beale Street early Saturday morning, Memphis police say

Wow. There are a lot o people shot there. The Salt Lake area is relatively quiet, compared to all that. Holy Moly.

Stay safe!

[daisylu]

Apr 27, 2024 10:51:24 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Here's where I'm confused.  Conservatives argument that is not the gun, but mentally ill people who  kill people with the gun.  A person with an order of protection surely shows he has mental issues, but we cannot take his gun as his right to own one.  

Why can't they see their reasoning and logic makes no sense at all?  

Thank you! 

[tallguy]

Apr 27, 2024 10:51:24 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Here's where I'm confused.  Conservatives argument that is not the gun, but mentally ill people who  kill people with the gun.  A person with an order of protection surely shows he has mental issues, but we cannot take his gun as his right to own one.  

Why can't they see their reasoning and logic makes no sense at all?  

Reason and logic are not part of their equation.  Why would you think it would be?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Apr 26, 2024 20:59:44 GMT -5 swamp said:

Apr 25, 2024 7:24:47 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Tell me again how gun reform is not the issue. link



It is early in the investigation and no mention yet if he owned the gun before the OOP or if it was obtained illegally. I understand that states have different rules for OOPs, but IMO everyone should agree that if an OOP is issued all firearms should be confiscated. Dude was CLEARLY not a "nice guy with a gun".

That poor 9YO, to have to have witnessed that. I pray that the 1YO does not retain any memory from the ordeal, but it is still in the record books so they will undoubtedly have to deal with it in the future.

It is federal law that guns need to be confiscated and you cannot purchase another one while an order of protection is pending. 

So the law wasn’t followed.  His gun should have been confiscated, but as he was an ex police officer, the powers that be let that little pesky law skate by.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 27, 2024 11:41:31 GMT -5 toomuchreality said:

I should and I will, because it's my right and I can? Hmm

i like the reducio ad absurdum argument on this.

either i am permitted by the constitution to own ALL arms (it doesn't specify what kind in the constitution) or ALL arms must be regulated.  there is no in-between.

if you think it is the former, i want anti-aircraft missiles.  i have the right to own them, by the constitution.

if it is the latter, then anything i own must be approved by the government.  

period.

this conversation gets stupid when we don't recognize the reality of it.

[toomuchreality]

The absolutes. All or nothing. Good or bad. 🙄

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5 toomuchreality said:

The absolutes. All or nothing. Good or bad. 🙄

reducio ad absurdum tests the LIMITS of a debate.  i happen to think that it is a great technique.  it is also logically valid.  

here is my point.  the pro-gun community makes it seem like ARMS can't be regulated.  but they can!  they ARE, in fact.  

guns have to be tested to ensure they are not a liability to owners.  you can't own, as an example, a bazooka, or a ballistic cannon, or nuclear arms.  however, those are ALL arms, as i read the second amendment.  so, these folks that make the case that the "government can't restrict arms" are forgetting about the fact that they can only own about 1% of all ARMS, already.  so what does that statement even mean?  we can't regulate the guns that are not already regulated?  what about NEW guns that have been developed in the last 225 years?  who gets to decide that?

i just don't think the argument really works, but nobody bothers to debate it.  they just IGNORE the fact that arms are already highly regulated.  regulating them MORE is trivial, not "unconstitutional".

[djAdvocate]

as a second aside, i don't believe in good and evil. i believe in good-evil. we all operate on a continuum from the kindest most gentle person alive to Jeffrey Dahmer. i am sure that even the kindest person alive has flaws, and Dahmer probably has some redeeming qualities. not that i would care to examine either. it is not that important.

as i have said before, i am comfortable with the grey. regulating 99.1% of firearms is not terribly different than regulating 99%. sure, people will scream about it. why should i care?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Apr 29, 2024 1:12:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5 toomuchreality said:

The absolutes. All or nothing. Good or bad. 🙄

not really.

here is my point.  the pro-gun community makes it seem like ARMS can't be regulated.  but they can!  they ARE, in fact.  

guns have to be tested to ensure they are not a liability to owners.  you can't own, as an example, a bazooka, or a ballistic cannon, or nuclear arms.  however, those are ALL arms, as i read the second amendment.  so, these folks that make the case that the "government can't restrict arms" are forgetting about the fact that they can only own about 1% of all ARMS, already.  so what does that statement even mean?  we can't regulate the guns that are not already regulated?  what about NEW guns that have been developed in the last 225 years?  who gets to decide that?

i just don't think the argument really works, but nobody bothers to debate it.  they just IGNORE the fact that arms are already highly regulated.  regulating them MORE is trivial, not "unconstitutional".

They are highly regulated, and there are laws on the books.  So what sense does it make to pass more legislation, when the legislation that is already in place is not followed?  

This is the problem I have.  Let’s see what happens when the laws already on the books are followed.  This guy’s gun should have been confiscated with the protective order.  Why wasn’t it?  Where is the breakdown in the system?  

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2024 1:18:32 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Apr 29, 2024 1:12:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not really.

here is my point.  the pro-gun community makes it seem like ARMS can't be regulated.  but they can!  they ARE, in fact.  

guns have to be tested to ensure they are not a liability to owners.  you can't own, as an example, a bazooka, or a ballistic cannon, or nuclear arms.  however, those are ALL arms, as i read the second amendment.  so, these folks that make the case that the "government can't restrict arms" are forgetting about the fact that they can only own about 1% of all ARMS, already.  so what does that statement even mean?  we can't regulate the guns that are not already regulated?  what about NEW guns that have been developed in the last 225 years?  who gets to decide that?

i just don't think the argument really works, but nobody bothers to debate it.  they just IGNORE the fact that arms are already highly regulated.  regulating them MORE is trivial, not "unconstitutional".

They are highly regulated, and there are laws on the books.  So what sense does it make to pass more legislation, when the legislation that is already in place is not followed?  

This is the problem I have.  Let’s see what happens when the laws already on the books are followed.  This guy’s gun should have been confiscated with the protective order.  Why wasn’t it?  Where is the breakdown in the system?  

again, not my point.  mine was more general.

you can't be against regulating ARMS in this country, and agree with the current policy.  THAT is my point.

[scgal]

Apr 29, 2024 9:36:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2024 1:18:32 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

They are highly regulated, and there are laws on the books.  So what sense does it make to pass more legislation, when the legislation that is already in place is not followed?  

This is the problem I have.  Let’s see what happens when the laws already on the books are followed.  This guy’s gun should have been confiscated with the protective order.  Why wasn’t it?  Where is the breakdown in the system?  

again, not my point.  mine was more general.

you can't be against regulating ARMS in this country, and agree with the current policy.  THAT is my point.

I see it as if I can afford to buy it I can have it. Including a rocket launcher, bazooka, anything that fires a projectile. Now if you want to regulate on where I can use it fine, but as far as owning it, it all falls under the 2a. 

[daisylu]

Choosing not to engage. 

The original point of this post was many senseless deaths and several children left without parents could have been avoided IF THE COURT HAD DONE ITS JOB. If you have done something so horrible that court issues an order of protection, you deserve no guns. TOTAL STOP. AND BEFORE A CERTAIN POSTER SAYS "ANYONE CAN GET AN OOP", see the link in the OP - it is not that easy.

[pulmonarymd]

The right of a person to own a gun is more important than the right to not be shot. That is all gun owners care about. You see it when they argue against red flag laws and removing guns under an order of protection. Guns over everything.

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2024 11:59:33 GMT -5 scgal said:

Apr 29, 2024 9:36:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

again, not my point.  mine was more general.

you can't be against regulating ARMS in this country, and agree with the current policy.  THAT is my point.

I see it as if I can afford to buy it I can have it. Including a rocket launcher, bazooka, anything that fires a projectile. Now if you want to regulate on where I can use it fine, but as far as owning it, it all falls under the 2a. 

Which is why I support repeal or at least a reworded amendment.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2024 11:59:33 GMT -5 scgal said:

Apr 29, 2024 9:36:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

again, not my point.  mine was more general.

you can't be against regulating ARMS in this country, and agree with the current policy.  THAT is my point.

I see it as if I can afford to buy it I can have it. Including a rocket launcher, bazooka, anything that fires a projectile. Now if you want to regulate on where I can use it fine, but as far as owning it, it all falls under the 2a. 

consistent position.  thank you!  

[toomuchreality]

Apr 29, 2024 12:17:01 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Choosing not to engage. 

The original point of this post was many senseless deaths and several children left without parents could have been avoided IF THE COURT HAD DONE ITS JOB. If you have done something so horrible that court issues an order of protection, you deserve no guns. TOTAL STOP. AND BEFORE A CERTAIN POSTER SAYS "ANYONE CAN GET AN OOP", see the link in the OP - it is not that easy.

AGREED.
I tried to get an OOP once against someone who I found to be very scary, that knew where I lived and had been harassing me. I didn't get one.
Luckily, the person decided to focus on someone else.

I knew of several people who were very afraid of this person and what they might do.

[Tiny]

And strangely enough the more people with guns the less freedom ALL people have - we all loose the freedom to use public areas SAFELY and without FEAR.     We all loose freedoms so that anyone in America can have the freedom to access a gun.   Guns don't make Americans more "free".  

[Spellbound454]

Apr 29, 2024 12:48:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 29, 2024 11:59:33 GMT -5 scgal said:

I see it as if I can afford to buy it I can have it. Including a rocket launcher, bazooka, anything that fires a projectile. Now if you want to regulate on where I can use it fine, but as far as owning it, it all falls under the 2a. 

Which is why I support repeal or at least a reworded amendment.

That's interesting
Can you buy those things.... What about War Weapons or armed drones?
How far does 2a go?







 

[djAdvocate]

May 27, 2024 2:06:20 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Apr 29, 2024 12:48:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Which is why I support repeal or at least a reworded amendment.

That's interesting
Can you buy those things.... What about War Weapons or armed drones?
How far does 2a go?







 

no, we can't.

which leads to the conclusion that we have a "well regulated militia" already, just not well regulated enough for some folks, and TOO well regulated for others.

if this argument devolves to how much regulation is BEST (for some reason, it never does in the US), then the NRA backed position kinda falls apart.

disclaimer: i am not interested in the small argument, here.  i am interested in the big one.  the same one Jefferson was interested in.