danivon wrote:And this is relevant to the topic how? But 'overwrought'?

Overdone. Frantic.

Oddly, for such a confirmed troll, I think I have added something to this thread.

There you go again. Ruffhaus' comments and mine were general, not confined to this thread.

If I had been behaving badly in this thread I could understand Ruffhaus' motivation (If not the sheer nastiness of his comparison), and DF's backhanded victim-blaming as some kind of justification.

"Victim-blaming?"

Explanation please.

I get it, though, DF does not appreciate being asked questions. It's easier to just pronounce one way or another and hammer it out, and lets not let pesky things like details or a quest for common ground interfere with the 'debate', eh?

Disingenuous, but I suspect you know that. I don't mind being asked questions as long as they are legitimate. I'm not going to dig up an example, no matter how unfair you assert I'm being. You know why? Because you do ridiculous things, like ask for mounds of data analysis that would take a full-time staff weeks. You know this. You do it intentionally. That is trolling.

I suspect you would admit as much over a pint.

now (again), away from the meta-argument and back to the issue...

Since we last had any real discussion, I've seen two interesting pieces of information:

1) The suspect was apparently seeing a mental health professional
2) The suspect obtained his guns legally a few weeks prior to the act, with short checks being made

What I don't know is whether CO gun checks include mental health, whether he was actually diagnosed with anything or just seeing someone, or whether a diagnosis would actually be registered so that it could be noticed when a gun/licence is being applied for.

There is virtually no chance CO gun checks include mental health, nor should they. For the thousands of gun purchasers in CO every year to have to go through that would be an extra hurdle. Now, should someone who is diagnosed as schizophrenic, manic, etc., be flagged--like they are a criminal? I think so, but that is a different question.

But this would certainly seem to me to be an area where we might want to consider controls if not already in place.

This would be unwieldy and maybe unconstitutional--requiring such an examination. There would also have to be an appeals process--it would all get . . . well, unwieldy.

I apologise that this raises questions.

That is never the issue. The question is always this: for what purpose was the question asked? In other words, is it a genuine question or an impossible request? Even questions meant to show the folly of a position are legitimate. If the goal is simply to aggravate, that is trolling.

Last post from me on the side-bar...

Victim-blaming. Seems to me that's what it is. If you seek to 'explain' Ruffhaus' outburst as if it justifies him directly comparing me to a mass killer, that is blaming me (the victim of his outrageous slur) for 'making him do it'.

And he was referring to this thread in the first line of the post. Again, if you want to talk generally, you must realise you are hijacking the thread. We've had our issues, but you of all people can't claim innocence when it comes to behaviour on Redscape.

Yes, I ask questions, some of them are even rhetorical. Often it's as a way of getting those who espouse a point of view or assert a 'fact' to explain in more detail or to think in a different way.

The terror!

Now, back to the topic (again again)

What I don't know is whether CO gun checks include mental health, whether he was actually diagnosed with anything or just seeing someone, or whether a diagnosis would actually be registered so that it could be noticed when a gun/licence is being applied for.

There is virtually no chance CO gun checks include mental health, nor should they. For the thousands of gun purchasers in CO every year to have to go through that would be an extra hurdle. Now, should someone who is diagnosed as schizophrenic, manic, etc., be flagged--like they are a criminal? I think so, but that is a different question.

Surely checking that flag would be a mental health check of sorts, if a basic one. I think we can agree here, and that it would not be a breach of the Second Amendment to at least ensure that it is done.

Personally, I think it's a big risk to not make it hard for people with mental health issues to obtain lethal weapons.

But this would certainly seem to me to be an area where we might want to consider controls if not already in place.

This would be unwieldy and maybe unconstitutional--requiring such an examination. There would also have to be an appeals process--it would all get . . . well, unwieldy.

Without having a direct proposal, let's not shoot it down, eh? For example, a register of people who are recorded as having 'high risk' mental diagnoses, used to flag up those who should not be able to get a legal gun is something you have suggested. It would indeed add some time and effort to the process.

And yes, there would possibly be appeals, it would need to be shared across State lines (potentially being a federal register, which I understand could be very scary indeed).

But it's not a massive hardship is it? To take real action to block gun sales to unstable people?

Now, in order to get a driving licence, you need to pass a test. Part of that test is that you can physically meet the requirements - see far enough ahead, for example. Being licenced to own a gun is pretty serious, at least it should be (they are important items, right?). So what tests should people undergo to be able to proceed?

Proving sanity is perhaps too far. But proving not suspected of being dangerous, I think not. It may not be smooth and quick, but they are the kind of balances that mature societies make all the time.

Danivon, do Americans have a right to own weapons? It is the 2nd Amendment. Do American have a right to vote? Yes, they do as well. Are you saying that one right should require a license and proof of skill? I would love to see that with ALL rights in the Constitution.

I am not saying one must vote conservative, but one must prove literacy and ability to follow Constitutional principles.

You do have qualification to vote. You have to be of age and not a felon (in most states). But no, I'm not saying you should need a licence to vote. It's different from driving or owning a gun in that youcannot use an individual vote to directly cause harm. Please address the argument at hand, or such questions designed to trip us up may be .declared 'trolling'.

'The people' have a right to bear arms. Not the same as all persons having the same right individually. I do wish literalists would remember that.

danivon wrote:Last post from me on the side-bar...

Victim-blaming. Seems to me that's what it is. If you seek to 'explain' Ruffhaus' outburst as if it justifies him directly comparing me to a mass killer, that is blaming me (the victim of his outrageous slur) for 'making him do it'.

Nope, that is your outrageous interpretation.

And he was referring to this thread in the first line of the post. Again, if you want to talk generally, you must realise you are hijacking the thread. We've had our issues, but you of all people can't claim innocence when it comes to behaviour on Redscape.

Of all people? Hmm . . . I won't claim innocence.

Yes, I ask questions, some of them are even rhetorical. Often it's as a way of getting those who espouse a point of view or assert a 'fact' to explain in more detail or to think in a different way.

The terror!

Nice dodge. Specifically, I allege that you ask questions knowing that providing an answer is impossible--in other words, you are being a troll.

There is virtually no chance CO gun checks include mental health, nor should they. For the thousands of gun purchasers in CO every year to have to go through that would be an extra hurdle. Now, should someone who is diagnosed as schizophrenic, manic, etc., be flagged--like they are a criminal? I think so, but that is a different question.

Surely checking that flag would be a mental health check of sorts, if a basic one. I think we can agree here, and that it would not be a breach of the Second Amendment to at least ensure that it is done.

Personally, I think it's a big risk to not make it hard for people with mental health issues to obtain lethal weapons.

But, only someone who has been committed or otherwise diagnosed would be in the system. If that's what you mean, I think it's fine--and that may already be the law.

It appears that would not have stopped this shooter. From what I've heard/read/seen so far, his shrink had yet to report him.

For example, a register of people who are recorded as having 'high risk' mental diagnoses, used to flag up those who should not be able to get a legal gun is something you have suggested. It would indeed add some time and effort to the process.

And yes, there would possibly be appeals, it would need to be shared across State lines (potentially being a federal register, which I understand could be very scary indeed).

But it's not a massive hardship is it? To take real action to block gun sales to unstable people?

No, just as with those who have a criminal record. However, there are far fewer people who would be in such a registry.

I can tell you who would fight this: the mental health industry. Personally, I think if you are on anti-depressants, you should not be able to buy a gun. If you need mind-altering medication to deal with life, you should not have a gun. Period.

Now, in order to get a driving licence, you need to pass a test. Part of that test is that you can physically meet the requirements - see far enough ahead, for example. Being licenced to own a gun is pretty serious, at least it should be (they are important items, right?). So what tests should people undergo to be able to proceed?

There are licenses and requirements for carry permits, but I don't think there is one for mere ownership--I think that would require amending the Constitution.

Proving sanity is perhaps too far. But proving not suspected of being dangerous, I think not. It may not be smooth and quick, but they are the kind of balances that mature societies make all the time.

It would not fly.

I know. So many want to inflict restrictions on rights that are not agreed with, but dislike restrictions on what they do like. Both sides do this.

As for not being harmed by individual votes?... I think a great many conservatives would disagree with that line of thinking after the last presidential election

I cannot recall one post from Danivon that I thought should be classified as "trolling":. Every time I see a personal attack on him I see it as a concession that he has a better argument than those attacking him. Calling people names (like troll or worse) is not an effective means of arguing. Unless someone is making a personal attack or misquoting your arguments, I see no reason to be addressing them in a personal manner (at least negatively).

freeman2 wrote:I cannot recall one post from Danivon that I thought should be classified as "trolling":. Every time I see a personal attack on him I see it as a concession that he has a better argument than those attacking him. Calling people names (like troll or worse) is not an effective means of arguing. Unless someone is making a personal attack or misquoting your arguments, I see no reason to be addressing them in a personal manner (at least negatively).

You must not read his posts very often.

If I provide an example, will you yield?

I would like to see a post from Danivon that you consider to be trolling and If I agree then I will concede that my contention that Danivon never trolls was wrong( I hate using that word, particularly as a verb, but I can't think of anything else) Edited: I don't think one example would be enough, and I don't expect you to take the time to get more, but for me to concede the point (i.e. that you are justified in calling Danivon a troll) i would need to see several examples (anyone could go over the line once). But if you come up with one justified example that is at least something to support your contention

bbauska wrote:As for not being harmed by individual votes?... I think a great many conservatives would disagree with that line of thinking after the last presidential election

I used the word 'directly', and would also point out that they would be thinking about the aggregare result of tens of millions of votes. Which are both different things.

I think you are still drawing an odd analogy. No rights are completely unfettered, whatever the Declaration of Independence says or how some interpret the Constitution. You can lose some rights, you don't get all of them until you come of age, you can't shout 'fire' in an empty theatre or practice human sacrifice in the name of religion, you can't own a thermonuclear warhead...

But each 'right' has to considered seperately and in its own context. Where the 'right' is to have deadly weapons, we should be careful about where the limits go. Where the right is to be one of a couple of hundred million voters, the limit belongs in a different place.

Then we disagree as to those lines. I think the line to vote or own a firearm should be showing ID, and you don't.

bbauska wrote:Then we disagree as to those lines. I think the line to vote or own a firearm should be showing ID, and you don't.

Yes, we disagree. You think all rights are the same? That a vote can be treated like a gun? surely you don't propose that you need ID to be able to speak freely or practice a religion?

So not all rights are the same. And a right accorded to a 'person' is not the same as a right accorded to 'the people'

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Then we disagree as to those lines. I think the line to vote or own a firearm should be showing ID, and you don't.

Yes, we disagree. You think all rights are the same? That a vote can be treated like a gun? surely you don't propose that you need ID to be able to speak freely or practice a religion?

I like the idea....

I think the idea that requiring showing ID might somehow infringe the right to vote is bonkers. Of course, the Holder-led Justice Department disagrees. This, naturally, is the same group that declined to prosecute the NBPP for voter intimidation. After all, what could be intimidating about two guys in paramilitary uniforms carrying clubs?

Weren't those two just checking ID?