Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tumblr)   Bill to bar gun ownership by people "involuntarily committed to a mental institution and declared to pose a 'danger to others'" fails because it would stigmatize people who were locked up for being dangerous   (politicalsmokeout.tumblr.com) divider line 228
    More: Fail, gun ownership, county board, Columbine High School, South Dakota Legislature  
•       •       •

2016 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2013 at 1:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 01:11:35 PM  
Uh, yeah. Thats the idea.
 
2013-02-19 01:13:12 PM  
Someone should graph the number of articles every week that are real but could be mistaken for an Onion article because I am definitely see some trending happening.
 
2013-02-19 01:15:30 PM  
We'll discuss gun control after we fix mental health, which we'll never do.
 
2013-02-19 01:16:19 PM  
The measure was "overreaching," said Rep. Melissa Magstadt, R-Watertown, who worried about taking the right to bear arms away from people who had yet to commit violence but had a diagnosis that they were likely to do so.

a.abcnews.com

Will you be my new mommy?
 
2013-02-19 01:16:47 PM  
Of course it did. What is the deal with any change to the current system being labeled as basically evil on the level of Satan himself, why we all at the same time realize that the current system is really, really dangerous?

Why do we understand so clearly limitations on free speech, like not screaming out there's a fire in a crowded movie theater or hate speech, but we cannot make the same connections to the second amendment?
 
2013-02-19 01:17:15 PM  
Arends said. Passing the ban would unfairly cast "individuals living with a dangerous brain illness as a danger to the population," she said.

Dangerous people are not dangerous. This is what passes for responsible gun control these days.
 
2013-02-19 01:17:31 PM  
If gun control doesn't work why aren't more ppl killed with RPG's grenades, & M-60's?
 
2013-02-19 01:18:41 PM  
That's how the "mental health" distraction works. You point to it as the  real issue, then wait for it to die.
 
2013-02-19 01:19:14 PM  
Rep. Scott Ecklund, R-Brandon, said he didn't like how the bill would add to the struggle of people with mental illnesses. But he said the debate on the bill was informative and suggested he'd be open to looking at the issue again next year.

"This is a great beginning of the conversation," Ecklund said.


Also, voting to kill a bill in committee counts as 'beginning a conversation'.
I think this guy may have mainlined a little too much Frank Luntz.
 
2013-02-19 01:19:41 PM  
Gun nuts who probably couldn't pass a standardized Paranoid Personality Disorder screening are opposed to keeping guns away from people who might have a debilitating mental illness?

Who could have seen this coming?
 
2013-02-19 01:20:04 PM  
We all know the real reason why gun control bills won't pass.  The gun industry would never let it happen.
 
2013-02-19 01:20:47 PM  

LasersHurt: That's how the "mental health" distraction works. You point to it as the  real issue, then wait for it to die.


Don't fret, the crew will be in here soon enough announcing that they totally support UHC in order to get mental health to the masses. They will not tell you who they vote for though.
 
2013-02-19 01:20:52 PM  
goddamnitsomuch.  What the hell?  Why can't we do anything right?
 
2013-02-19 01:22:31 PM  
A victory for law-abiding gun owners.

Especially law-abiding gun owners who are a little off in the head.

And law-abiding gun owners a little off in the head who would like to stop being law-abiding and exorcise those demons by opening up with some serious farking fire.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:35 PM  
God forbid we stigmatize people who have a high degree of chance of injuring someone.  But of course we should brand the scarlet letter on a drunk dude caught pissing in the bushes.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:49 PM  

Some of same folks who say mental health programs, not new laws, will cut gun violence, back sequester that would end MH services for 350K.

- David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 19, 2013
 
2013-02-19 01:23:36 PM  
Welcome to America. Heres your gun.
 
2013-02-19 01:24:02 PM  
I saw a story on Dateline/one of those shows this weekend about a guy who was killed by his wife on a hunting trip in Canada. She wasnt charged at first, came back to the US and started the process of collecting his $500k insurance policy, and everyone assumed it was an accident. Except for the people who knew the husband and wife really well, knew that the wife was crazy although undiagnosed, and the husband was sure she would kill him some day. The reason he never tried to get her mental help? He was scared they would take away her guns and she couldn't hunt. I just had to laugh.
 
2013-02-19 01:25:59 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: The measure was "overreaching," said Rep. Melissa Magstadt, R-Watertown, who worried about taking the right to bear arms away from people who had yet to commit violence but had a diagnosis that they were likely to do so


So, let me see if I get this.  Every crazy person gets ONE freebee to go on a shooting rampage before we consider taking away their guns preventing them from buying any new guns?  I thought everyone (i.e. Republicans) were on-board with the whole "beef up the mental-health system to improve detection and prevention". What did THEY think that meant? Because stopping someone from having a gun AFTER they shoot up the Denny's is what we already do. I thought we all agreed that wasn't working the best.
 
2013-02-19 01:26:19 PM  

LasersHurt: That's how the "mental health" distraction works. You point to it as the  real issue, then wait for it to die.



Exactly.

The due process implications of ramping up involuntary mental health commitments are staggering.
 
2013-02-19 01:26:32 PM  
Well 0bamacare designates everyone that doesn't vote for the Dims as mentally ill, so this was just a cheap ploy to take away guns from God loving Americans.

Thanks, 0blubber.
 
2013-02-19 01:27:00 PM  
Potentially dangerous.

I'm all for expanding the responsibilities of gun nuts to help minimize instances of criminals and lunatics getting guns, but this is one thing I'd have to say I don't agree with. There are too many ways in which involuntary commitment is broken to make this reasonably effective right now. Too often people are picked up for aberrant behavior and handed over to a psych ward, but there's no history to go off of and they're just turned around and released until they commit another crime.

Fix the commitment and tracking system first, then worry about how you're going to utilize it.
 
2013-02-19 01:29:42 PM  

justtray: We'll discuss gun control after we fix mental health, which we'll never do.


NYC is planning on rounding up the mentally ill, they even have a Most Wanted list of crazies. Not sure on where they plan on housing them
 
2013-02-19 01:30:05 PM  

RobotSpider: I thought everyone (i.e. Republicans) were on-board with the whole "beef up the mental-health system to improve detection and prevention"


Their new strategy is to say things like that, and then lobby against it whenever possible and ask why the president isn't doing anything or why the president is doing too much, depending on the day of the week.
 
2013-02-19 01:30:35 PM  
The measure was "overreaching," said Rep. Melissa Magstadt, R-Watertown, who worried about taking the right to bear arms away from people who had yet to commit violence but had a diagnosis that they were likely to do so.

I know there would be some that would back this statement up with some sort of slippery slope argument about "thought police" or whatever, but isn't the idea to stop people BEFORE they commit violence? Wouldn't this be covered in a proper background check? Is the only acceptable gun control to take guns away from people after they've used them in a crime?
 
2013-02-19 01:31:05 PM  
Well then. Thank the gods that my mentally unstable stalking psycho was convicted of DV and therefore cannot ever legally obtain a gun; 'cause otherwise keeping someone who threatens harm on others is only doing so because his brain is sick and we should continue to cater to his delusions. Makes sense.

/I got mine, fark all y'all!
//jk
 
2013-02-19 01:31:41 PM  

bikerific: LasersHurt: That's how the "mental health" distraction works. You point to it as the  real issue, then wait for it to die.


Exactly.

The due process implications of ramping up involuntary mental health commitments are staggering.


Who said anything about ramping up involuntary committal?
 
2013-02-19 01:31:48 PM  
Haven't they figured it out yet? Just name the bill something like "Protect the Environment and Natural Islands of the South Act of 2013" and fill it with whatever you want. American's aren't smart enough or do they care enough to look past a name of a bill.
 
2013-02-19 01:31:50 PM  

RobotSpider: So, let me see if I get this. Every crazy person gets ONE freebee to go on a shooting rampage before we consider taking away their guns preventing them from buying any new guns? I thought everyone (i.e. Republicans) were on-board with the whole "beef up the mental-health system to improve detection and prevention". What did THEY think that meant? Because stopping someone from having a gun AFTER they shoot up the Denny's is what we already do. I thought we all agreed that wasn't working the best.



Except we don't really have a great working definition of "crazy" for most people, at least not until they shoot up a Denny's.   And we have not yet mastered the concept of precrime convictions.

We have no real mechanism regarding what people might possibly do at some point in the future.  Many of the possible actions the legal system could take would probably be unconstitutional and overwhelmingly seen as unacceptable.

You think the TSA goes overboard now?
 
2013-02-19 01:31:53 PM  
. Passing the ban would unfairly cast "individuals living with a dangerous brain illness as a danger to the population," she said.

The hell.
 
2013-02-19 01:34:21 PM  
So, my posts in the other thread were correct, then?

Most of the people that chant "better mental health care, not gun control!" just shout it like it's a magical litany, like saying the words will make everything better. But when pressed for specifics (How will you deal with folks that don't want to be helped? People that don't realize something's wrong?), they've got nothing. No plan to deal with involuntary commitment, no plan on how to keep involuntary commitment being abused, no actual desire to solve the issue.

Or, they *ARE* willing to just involuntarily commit people without much oversight. Happy to violate due process if it means they aren't inconvenienced.

Not that I think necessarily "MOAR GUN CONTROL (no matter the type!)" is the right answer, either.
 
2013-02-19 01:36:54 PM  

RobotSpider: So, let me see if I get this. Every crazy person gets ONE freebee to go on a shooting rampage


Yep, you got it.  Once again, the Republican party prove themselves to be the single greatest threat to this country today.  Fark you all.
 
2013-02-19 01:37:04 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Potentially dangerous.

I'm all for expanding the responsibilities of gun nuts to help minimize instances of criminals and lunatics getting guns, but this is one thing I'd have to say I don't agree with. There are too many ways in which involuntary commitment is broken to make this reasonably effective right now. Too often people are picked up for aberrant behavior and handed over to a psych ward, but there's no history to go off of and they're just turned around and released until they commit another crime.

Fix the commitment and tracking system first, then worry about how you're going to utilize it.


2nd Amendment rights don't protect against State Laws anyways unless stipulated in the States' Constitution.  If a State sees gun sales as a threat to the public, they can ban gun sales outright.
 
2013-02-19 01:38:46 PM  
I had understood such individuals to already be prohibited from possessing firearms. Is my understanding in error?
 
2013-02-19 01:39:59 PM  
Let's make a list of things that should supersede an individual's 2nd Amendment right:

Violent felony convictions
Spousal/Child abuse convictions
Diagnosed mental illness with violent propensities
?
 
2013-02-19 01:40:53 PM  

MichiganFTL: Haven't they figured it out yet? Just name the bill something like "Protect the Environment and Natural Islands of the South Act of 2013" and fill it with whatever you want. American's aren't smart enough or do they care enough to look past a name of a bill.


Methinks this won't fly in South...                                          Dakota.
 
2013-02-19 01:40:59 PM  

mrshowrules: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Potentially dangerous.

I'm all for expanding the responsibilities of gun nuts to help minimize instances of criminals and lunatics getting guns, but this is one thing I'd have to say I don't agree with. There are too many ways in which involuntary commitment is broken to make this reasonably effective right now. Too often people are picked up for aberrant behavior and handed over to a psych ward, but there's no history to go off of and they're just turned around and released until they commit another crime.

Fix the commitment and tracking system first, then worry about how you're going to utilize it.

2nd Amendment rights don't protect against State Laws anyways unless stipulated in the States' Constitution.  If a State sees gun sales as a threat to the public, they can ban gun sales outright.


You are correct, which is why Chicago's prohibition upon civilian handgun ownership was upheld as Constitutional.

By "correct" I mean that your claim is likely true in some alternate universe.
 
2013-02-19 01:41:28 PM  

Dimensio: I had understood such individuals to already be prohibited from possessing firearms. Is my understanding in error?


Yes, they can also buy fully automatic weapons at Kmart, silencers at Joe's Hardware, bullets spark off everything they hit and if you flick your wrist REALLY hard, you can make a bullet curve around a corner.
 
2013-02-19 01:42:40 PM  

jigger: bikerific: LasersHurt: That's how the "mental health" distraction works. You point to it as the  real issue, then wait for it to die.


Exactly.

The due process implications of ramping up involuntary mental health commitments are staggering.

Who said anything about ramping up involuntary committal?


We are talking about declaring people who have committed no crime to be so dangerous that they cannot indulge in the same freedoms that others can.    It's lesser in quantity, but it's qualitatively the same thing.

I'm an attorney working with local government.  Right now my office is dealing with
(1) A lawsuit by someone suing because the cops took his guns away.  He'll probably win some big money.
(2)  A guy being evicted from public housing for various infractions, and who has submitted hundreds of pages of pro se "legal argument," including how he is a prophet of god and he is being persecuted by a demonically-influenced cabal of bitter divorced women who will face consequences.  This guy actually went a committment hearing was not committed.   Other than having an extra deputy at the courthouse, there isn't much that can be done with him.

The legal system would be very very bad at this kind of thing.  And some of the reasons it would be bad at this are by design.  In fact, much of the legal system is geared to prevent this kind of thing.

I'm not as familiar with the mental health side of it, but what I do know does not inspire great confidence.

It's easy to say we should take the guns away from crazy people. In practice, it would be much harder.
 
2013-02-19 01:42:51 PM  

MichiganFTL: Dimensio: I had understood such individuals to already be prohibited from possessing firearms. Is my understanding in error?

Yes, they can also buy fully automatic weapons at Kmart, silencers at Joe's Hardware, bullets spark off everything they hit and if you flick your wrist REALLY hard, you can make a bullet curve around a corner.


I wish that I had known about the availability of silencers earlier; I would not have undertaken the expense and work to arrange a silencer transfer from a local firearm retailer in January. Now I will likely wait until October before taking possession of the item.
 
2013-02-19 01:43:05 PM  

omtc: MichiganFTL: Haven't they figured it out yet? Just name the bill something like "Protect the Environment and Natural Islands of the South Act of 2013" and fill it with whatever you want. American's aren't smart enough or do they care enough to look past a name of a bill.

Methinks this won't fly in South...                                          Dakota.


Maybe, but it would be fun to watch them talk about the PENIS Act of 2013 for a few weeks.
 
2013-02-19 01:44:58 PM  
I hope that gun rights advocates realize that they aren't doing themselves any favors by staking out an absolutist position where no gun control, what so ever, is acceptable. Sooner or later, the public really will get fed up enough that your lobbying won't be sufficient to protect your interests.
 
2013-02-19 01:45:32 PM  

Karac: Arends said. Passing the ban would unfairly cast "individuals living with a dangerous brain illness as a danger to the population," she said.

Dangerous people are not dangerous. This is what passes for responsible gun control these days.


And this from America that was willing to "preemptivly" bomb a country that never attacked it on the basis of unseen evidence of chemical weapons manufacturing.
 
2013-02-19 01:46:11 PM  
It's already against federal law:


18 U.S.C. § 922(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-
...
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.


What are they going to do, make it illegaler?
 
2013-02-19 01:46:13 PM  

Dimensio: I had understood such individuals to already be prohibited from possessing firearms. Is my understanding in error?


I wish I could remember correctly, but I think there's something in HIPPA that makes it really hard for law enforcement to ask mental health institutions about this sort of thing. They don't automatically have access, they're not currently integrated into the background check databases, and I think it might take a law (similar to this one?) for them to be *allowed* to do that.

There was definitely a news report on this recently, I wish I could remember the specifics. I'll see if I can dig it up.
 
2013-02-19 01:47:13 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I hope that gun rights advocates realize that they aren't doing themselves any favors by staking out an absolutist position where no gun control, what so ever, is acceptable. Sooner or later, the public really will get fed up enough that your lobbying won't be sufficient to protect your interests.


You are correct. The behaviour of notorious firearm advocacy group "National Alliance on Mental Illness" is weakening acceptance of firearm ownership rights.
 
2013-02-19 01:47:19 PM  
To be fair; we are talking about South Dakota, this would remove the right to own guns from 75% or more of the people who live there.
 
2013-02-19 01:49:07 PM  

Felgraf: Dimensio: I had understood such individuals to already be prohibited from possessing firearms. Is my understanding in error?

I wish I could remember correctly, but I think there's something in HIPPA that makes it really hard for law enforcement to ask mental health institutions about this sort of thing. They don't automatically have access, they're not currently integrated into the background check databases, and I think it might take a law (similar to this one?) for them to be *allowed* to do that.

There was definitely a news report on this recently, I wish I could remember the specifics. I'll see if I can dig it up.


Such adjudications are supposed to be made available to the NICS database. Weaknesses in reporting in the state of Virginia were exposed upon the revelation that Mr. Sueng-Hui Cho was able to purchase firearms from a licensed seller despite being legally disqualified from possessing firearms; the deficiencies in state reporting were legislatively corrected afterward.
 
2013-02-19 01:49:24 PM  

bikerific: Except we don't really have a great working definition of "crazy" for most people, at least not until they shoot up a Denny's.   And we have not yet mastered the concept of precrime convictions.

We have no real mechanism regarding what people might possibly do at some point in the future.  Many of the possible actions the legal system could take would probably be unconstitutional and overwhelmingly seen as unacceptable.

You think the TSA goes overboard now?


Oh, I get it--really, I do, that wasn't sarcasm. I understand the concern over pre-crime arrests and prosecutions.  Except we're not really talking about prosecuting someone for being crazy. We're (they're) talking about determining if someone lacks the mental capacity to own a firearm.  I have to think this is pretty broadly defined. I'm even ok with an appeals process for people who are denied.  The problem is the gap between a quantitative solution and a problem that should be qualitatively analyzed.
 
2013-02-19 01:49:49 PM  

mrshowrules: 2nd Amendment rights don't protect against State Laws anyways unless stipulated in the States' Constitution. If a State sees gun sales as a threat to the public, they can ban gun sales outright.


Wrong.  The Bill of Rights, as originally enacted, did not limit the power of state governments.  However, over the course of time, the Supreme Court has ruled that states have to abide by the same restrictions as the federal government.  That's why you have to be given a lawyer whether your arrested by the FBI or by Barney Fife.

The 2nd amendment took the longest to be incorporated (except the 9th and 10th - but that don't say that government can't do such-and-such a thing anyway), but as of 2010, the it applies to the fifty states as well as the federal government.

Of course, the entire Bill of Rights is subject to being restricted under certain scenarios: can't yell fire in a theater, can't own a gun if you're a felon, can't get tortured unless it's called enhanced interrorgation.
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report