|
jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/16/2017 5:55:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
As I stated before, when Virginia passed the law requiring mental health providers to report a person's mental condition if such a condition was a possible danger to the public, the ACLU tried to block it on privacy grounds.
Eventually the court of appeals ruled that a person's right to privacy does not outweigh or even have equal consideration to the safety of the public at large.
However, since the case never made it to SCOTUS, there was never a formal ruling by the supreme court, hence the pretty much partisan issue on privacy of patient's mental health records by the same screw balls that want tougher background checks while completely ignoring why the current ones arent working, with the exception of a few right wing shit for brains, one of which insists that the loss of innocent lives is a fair price to pay for the right to have guns in our home.
There has to be a way to incorporate mental health limitations and still preserve privacy rights. It was probably you, but someone on here made the case it could be like applying for credit; you get a letter explaining why you were denied, though the person making the check will only see that you're denied, but not why.
It was not me, however, the simple fact is that the laws as written do need some tweaks, but we do not need a shit ton of new laws passed or enacted until the problems with the existing laws are fixed, then it would be a simple matter of adding new regulations to bolster the effectiveness of those already in place.
But it is not only the mental health issue that is the problem.
One is prohibited, by federal law, to purchase or even possess a firearm if that person has a protective order against them. Yet, since it is not mandatory for that information to be passed on at a local court level to the database used for background checks, the person can just hop the county line and buy a gun and go back and kill whoever had the protective order issued.
While people are screaming about the mass shootings, they seem to forget the number of domestic violence related shootings that have happened because someone jumped a county line and bought a gun.
In a very real since, we have the laws to protect US citizens, yet those laws are not universally enforced or even able to be universally enforced because a bunch of jack assed idiots scream about 'right to privacy' or 'it costs too much' or some other bullshit reason.
In fact, how about we look at some historic facts about gun laws AND the sacred 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Okay, now gun supporters will say this prevents laws requiring registration of firearms, and they would be wrong.
Every state, except Quaker controlled Pennsylvania, required every able bodied male between 16 and 60 to be enrolled in the state militia. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.
Now this would mean that the state and local governments knew who owned guns, and the only way to know that would have been some form of registration.
Safe storage laws were also pretty much the norm after the bill of rights was adopted, now granted this was due in a large part to the fact that the gunpowder at the time was corrosive and not quite as stable as you would want. So a loaded firearm stored in the home was pretty much illegal in the original states.
Open carry, contrary to the popular belief, open carry was prohibited in the early United States, and actually with westward expansion, was pretty much only the norm west of the Mississippi river where states and territories adopted laws requiring travelers to be armed.
It is just as true that many frontier towns adopted laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms of any type within city limits. This was especially true in the cow towns along the trails used for cattle drives from Texas to the rail heads in Kansas. Trail hands were paid at the end of the drive, and as young and old men do, they spent their money in the towns where the drive ended, drinking, chasing women, and in the process, the reckless discharge of firearms was the norm.
Citizens voted on and passed ordinances that made it illegal to carry a gun inside town limits and it was accepted.
Stand your ground laws are another slight problem, since English common law was adopted after the state's won their independence, and under that, the individual had the duty to retreat in order to prevent bloodshed unless there was no place to go, except in their home where castle law applied.
So, there is no constitutional prevention to sensible, enforceable gun laws, the people that are preventing such laws are us, and on both sides.
When the anti gun groups start raising the specter of newer gun laws, while ignoring the problems with the existing ones, the pro gun lobby comes back with equally stubborn resolve to stop the effort.
The thing is that when it comes to gun laws, the history of the United States prior to the mid twentieth century, was one of compromise, on both sides. The NRA worked with people who wanted gun control laws to find workable compromises that made both sides happy or at least found something that satisfied both sides.
But like the rest of American politics, it is now all or nothing. And this means that people die because people who are prohibited from purchasing a gun under the present laws do so, with no effective way of stopping it, and that is because neither side wants to admit that their own stand on the issue is stopping any sensible effort to fix the fucking problem.
What exactly would be the problem if, once more, the states required every able bodied person of legal age to be a member of the unorganized militia? In the early days, the militia was not only for defense of the community, but they were also there to aid in disasters.
Take the recent hurricanes.
Before anyone could get any help, the governor had to declare an emergency, then before the Federal government could offer assistance, the President had to declare a disaster.
Okay, that is procedure, but in the hours that takes, help to the victims was in short supply, emergency personnel were over whelmed, and volunteers were in short supply.
Now consider the alternative.
Every county has an emergency response director. This was first started during the cold war as part of the civil defense program.
Now, if that director had the authority to call up the local militia to aid in the initial recovery efforts, even if he used them to handle central logistics, prevention of looting, or search and rescue, the simple fact is that while waiting for the red tape to be dealt with, some work could have already been done.
Its not as crazy as one might think, already licensed HAM radio operators are required by Federal Law to put themselves and their equipment at the disposal of the local authorities in the event of a disaster or emergency.
And as a bit of a humorous note, in many cases, the radio gear owned by HAM operators make the stuff owned by the local authorities look like kids toys.
Many have talked about the riots in LA and other places where armed citizens protected businesses and shopping centers due to a lack of police response, and in the process failed to grasp a significant fact in each of those incidents.
Standard issue for a patrolman is a 40 cal semi automatic pistol, and each cruiser usually has a shot gun and a 5.56 caliber AR type rifle.
The people acting on their own in most cases had weapons that were equal to what the criminals had in caliber, which was a little bit larger than the cops carried.
|
|
|
|
