Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

With all due respect, we couldn't even get 3/4 of the states to vote for enslaving black people should be unconstitutional. The only reason it passed was because half the states left, and even then was by the skin of our teeth.

Um... slavery is only illegal because of a ratified constitutional amendment. Heh.

[Rukentuts]

Meh, I think it could happen, and it would also benefit the state of mental healthcare in this country as well. Basically make the reliable conservative boogeymen to finally get some policy through that would improve American lives.

But we saw how these states just leaped at Obamacare, despite how now Minnesota is down to 3% uninsured because of it.

Um... slavery is only illegal because of a ratified constitutional amendment. Heh.

One that barely passed. If the Confederacy actually mattered on its ratification, hell would freeze over before it would have happened. Would all the states, the post-Confederate states included, ever vote 3/4 on gun control restrictions, no matter even if it were UBCs? Something 90% of people want? Fuck no.

[lockedout]

It's 3/4s of the states. I disagree, I think the people of the US would overwhelmingly support comprehensive mental health screenings for the 2nd amendment, hell that is the go to excuse for republican representatives that haven't received a considerable amount of money from the NRA.

- - - Updated - - -



Yea, did I stutter?

I just wanted to make sure. Looking at a list of mental disorders here http://psychcentral.com/disorders/.
Of course some of them are common sense like violent Schizophrenia but then there are many other mental disorders that I might see ok with owning a firearm like people with eating disorders or Female Sexual Arousal Disorder . Here is the definition (I know you already knew it). Persistent or recurrent inability to attain, or to maintain until completion of the sexual activity, an adequate lubrication-swelling response of sexual excitement.

The disturbance causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

[Daelak]

But we saw how these states just leaped at Obamacare, despite how now Minnesota is down to 3% uninsured because of it.

Yeah, once Obama is out of office they will all take the federal assistance so they can keep railing against the dependent class of their own states.

[Stormdash]

Conservatives always blame mental health, until it's time to actually filter people out that are unstable. It's confusing.

You have a prove it's unconstitutional buddy. That means explicitly this. Especially since 9/11 has already provided grounds.
Wait wait wait, did a lawyer just say the rule of law is meaningless?

Yes, a lawyer pointed out that if a statute that's self-evidently, facially in violation of the Constitution is passed and signed, that whether it should be treated as "valid" is a meaningless question when the first time it's actually put to the test, it will be struck down. It's the jurisprudential equivalent of Schrodinger's Cat. If Congress passed a law reinstating the slave trade, and Obama signed it just for the lulz, would it be constitutional on paper while litigation was pending? Again, does that distinction matter?

[Daelak]

I just wanted to make sure. Looking at a list of mental disorders here http://psychcentral.com/disorders/.
Of course some of them are common sense like violent Schizophrenia but then there are many other mental disorders that I might see ok with owning a firearm like people with eating disorders or Female Sexual Arousal Disorder Symptoms. Here is the definition (I know you already knew it). Persistent or recurrent inability to attain, or to maintain until completion of the sexual activity, an adequate lubrication-swelling response of sexual excitement.

The disturbance causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

Why would I want a woman that is under constant stress and anxiety while orgasming a weapon?

[Mayhem]

When did I ever comment on smoking? Or say that no issue is significant? This is why you shouldn't engage in straw manning and lying, it's impossible to keep the truth in focus.

maybe you should read all of someone´s post and not just one word, quote it and comment stuff that had nothing to do with the quote

why i wrote context was not because of your comparison to the population of the US, but because of the word everything

alright, as i obviously didn´t ask a clear question, i´ll try it again, what do you consider a significant health issue compared to the US population?

[Rukentuts]

Yes, a lawyer pointed out that if a statute that's self-evidently, facially in violation of the Constitution is passed and signed, that whether it should be treated as "valid" is a meaningless question when the first time it's actually put to the test, it will be struck down. It's the jurisprudential equivalent of Schrodinger's Cat. If Congress passed a law reinstating the slave trade, and Obama signed it just for the lulz, would it be constitutional on paper while litigation was pending? Again, does that distinction matter?

So now we're appealing to authority in place of evidence?

An authority I don't even believe exists, by the way.

[lockedout]

But we saw how these states just leaped at Obamacare, despite how now Minnesota is down to 3% uninsured because of it.

Is that projected or actual? You have a link?

[Rukentuts]

Is that projected or actual? You have a link?

Old, I'm trying to find the one I heard on KARE 11 the other day.

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/oba...ninsured-rate/

That was last years enrollment (4.9%), this year is 3%.

[Stormdash]

So now we're appealing to authority in place of evidence?

An authority I don't even believe exists, by the way.

Actually, "we're" reusing the trite, snide turn of phrase you chose in the post to which I was replying.

I don't give any shits if you don't believe I'm an attorney. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners does, and that's what matters.

[lockedout]

Why would I want a woman that is under constant stress and anxiety while orgasming a weapon?

She hasn't broken any law and isn't violent why shouldn't she be able to?
What about the eating disorders? What I am getting at is the definition is to broad, you're just arguing to save face at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Old, I'm trying to find the one I heard on KARE 11 the other day.

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/oba...ninsured-rate/

That was last years enrollment (4.9%), this year is 3%.

To be fair the rate of uninsurance in the state fell from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent. Also the state started out ahead with a rate of uninsurance roughly half the national average. Still a positive but without this context it sounded a lot better.

[Daelak]

She hasn't broken any law and isn't violent why shouldn't she be able to?
What about the eating disorders? What I am getting at is the definition is to broad, you're just arguing to save face at this point.

No I am not, why would I want a person who's baseline normal behavior is waaaaay waaay above normal in terms of distress and irritability? Likewise, why would someone who's behavior of throwing up their food, or actively starving themself as a person in control of their mental faculties?

[Rukentuts]

Actually, "we're" reusing the trite, snide turn of phrase you chose in the post to which I was replying.

While dismissing legal procedure and not actually citing where 9/11's (and later elaborated by I) concept was unconstitutional?

Here's a concept for you: burden of proof.

To be fair the rate of uninsurance in the state fell from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent. Also the state started out ahead with a rate of uninsurance roughly half the national average. Still a positive but without this context it sounded a lot better.

I was merely citing how getting rid of (almost) 67% of uninsured due to a law that has so much hate attached to it, pretty much guarantees that no appeal to "improvement of mental health" will sway conservatives. That was the beginning and end of my tangent.

[lockedout]

No I am not, why would I want a person who's baseline normal behavior is waaaaay waaay above normal in terms of distress and irritability? Likewise, why would someone who's behavior of throwing up their food, or actively starving themself as a person in control of their mental faculties?

Are they violent and have they broken any law? If the answers are no and no then they can have all the guns they want.

[rhandric]

Here ya go.

$1.5 MILLION per fatal firearm injury in work loss alone? That correlates to 150k man-hours at $10/hour, or 30k man-hours at $50/hour. That's a fuckton of man-hours assumed lost per fatal injury (14.4 working years at $50/hr wage/equiv salary), no matter the pay (and that's assuming the victim works). And that accounts for 30% of their predicted cost to society.

About 65% of their predicted cost to society is "quality of life", defined to be "the pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life of people who were shot and their families; we did not value fear experienced by people who were not shot". Which is a very nebulous definition and term. In what way is there a monetary loss as a result? Specifically, in what way does that affect the economy?

If you look at the direct costs, they're 1/20th the amount that's claimed to be the total societal costs. I get that there are secondary and tertiary costs to firearm injuries, but when the indirect costs are 95% of the total cost, are we sure that those costs are accurate? Mind you, the link only gives definitions, not methodologies for determining those costs.

[Stormdash]

While dismissing legal procedure and not actually citing where 9/11's (and later elaborated by I) concept was unconstitutional?

Here's a concept for you: burden of proof.

Pro-tip -- it's actually the government's burden to prove the validity of the disputed state action in cases where heightened forms of scrutiny apply. So if we were role-playing out the case here, it would actually be on you and Pre to explain how those restrictions satisfy the strict or intermediate scrutiny (good appellate practice would be to brief both standards in case the judge doesn't go your way on which one applies).

[Rukentuts]

Pro-tip -- it's actually the government's burden to prove the validity of the disputed state action in cases where heightened forms of scrutiny apply. So if we were role-playing out the case here, it would actually be on you and Pre to explain how those restrictions satisfy the strict or intermediate scrutiny (good appellate practice would be to brief both standards in case the judge doesn't go your way on which one applies).

If by prove you mean defend, then yes. But this isn't a court case. You insisted it was unconstitutional. Not that it "may be". This either assumes you have evidence that shows it IS unconstitutional, or you're making an assumption. Given your inability to cite, my money is on the latter.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Old, I'm trying to find the one I heard on KARE 11 the other day.

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/oba...ninsured-rate/

That was last years enrollment (4.9%), this year is 3%.

The ACA has seemingly disappeared from the Republican's list of things they want to address, now that they have the power to do so. Exactly like I predicted, for pretty much the reasons I predicted.

[Rukentuts]

The ACA has seemingly disappeared from the Republican's list of things they want to address, now that they have the power to do so. Exactly like I predicted, for pretty much the reasons I predicted.

They're trying to get federal tax credits thrown out by SCOTUS on the basis of semantics, so then they can run up the costs in their states (because they don't have exchanges) then say how horrible Obama is.