Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Today's firearms are much more powerful than the flintlock muskets of the time of the American Revolution. "Arms" included swords and crossbows that were already obsolete in the American Revolution. The bayonet was more feared for the knife that could disembowel a victim than for its bullet.

Freedom of speech and writing of course does not apply to criminal speech. One cannot defend a ransom note used in a kidnapping for ransom as freedom of speech, and one can't defend "This is a stickup! Hand over the money and nobody gets hurt!" used in a bank robbery. Maybe in a screenplay or a novel, but not in real life. Freedom of speech does not imply any right to a receptive audience.

Of course the problem is not with the ransom note or the bank-robber's threat; it is the context, and kidnapping and robbery are outlawed in practice. Criminal speech leaves no doubt about its purpose.

There is one well known expression of when rights become criminal acts. "Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins." Rights are or ought to be firm so long as one isn't infringing on the rights of others.

Silencing speech when the speaker hasn't done any harm with his speech would be unconstitutional. Taking away a weapon when the bearer hasn't harmed anyone with the weapon is a similar case. There is a really high bar set by the courts before a guaranteed individual right is infringed, and rightly so.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is one well known expression of when rights become criminal acts. "Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins." Rights are or ought to be firm so long as one isn't infringing on the rights of others.

Incitement to riot of course is not protected speech.

Silencing speech when the speaker hasn't done any harm with his speech would be unconstitutional.

Of course criminal speech or writing often an unjustified command, part of a deprivation recognized rights to life, liberty, property, and perhaps chastity. But as a rule the criminal speech leaves no question of an intent to commit a crime. It may also be fraudulent behavior, as concealment of embezzlement, or an effort to sell a worthless investment. But the speech or writing connected to an illegal act is at law at most evidence or testimony to an act illegal in itself. But depicting a crime in a stage play or setting up a mock-fraud is legal in itself if it is easily seen as unreal.

Thus I could mock a '419' solicitation:

Originally Posted by pure fantasy

Greetings! I am a member of the Qaddafi family, and as you well know the family accounts have been blocked since some unfortunate events in 2011. As an astute investor you can enjoy a large share of the assets that my family used to own so that I can live a modest life as a Christian (I have renounced Islam because it is manifestly false) who needs no more than the basics of life. Kindly remit (amount garbled) by wire transfer to (account data undisclosed) so that you can share in wealth that can help you but that I no longer need.

I pray to my Lord and Savior Jesus that you will help me in the name of our now-shared Christian faith.

"Michael" Qaddafi.

Taking away a weapon when the bearer hasn't harmed anyone with the weapon is a similar case. There is a really high bar set by the courts before a guaranteed individual right is infringed, and rightly so.

But one has the right to have no weapons in one's presence. Taking weapons into a place in which those weapons are unwelcome and inexcusable is not an exercise of the right to bear arms but instead an overt threat. The question that the Second Amendment poses is whether one can be trusted with firearms. Criminals, idiots, addicts, and lunatics obviously can't be trusted with firearms.

Originally Posted by B Butler

T
Silencing speech when the speaker hasn't done any harm with his speech would be unconstitutional. Taking away a weapon when the bearer hasn't harmed anyone with the weapon is a similar case. There is a really high bar set by the courts before a guaranteed individual right is infringed, and rightly so.

Unless, as a sane and advanced society, we decide that weapons are not the way to handle disputes, and therefore we agree that we give up our weapons by law. Or at least, as is proposed now, and pbrower suggests, that some people are not allowed to have them based on their condition or prior actions.

you do realize, most anything can be used as a weapon. I present this blog as evidence exhibit A http://invictaselfdefense.blogspot.c...f-defense.html

exhibit B scroll to the common objects section, this is dating safety website that this comes from. Really good advise on it. http://www.datehookup.com/content-da...-for-women.htm

I agree that criminals and mentally ill people should not have weapons. But there is this disturbing fact to keep in mind concerning the diagnosis of mental illness since the new DSM came out.

I present evidence and critiques on that here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/15-...m-5-2013-05-22
and here: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1344935 and again here: http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/dsm-...health-0509137

the way the new mental health guidelines read, nearly anyone could be lumped into the categories they have established.

Giving up weapons is a broad slippery slope. Deciding who is mentally ill is getting to be even more of a slippery slope. Perhaps it would just be wise to leave creating laws that don't work alone.

I present this to back up my last sentence above: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois and this here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9891F620130910

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Giving up weapons is a broad slippery slope. Deciding who is mentally ill is getting to be even more of a slippery slope. Perhaps it would just be wise to leave creating laws that don't work alone.

NOT doing it is also a slippery slope, which we are already falling down, toward ever greater mass murders and violence. I'm sorry that Illinois is going in the wrong direction.

so are you ready to be judged mentally ill if you grieve for a loved one that has died? ready to be judged mentally ill for having a moment of forgetfulness? because critics have already stated that can happen.

Anything can be used as a weapon from a fork, to a water bottle to a library book. Even an ink pen or stiletto heel can be used as a weapon. who decides? because I'm pretty sure the fashion industry might get cranky if high heels get outlawed, and most restaurant patrons might get upset if they can't use a fork.

Did you even read any of the articles I linked to back up my posts?

we can't put the whole world and every individual in a plastic bubble or wrap everyone in bubble wrap. What's next helmets just to walk outside? oh wait, nevermind, that was proposed in this: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08...od-helmet.html

Originally Posted by Danilynn

so are you ready to be judged mentally ill if you grieve for a loved one that has died? ready to be judged mentally ill for having a moment of forgetfulness? because critics have already stated that can happen.

Personally, I have no problem having weapons denied to anyone. It is not my concern. Nor does what the psychology profession says about people have much relevance to reality. If you guys want to squabble over who gets a gun and who doesn't, go ahead. You may have some good points.

Anything can be used as a weapon from a fork, to a water bottle to a library book. Even an ink pen or stiletto heel can be used as a weapon. who decides? because I'm pretty sure the fashion industry might get cranky if high heels get outlawed, and most restaurant patrons might get upset if they can't use a fork.

Did you even read any of the articles I linked to back up my posts?

That is an old tired argument, and I don't have time to go over it again with you. I glanced at them, but since you don't respond to my points, I don't see why I have to respond to all of yours.

we can't put the whole world and every individual in a plastic bubble or wrap everyone in bubble wrap. What's next helmets just to walk outside? oh wait, nevermind, that was proposed in this: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08...od-helmet.html

The right balance is the best idea, I agree. But guns are way off balance. Their purpose is to kill people, or do you know that?

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is one well known expression of when rights become criminal acts. "Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins." Rights are or ought to be firm so long as one isn't infringing on the rights of others.

Silencing speech when the speaker hasn't done any harm with his speech would be unconstitutional. Taking away a weapon when the bearer hasn't harmed anyone with the weapon is a similar case. There is a really high bar set by the courts before a guaranteed individual right is infringed, and rightly so.

You do understand that assault with a deadly weapon is based on a threat of violence. If the problem escalates to acutal violence, the bar gets raised further. There are several other categories of weapons misuse like brandishing a firearm that are more closely linked to specific behavior, but assault is generic.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

you do realize, most anything can be used as a weapon. I present this blog as evidence exhibit A http://invictaselfdefense.blogspot.c...f-defense.html

exhibit B scroll to the common objects section, this is dating safety website that this comes from. Really good advise on it. http://www.datehookup.com/content-da...-for-women.htm

I agree that criminals and mentally ill people should not have weapons. But there is this disturbing fact to keep in mind concerning the diagnosis of mental illness since the new DSM came out.

I present evidence and critiques on that here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/15-...m-5-2013-05-22
and here: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1344935 and again here: http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/dsm-...health-0509137

the way the new mental health guidelines read, nearly anyone could be lumped into the categories they have established.

Giving up weapons is a broad slippery slope. Deciding who is mentally ill is getting to be even more of a slippery slope. Perhaps it would just be wise to leave creating laws that don't work alone.

You can't put firearms, that can wound and kill from a distance, into the same class as, say, a basball bat ... several of which I have on hand at home for protection.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

so are you ready to be judged mentally ill if you grieve for a loved one that has died? ready to be judged mentally ill for having a moment of forgetfulness? because critics have already stated that can happen.

Anything can be used as a weapon from a fork, to a water bottle to a library book. Even an ink pen or stiletto heel can be used as a weapon. who decides? because I'm pretty sure the fashion industry might get cranky if high heels get outlawed, and most restaurant patrons might get upset if they can't use a fork.

Did you even read any of the articles I linked to back up my posts?

we can't put the whole world and every individual in a plastic bubble or wrap everyone in bubble wrap. What's next helmets just to walk outside? oh wait, nevermind, that was proposed in this: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08...od-helmet.html

I would guess that roughly 25% of the people in any geographical location should never handle firearms, to say nothing of acutally owning them. Either they are too reckless, too angry, too unstable or too immature to handle them properly.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would guess that roughly 25% of the people in any geographical location should never handle forearms, to say nothing of acutally owning them. Either they are too reckless, too angry, too unstable or too immature to handle them properly.

but who gets to decide that?
who gets to decide who is to angry. everyone gets angry, everyone has reckless moments.

what is the criteria, if not the DSM? Which is now not considered a good source because it takes normal things and makes them abnormal.

Perhaps an age limit on weapons? but that would or should impact the military, since I am sure the age limit would fall above their enlistment age. If it's not good for normal civilian 18/19 year olds, then obviously 18/19 year olds shouldn't be wearing a uniform dying with a gun in hand in wars.

so again who decides? and by what criteria?

Originally Posted by Danilynn

so are you ready to be judged mentally ill if you grieve for a loved one that has died? ready to be judged mentally ill for having a moment of forgetfulness? because critics have already stated that can happen.

There is minor, transitory, situational depression (such as that one's favorite sports team lost The Big Game) and crippling depression. Of course depression may be the only rational response to a bad situation. Anyone who is in a cheerful mood after receiving a diagnosis of "death in thirty days" has a problem. Also take not -- depression is not lunacy. A depressive is more likely to do something to himself than to strangers. If the cure for depression after one's favorite baseball team loses in the playoffs is to go hunting -- then by all means let the fellow go hunting!

In contrast the sociopathic personality may be clinically sane but consummately dangerous. Such a person may be unusually adept at scheming and fostering the image of sanity and conventionality. This could be Colin Ferguson or Ted Bundy. This could be the 'devoted' wife who 'nurses' a husband with 'special vitamins' that contain vitamin A-s (As being the chemical symbol for arsenic). This could be the hot-shot businessman getting rich by taking a cut for gambling on (and losing or wasting) the funds of investors. "But he seems like a nice young man/she is a devoted caregiver/he seems so successful in the plush office with classical music in the office"... the crude street thug makes no pretenses of anything other than a petty criminal, but the high-functioning sociopath who can take down a giant business like Enron can do far more damage.

Anything can be used as a weapon from a fork, to a water bottle to a library book. Even an ink pen or stiletto heel can be used as a weapon. who decides? because I'm pretty sure the fashion industry might get cranky if high heels get outlawed, and most restaurant patrons might get upset if they can't use a fork.

Heck, the human mouth has about the same bite force as a dog and can inflict some nasty infections. I'm going to guess that women's prisons do not allow the use of high heels because men typically wear canvas shoes without shoestrings (heavier shoes could be weapons if thrown, and a shoestring makes an effective ligature), and so far as I know most prisons allow only a spoon as a utensil... and only one if metal because a metal spoon could easily be transformed into a shank.

You would be surprised how many deadly weapons are in my house -- kitchen knives, waste baskets, canes, a walker, books, televisions, a computer, stereo speakers, a magazine rack, rope, chairs, vases, drain cleaner, a mirror, and even articles of clothing. That's before I even discuss flammable objects. So why do people not tremble when they meet me? Simple. I am not a violent person. I use none of those objects except for their intended purposes. (OK, I have an unconventional use for a vase -- when I have a gout attack I drink huge quantities of water from it so that I can dilute the pain-causing uric acid).

We assume the best of human nature as a norm or we go nuts. We assume that the banker and even the stockbroker are not in business to rip us off.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would guess that roughly 25% of the people in any geographical location should never handle forearms, to say nothing of acutally owning them. Either they are too reckless, too angry, too unstable or too immature to handle them properly.

but who gets to decide that?
who gets to decide who is to angry. everyone gets angry, everyone has reckless moments.

what is the criteria, if not the DSM? Which is now not considered a good source because it takes normal things and makes them abnormal.

Perhaps an age limit on weapons? but that would or should impact the military, since I am sure the age limit would fall above their enlistment age. If it's not good for normal civilian 18/19 year olds, then obviously 18/19 year olds shouldn't be wearing a uniform dying with a gun in hand in wars.

so again who decides? and by what criteria?

I have no idea how that should be handled, but it should be. My time in the service was with an organization where everone held a TS-SCI clearance ... even the cooks. Yes we actually had miltary cooks then. Yet we had several instances of people going off the rails, including two I witnessed personally. If people who had been that thoroughly cleared were still prone to becoming unstable, I'm at a loss to know how to filter the general population. BTW, the worse of the two incidents I witnessed involved a guy I worked with everyday, who showed no outward signs of being anything other than mentally solid, yet he went to his locker, put a 20-round magazine in his M-16, and had every intent to use it. It took 5 guys to restrain him and get the rifle back in responsible hands. As far as anyone could tell, this came out of the blue.

So no, I have no idea how, and I doubt anyone else does either. I do know that violent societies tend to also be awash in weapons. In my opinion, it's one of the major reasons the Middle East and Africa are unstable.

oh thank goodness somebody got the point. I found that not a sound idea of using blood tests, it crosses to far into eugenics.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...10ef99d27.html

Another winner from JeffCo

M&L: Ideas great, must learn to type more slowly.

"Forearms"?
"organizatoin"
"bar fgets raised" Well, I can see the barf getting raised...

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

M&L: Ideas great, must learn to type more slowly.

"Forearms"?
"organizatoin"
"bar fgets raised" Well, I can see the barf getting raised...

Fixed 'em. My typing has always sucked, so typos are par for the course.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, that's part of the reason.
According to one of the articles that you quoted, NIMH prefers to use biological markers to make diagnoses, rather than symptom checklists, because they are more objective. But your point is still valid, because using a blood test rather than the DSM to determine gun rights (or any other rights) makes even less sense!

All we need are a few talented precogs

Originally Posted by Aramea

All we need are a few talented precogs

Hey, you get to lie around in the pool all day. Are you interested?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hey, you get to lie around in the pool all day. Are you interested?

Now we all know that isn't the only qualification. Being deeply disturbed is also a requirement for the job.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would guess that roughly 25% of the people in any geographical location should never handle firearms, to say nothing of acutally owning them. Either they are too reckless, too angry, too unstable or too immature to handle them properly.

How do you figure? We've already determined that 5% of offenders are responsible for approximately 50% if the crime. That's total crime, too, of which violent crime is a small subset. This just doesn't line up with even the most basic and verifiable research. And that's 5% of the criminal population, not total.

Would you include nukes, in your list of weapons that are not guns, as OK to personally posess?

STRATCOM does not think so. This is the second flag officer cashiered this month:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...officials?lite

Air Force officials said Maj. Gen. Michael Carey was fired for “personal misbehavior” while on temporary duty at an unspecified location outside his usual command. The officials would not describe the behavior, other than to say that it did not involve any sexual improprieties, drug use, gambling, or criminal conduct.
Carey oversaw the 20th Air Force, with a total of 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles at three locations across the U.S.
An Air Force statement said that Carey was relieved from command “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment.” The statement goes on to say that “the allegations are not related to operational readiness, inspection results, nor do they involve sexual misconduct.”

Gen. James Kowalski, the commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command, made the decision to relieve Carey of his command. The firing came after a months-long investigation by the Air Force Inspector General into reports of personal misbehavior by the major general. A separate Air Force investigation into Carey continues, and will determine whether he should be disciplined or forced out of the service.
“20th AF continues to execute its mission of around-the-clock nuclear deterrence in a safe, secure and effective manner,” Kowalski said in an Air Force statement. “It’s unfortunate that I’ve had to relieve an otherwise distinctive career spanning 35 years of commendable service.”
Regarding Carey’s position in charge of nuclear weaponry, a senior Air Force official said: “It’s a job that demands great trust and responsibility, and personal behavior is vital to that.”
Carey enlisted in the Air Force in 1978, according to his official biography, and attended the University of Central Florida, where he graduated in 1982 with a degree in history.
He was promoted to the rank of major general in Nov. 2011, according to his Air Force bio, and served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
It is the second firing of a top-ranking commander with authority over nuclear weapons in the past week. Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina was demoted to the from the three-star rank to two and relieved of his post as second in command of U.S. nuclear forces at U.S. Strategic Command amidst a gambling investigation, the Associated Press reported.
The United States has an estimated 2,150 deployed nuclear warheads, according to a recent estimate published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are capable of carrying multiple warheads.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This story was originally published on Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:08 PM EDT

Note: this guy is a rough contemporary of my service period. Don't know him personally.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Now we all know that isn't the only qualification. Being deeply disturbed is also a requirement for the job.

Also hideously mutated and tumor ridden. The movie missed that detail... or I'm Hollywood fashion, felt shaving a woman's head was totally enough.

Originally Posted by Kepi

How do you figure? We've already determined that 5% of offenders are responsible for approximately 50% if the crime. That's total crime, too, of which violent crime is a small subset. This just doesn't line up with even the most basic and verifiable research. And that's 5% of the criminal population, not total.

"Immature" could include children, which probably comprise of about 20 percent of a given population.