You Would Be Crazy Not To Own a Gun: Senators Propose Law To Guarantee Gun Ownership for Mentally Incapacitated Veterans

200px-Sam160px-Richard_Burr_official_photoWe recently saw a court rule that a quadriplegic has a right to hunt with a special chair where he literally blows away deer by blowing into a tube attached to the trigger. Now, Senators have adopted a provision to guarantee the right of “mentally incapacitated” veterans to buy firearms. After the shooting at Fort Hood, the provision passed with the support of Republican North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr and Democratic Virginia Senator Jim Webb is attracting criticism.

You might not be viewed as fully loaded but you are likely sane enough to own a gun under the new change.

The provision would allow such veterans currently listed as mentally incapacitated to buy weapons.
Burr explained that “[c]urrently, when the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) appoints a fiduciary to assist a veteran with managing their financial affairs, VA also deems the veteran mentally incompetent and reports him or her to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), . . The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial body to deem a veteran, surviving spouse, or child as a danger to himself or others before being listed in NICS, which would prohibit the veteran from being able to purchase certain firearms. The legislation is supported by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.”

The provision would alter the language of Gun Control Act of 1968 and override VA regulations that bar such purchases.

The legislation is called Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act and can be found here and here. It specifically covers any veteran “who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness.”

Critics charge that the provision would guarantee gun ownership for people like Major Nidal Hasan, who was considered ” “psychotic.”

76 thoughts on “You Would Be Crazy Not To Own a Gun: Senators Propose Law To Guarantee Gun Ownership for Mentally Incapacitated Veterans

  1. The reported effect of the amendment is being misrepresented. In fact, the proposed amendment would restore firearms ownership rights to military veterans who had completed a course of treatment and thus were no longer suffering from the mental impairment that had previously restricted their right to firearms ownership. The Brady Campaign opposes this amendment because they continually seek measures to further limit the right to keep and bear arms as a means of furthering their ultimate goal of total civilian disarmament. The omission of this key information is unsurprising, however, as advocates of civilian disarmament are frequently dishonest.

  2. I was raised not to use vulgar language–but after reading stories like this one, I certainly understand why saying WTF has come into vogue.

    Dimensio–

    I suppose all members of the NRA are beacons of truth–unlike the dishonest folk who believe in gun control.

  3. “I suppose all members of the NRA are beacons of truth”

    I have made no such suggestion. Have you an actual substantiative response to my commentary?

  4. When do we ban from congress those who are “mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness”?

  5. My wife thinks I am crazy, but I see nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen owning automatic weapons.

    I believe the majority of gun deaths are caused by criminals, typically targeting other criminals. Washington, DC had very restrictive gun laws yet still had a high rate of gun deaths.

    What do you do? Target shooting and hunting are fun, skeet shooting is a blast and most law abiding people don’t kill other people with guns or without. The founders did not have a problem with the people having weapons, they thought they were necessary and they would have wanted, in my opinion, people armed with the best, most technologically superior weapons of the time.

    You don’t think they could not foretell automatic weapons and other technology? They were pretty smart men and I am sure they figured that human beings would come up with something superior to the Kentucky Long Rifle. Just as the sling was replaced by the bow and arrow which was replaced by the cross bow which was . . .

    Leave a loaded gun on a table and it remains inactive unless acted upon by a human being, the gun is a tool nothing more nothing less.

    I do however think that gun ownership should not be for people deemed mentally incompetent until such time as they are re-evaluated and given a clean bill of health.

  6. Elaine:

    LMBOROTF! You and the rest of the gun-stealing hippies’ crack me up. The gun control argument is about as silly as one answer to the question, “Why are a woman’s feet shorter than a man’s?”

  7. John Puma 1, November 16, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    When do we ban from congress those who are “mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness”?
    ************************

    We from Texas call them business loser, Governor and then President Bush.

  8. AY,
    You took the words out of my mouth!
    Elaine,
    I am with you on this one. I guess I am a “gun stealing Hippie” like you. It has been 30 plus years since I have been called a hippie, but I wear it as a badge of honor.

  9. BTW, where do I sign up, I have never seen the need for a firearm but now I feel the need to protect myself. If this legislation is signed into law does that mean that they also get free ammo?

    Kinda of like working in the legislature, you know you should wear a body size condom just so you won’t catch something. This proposed law shows you how many dicks are really in DC.

    On the political side, this is a political measure aimed at Obama so that campaign ads can be run that show he is against veterans. As stupid as it sounds. Think about the sound bites that an ad like this could generate.

  10. Dimensio–

    I was responding to your accusatorial comment:

    “The omission of this key information is unsurprising, however, as advocates of civilian disarmament are frequently dishonest.”

    ************

    I guess you feel the people who are on the opposite side of the gun issue are bad guys. The Brady Campaign has just as much right to fight its battle as the NRA has to fight its.

    ************

    John–

    I don’t have a clue what LMBOROTF stands for. Maybe you can enlighten me. BTW, I wasn’t a hippie when I was young. I might consider becoming one now that I’m retired and folks are looking to loosen up the laws on marijuana usage. I can hear myself talking to my hubby now: “Honey, would you pass me the bong and the Metamucil!”

    One more thing: My father was a sharpshooter and won all kinds of medals when he served in the army. I take after my deadeye dad. You best be careful if you see me toting a fiream. Ready. Aim. Make peace not war!

  11. “If this legislation is signed into law does that mean that they also get free ammo?”

    No. There exists no possible interpretation of Senator Burr’s amendment that could allow for such a conclusion.

  12. ” The Brady Campaign has just as much right to fight its battle as the NRA has to fight its.”

    I have made no statement regarding a “right to fight battles”. I have merely noted my observation that civilian disarmament advocates, including many spokespeople for the Brady Campaign, are dishonest and irrational.

  13. Dimensio–

    You said: “I have merely noted my observation that civilian disarmament advocates, including many spokespeople for the Brady Campaign, are dishonest and irrational.”

    ************

    Okay, so you say you have made the observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational. Are you implying that all of these people are dishonest and irrational?

  14. Elaine:

    “Laughing my butt off, rolling on the floor.”

    I, too, look forward to being able to smoke pot without fear of being detained and charged with a crime by law enforcement. At any rate, do note that bongs are problematic, for example, these stink unless the water inside the cylinder is changed everyday. Glass pipes are better, for example, are much easier to clean. At any rate, these tidbits are what I’ve been told by criminals. I do not use drugs. I’m a law abiding citizen.

  15. ” Are you implying that all of these people are dishonest and irrational?”

    No. I have observed only that such advocates are disproportionately dishonest, irrational, or both when compared to the population at large. This does not imply that such advocates are universally dishonest, irrational or both.

    As an example, the Brady Campaign has made numerous demonstrably false claims regarding a subset of semi-automatic rifles that they have termed “assault weapons”. They have claimed that pistol grips on rifles enable “spray-firing from the hip”, when in fact a pistol grip actually facilitates a more ergonomic grip for firing from the shoulder and when such firearms are not designed for “spray firing”. They have falsely claimed that a flash hider is used to disguise the location of a shooter at night, when in fact a flash hider serves only to “hide” a muzzle flash from an individual who is discharging the firearm to prevent temporary blindness, and the flash will be no less significantly visible to third party observers. They have falsely claimed that a telescoping stock is useful for making a rifle concealable, when in fact a telescoping stock serves only to facilitate more options for a comfortable grip, and can only reduce the overall length of a firearm by, at the most, six inches.

    More recent incidents of dishonesty were Brady Campaign spokespersons claiming that a recent removal of a federal prohibition on the carrying of concealed deadly weapons on National Park properties would permit individuals to carry concealed deadly weapons at the National Mall in the District of Columbia and at Liberty Island in New York City. In fact, both of those National Park areas are located in locales where the carrying of concealed deadly weapons is heavily restricted by local statutes that would not be affected by the alteration in policy regarding National Parks; civilians in possession of concealed deadly weapons upon such locations would thus be in violation of local laws and could be prosecuted for such.

    I am familiar with only a few other organizations as willing to engage in dishonesty as a means of promoting an agenda; opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions, creationists and members of the “birther” movement who assert, without justification, that President Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen are amongst the very few organizations who, along with the Brady Campaign, engage in such blatant and easily exposed willful dishonesty when attempting to promote their position. I have speculated that this dishonesty is a result of the inherent intellectually bankruptcy of the advocated positions.

  16. “I am familiar with only a few other organizations as willing to engage in dishonesty as a means of promoting an agenda; opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions, creationists and members of the “birther” movement who assert, without justification, that President Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen are amongst the very few organizations who, along with the Brady Campaign, engage in such blatant and easily exposed willful dishonesty when attempting to promote their position. I have speculated that this dishonesty is a result of the inherent intellectually bankruptcy of the advocated positions.”

    **************

    I’d add the Republican Party to your list given your criteria.

  17. “I’d add the Republican Party to your list given your criteria.”

    The Republican Party does not constitute an advocacy organization for a single, specific position.

  18. This proposal, in its stunning disregard for public safety, is further proof that the Republican Party has permanently drifted from the shores of rational policy-making.

    How can they endorse ideas like this and expect the rest of us to believe them when they loudly claim to value human life and boast of their great faith in the protections of Almighty God? They can wrap themselves in the flag, the fetus, and a gun case full of Remingtons, but the reality of their moral and intellectual bankruptcy breaks through their unctuous facade every time they pull a stunt like this.

    They have nothing to offer this country and they’re a perpetual embarrassment. All it appears they can do now is run ugly campaigns and, once elected, prove to the world that they have no interest in or aptitude for the art of governance.

  19. A prime example of what we call “spin” in the UK. Can’t see anything wrong in letting someone who is cured getting his gun permit back.
    As for the anti-gun looneys, I am afraid that experience in the UK proves that there is no depths to which they will not stoop in disarming law abiding citizens.
    When the 1997 firearms amendment act was introduced, the section of society most affected happened to be retired Police Officers.
    Since then gun crime in the UK has risen alarmingly due to the added “cool” factor of owning an illegal weapon.

  20. MESPO727272 (and others critical of gun control):

    Please take a moment and re-read this particular article: “You Would Be Crazy Not To Own a Gun: Senators Propose Law To Guarantee Gun Ownership For Mentally Incapacitated Veterans.” By doing so, you might (perhaps) choose to edit your previous comment.

  21. Yes, I am a radical liberal on this issue. It would take far too much space here (and no one would want to read it anyway) to fully explain it, but I believe that there should be no ownership of handgun or automatic weapons by private citzens in he US. (Yeah, I know what the Constitution “says.”) Only LEOs and the military should have access to handguns.

    There are TOO MANY GUNS in our society, which wouldn’t neccessarily be a problem execpt that our culture nowadays is such that the first thing a person thinks of when someone looks at them cross-eyed (or even if someone just THINKS they’re being looked at cross-eyed) is to grab a gun and shoot the offending party. And then shoot a few other folks that weren’t even involved in the first place.

    I full well realize I’m in the minority, but that doesn’t make me wrong.

  22. Flipkid,

    It doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you unrealistic about the history of firearms development. None of the Founding Fathers ever heard of a “machine gun” and bullets were something you made around the camp fire. Hell, I’m pretty sure Jefferson and Adams would have been appalled by the very idea of a machine gun, but I also don’t think that would have changed his opinion about a government monopoly on weaponry – a common feature in some of the less progressive states of the time. It is no accident that many martial arts weapons are developed from modified farm tools. It’s because in many societies, the standard model was/is top down oppression by those who control(led) the manufacture and distribution of armour and weapons. This in turn necessitated improvisation by the “peasants”. And if you think some poor Japanese farmer wouldn’t have much rather had a sword to fight that rogue samurai terrorizing them instead of a couple of wooden sticks he’d been using to thresh grain (the origin of tonfa)? I’m thinking he’d have rather had the biggest sword he could have gotten a hold of in order to keep the bad guys from taking his stuff and/or killing him and his people.

    Yeah, hand guns and fully automatic weapons are bane upon the world.

    But you can’t uninvent them.

    I submit the next best option to secure liberty is what the Founding Fathers did in leveling the playing field to a certain degree. Would they have done things differently had they known about the future of firearms? One would hope. But hope is often a futile exercise when applied to the past.

  23. Dimensio,

    “I’d add the Republican Party to your list given your criteria.”

    The Republican Party does not constitute an advocacy organization for a single, specific position.
    ***********************

    So who is in charge? Oh thats right, no one is in charge that is apparent. Just ask Cheney. He cannot recall. But then why does the GOP honor certain people for certain things. Me thinks they have maybe the Wizard in charge. Dorothy, get me outta here.

  24. The part about the ammo i was just kidding about. It is my understanding that they even take pencils away so they won’t hurt other people and themselves. But hey if you are gonna give allow a mental person the right to have a gun, then you might as well give them the shinny things too.

  25. ” But hey if you are gonna give allow a mental person the right to have a gun, then you might as well give them the shinny things too.”

    I believe that you have fundamentally misunderstood the intent of Senator Burr’s amendment. Senator Burr’s amendment is intended to prevent an individual’s right to keep and bear arms from being arbitrarily revoked without due process. It is not intended to allow individuals who are mentally defective to possess firearms, it is intended to grant individuals the right to a judicial hearing prior to the revocation of their rights for such a reason. I do find it somewhat disturbing that a number of individuals are evidently in support of current executive policy, established by former President George W. Bush, that allows for the abridgment of a civil liberty without the application of due process, as must be the motive of those who are opposed to Senator Burr’s proposal. Individuals who are judged in a court of law to be “mentally defective” would be prohibited from possessing firearms, and Senator Burr’s amendment would not alter this fact; while the Brady Campaign is attempting to claim that Senator Burr is seeking to alter a federal law that has been extant and unchanged since 1968 they are, as is common for the organization, lying.

  26. “So who is in charge? Oh thats right, no one is in charge that is apparent. Just ask Cheney. He cannot recall. But then why does the GOP honor certain people for certain things. Me thinks they have maybe the Wizard in charge. Dorothy, get me outta here.”

    Your comment relates neither to the current discussion nor to my specific statement.

  27. ” It would take far too much space here (and no one would want to read it anyway) to fully explain it, but I believe that there should be no ownership of handgun or automatic weapons by private citzens in he US.”

    Civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted in the United States. Such firearms are very rarely criminally misused. There exists no rational justification for a complete prohibition on civilian ownership of such firearms. Either you have failed to adequately research the subject that you are addressing or you are intentionally advocating a fundamentally unreasonable position.

    A prohibition on handgun ownership in the United States would demonstrably constitute a violation of the Second Amendment of the United States of America. Such a prohibition would also be exceedingly difficult to effectively enact, as it would require a means of accounting for all extant legally owned firearms in the country and arranging a system of compensation for their confiscation following the massive expenditure of legal fees required to first maintain such a prohibition through exhaustive and inevitable legal challenges.

    “There are TOO MANY GUNS in our society, which wouldn’t neccessarily be a problem execpt that our culture nowadays is such that the first thing a person thinks of when someone looks at them cross-eyed (or even if someone just THINKS they’re being looked at cross-eyed) is to grab a gun and shoot the offending party. And then shoot a few other folks that weren’t even involved in the first place.”

    There exist more than two hundred and fifty million firearms owned amongst approximately eighty million civilians in the United States. As fewer than twenty-thousand homicides are committed per year (as has been the case since 1996), it can be established that even if every individual homicide was committed by an individual firearm owner (a demonstrably incorrect assumption; multiple homicides may be committed by a single individual, and approximately half of all homicides in a given year are not committed with a firearm), it would indicate that less than 0.25% of all firearms owners have engaged in the action that you claim to be common. As this appears to be a fundamental premise of your argument, it would seem as though the very foundation of your argument is invalid.

    “I full well realize I’m in the minority, but that doesn’t make me wrong.”

    You are correct. It is the fact that your statements are demonstrably false that make you “wrong”.

  28. “Please take a moment and re-read this particular article: “You Would Be Crazy Not To Own a Gun: Senators Propose Law To Guarantee Gun Ownership For Mentally Incapacitated Veterans.” By doing so, you might (perhaps) choose to edit your previous comment.”

    I have, in fact, viewed the initial posting that has resulted in this discussion. As I have noted, objections to Senator Burr’s proposal are based upon a false premise, and the headline itself is demonstrably incorrect; either the author of the headline has conducted no research of Senator Burr’s proposal or the author of the headline is lying. Senator Burr’s amendment would eliminate a policy that allows for the abridgment of a civil liberty without the application of due process. Veterans who are judicially ruled to be “mentally incompetent” would remain, by federal law, legally ineligible to possess firearms. It is disturbing that individuals such as yourself believe that Constitutionally protected rights should instead be subject to revocation and abridgment without the application of due process.

  29. “How can they endorse ideas like this and expect the rest of us to believe them when they loudly claim to value human life and boast of their great faith in the protections of Almighty God? ”

    Have you an actual rational argument to offer in opposition to Senator Burr’s proposed amendment?

  30. “As fewer than twenty-thousand homicides are committed per year (as has been the case since 1996), it can be established that even if every individual homicide was committed by an individual firearm owner (a demonstrably incorrect assumption; multiple homicides may be committed by a single individual, and approximately half of all homicides in a given year are not committed with a firearm), it would indicate that less than 0.25% of all firearms owners have engaged in the action that you claim to be common. As this appears to be a fundamental premise of your argument, it would seem as though the very foundation of your argument is invalid.”

    Sounds good. Try that rationalization out on the families of victims where multiple people died at the hand of a single gunman with an automatic weapon. The fact is that without ridiculously easy access to automatic weapons, if Person A gets pissed off at Person B, they can still (maybe) kill Person B with a knife or a baseball bat or whatever. But Persons C through H (that just happen to work at the same place as Person B) don’t get cut down in a hail of auromatic gunfire as collateral damage.

  31. Dimensio,

    I am lost on your position. Are you for Gun Control or not? Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….

  32. rafflaw–

    “I am with you on this one. I guess I am a “gun stealing Hippie” like you. It has been 30 plus years since I have been called a hippie, but I wear it as a badge of honor.”

    ************

    Although I noted in an earlier comment that I wasn’t a hippie when I was young, I have long been an adherent to the postion that making love is better than making war.

    I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago. I think I’ll also feel less comfortable when visiting a National Park knowing that some other visitors there may be carrying firearms.
    How about being able to have concealed weapons in a car near a school in South Carolina? And bringing guns to church??? Good Lord, preserve us!!!

    So…maybe I am a hippie now. I’m gonna go get me some beads and grow my hair long again.

  33. ” Try that rationalization out on the families of victims where multiple people died at the hand of a single gunman with an automatic weapon.”

    Automatic firearms have been used in less than five homicides since 1934.

    ” The fact is that without ridiculously easy access to automatic weapons, if Person A gets pissed off at Person B, they can still (maybe) kill Person B with a knife or a baseball bat or whatever.”

    Civilian access to automatic firearms is heavily regulated in the United States. If you are unaware of this, then you have conducted insufficient research upon the subject that you are discussing to credibly propose any measures.

  34. “Are you for Gun Control or not?”

    I believe that most extant federal firearms regulation is sufficient. I am opposed to additional federal restrictions on firearms, such as the often proposed “assault weapons ban”, and I oppose the unreasonable regulation that has been applied in some states.

    ” Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….”

    Abortion is not relevant to the current discussion.

  35. “I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago.”

    Given that no individuals were harmed by the armed protester, it would seem as though your concern is not rational.

    “I think I’ll also feel less comfortable when visiting a National Park knowing that some other visitors there may be carrying firearms.”

    It has always been possible that other visitors to National Parks were in possession of firearms. A recent alteration in federal policy, however, means that a subset of these individuals will be doing so legally, rather than illegally.

    “How about being able to have concealed weapons in a car near a school in South Carolina?”

    This is an entirely reasonable measure. What aspect of this measure do you wish to discuss?

    “And bringing guns to church???”

    What of such an action do you wish to discuss?

  36. As a supporter of the right to bear arms I would nevertheless submit that those organizations and politicians who purport to also support it, make the worst proponents for the cause in the irrationality of the lengths they would go to in their support.

  37. Dimensio,

    ” Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….”

    Abortion is not relevant to the current discussion.

    **********************

    Sorry to disagree with you on this matter. But I am not. Why is one regulation better than another? Why when one right is abridged and it does not affect you that it is any less important? I would suspect that you like you GOP counterpoints are single issue individuals. Sometimes the box is only supposed open one way, but when you load too much shit in it it breaks out of the bottom or splits the sides. Hence, what part of the constitution do you wish to selectively discuss? Gun Rights/Regulation(s)/Control/Abolishment?

  38. “Sorry to disagree with you on this matter.”

    Your disagreement does not alter reality. The focus of this discussion is the proposed amendment regarding the restoration of firearms rights to a subset of veterans by Senator Richard Burr.

    “Why is one regulation better than another?”

    Such an inquiry requires a more specific frame of reference.

    “Why when one right is abridged and it does not affect you that it is any less important? ”

    I have made no such assertion of lesser importance. Your inquiry is based upon an undemonstrated premise.

    “I would suspect that you like you GOP counterpoints are single issue individuals.”

    I am unable to parse this statement. It does not appear to be an appropriately constructed sentence.

    ” Sometimes the box is only supposed open one way, but when you load too much shit in it it breaks out of the bottom or splits the sides.”

    The containment of excrement is not relevant to the current discussion.

    ” Hence, what part of the constitution do you wish to selectively discuss? Gun Rights/Regulation(s)/Control/Abolishment?”

    The current discussion relates primarily to the Second and the Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

  39. So you are a single issue person. Kinda of like the RCC and abortion. Then silently take jabs at other issues.

  40. Dimensio–

    I said: “I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago.”

    You responded: “Given that no individuals were harmed by the armed protester, it would seem as though your concern is not rational.”

    *************

    That’s your opinion. I’m an extremely rational person. It seems to me that you have a superior “I’m so much more rational than the folks who advocate any form of gun control” attitude.

    BTW, if you had read my most recent comment carefully, you would have noticed that it was addressed to “rafflaw” and not to you.

    ************

    I said: “And bringing guns to church???”

    Your response: “What of such an action do you wish to discuss?”

    I didn’t wish to discuss it with you.

    But maybe I should ask you why some people feel the need to bring guns into a house of worship. I can’t help but wonder if some men carry guns around because it helps to make them feel more manly.

  41. Elaine M.,

    Meep, Meep. rafflaw huh? You mean this is not free range ossification?

    Yeah, I’m put it out here. But Yuk was the first thing that came to mind….

  42. AY–

    I lived through several years as the mother of a teenage daughter. I learned how to survive those trying days by not arguing with her when I knew our discussions would be fruitless…and that I might end up with my eyeballs spinning in their sockets. That’s the reason I still have hair today.

    I doubt anything I’d say to Dimensio would give him/her pause to consider why some individuals feel as I do. I don’t advocate that citizens have their right to bear arms taken from them. I do believe I should be able to express my concerns about where and what kinds of weapons people may be carrying in public places without being accused of being irrational.

  43. Elaine M.,

    I have friends, hold on let me call them to make sure.

    ring, ring. Conversation. Ok, back now.

    Yes, I do have friends that have all sorts of weaponry. I don’t care for the guns, rifles or anything to do with them but I support there right to have them.

    Now, if memory serves me correctly. I think OK was going to approve Concealed Weapons in a Bar as well as give Women the right to called it Justified Homicide if they killed someone when Pregnant. And you say people in Texas are bright. Yeah baby, just look North of the Red River.

  44. Take a look at how/how often this “Dimensio” person uses terms like “reason” and passes judgment on what is “not rational.” We’re dealing with someone operating from a highly rigid ideology (and/or someone operating on Kohlberg’s 4th level of moral reasoning.) If you’re enjoying yourself and chuckling as you write, then carry on “arguing” with “Dimensio.” If you’re getting tense and fuming, then walk away and relax – you might as well be arguing with a rock.

  45. TomD.Arch:

    “Take a look at how/how often this “Dimensio” person uses terms like “reason” and passes judgment on what is “not rational.””

    What else would you use to evaluate something?

    I hope you don’t really believe that statement you just made. There goes 5,000 years of human progress down the drain. I would call that statement something else but I wont.

    Actually you must be joking, there can be no other explanation. Or at least one that I would want to think about.

    By the way he seemed pretty rational to me with the arguments he presented and all were clearly understood. You may not agree with them but I don’t think that gives you the right to imply that he is off his rocker as a means of rejecting his argument(s). Most totalitarian states use the same system to prevent dissent.

    So that begs the question, TomD.Arch are you a totalitarian or just too stupid to present a rational argument against the 2nd amendment?

  46. “So you are a single issue person.”

    That I attempt to restrict the basis of my statements to the particular topic relevant to the discussion does not demonstrate that I am a “single issue” person.

    Were this a discussion of the subject of the theory
    evolution, and irrational religious objections to that theory, I would restrict the basis of my statements to the subject of evolution and to the scientific method. Were this a discussion of legal recognition of same-sex unions and the typically unreasonable, irrational and often dishonest objections to such recognition, my statements would relate to that particular topic, and not to other, unrelated, subjects of discussion.

    Your assessment is not rational.

  47. “That’s your opinion. I’m an extremely rational person. ”

    Why, then, do you fear an individual who has violated no law, who has demonstrated no violent intent and who, following the event that you found to be “disturbing”, committed no criminal act?

    “But maybe I should ask you why some people feel the need to bring guns into a house of worship.”

    “Need” is not relevant. Moreover, if the “need” for a defensive firearm within a “house of worship”, or during travel to or from such a location, could be ascertained in advance, the most prudent course of action would be to avoid that particular location. Typically, individuals carry defensive firearms as a precaution against the unlikely, but nonetheless not impossible, occurrence that an unanticipated “need” for such a tool will arise.

    ” I can’t help but wonder if some men carry guns around because it helps to make them feel more manly.”

    I am unaware of any rational basis for such speculation. Have you speculated similarly regarding women who carry firearms?

  48. “I do believe I should be able to express my concerns about where and what kinds of weapons people may be carrying in public places without being accused of being irrational.”

    If you express objection or “disturbance” regarding lawful and nonviolent individuals possessing firearms in a public location where such possession is not illegal that is of no rational basis, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that your concerns are not rational.

  49. “Now, if memory serves me correctly. I think OK was going to approve Concealed Weapons in a Bar”

    I am unaware of any proposed Oklahoma state legislation seeking to remove current prohibitions on the possession of firearms within establishments where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises. I have searched for information regarding such a proposal, but my search yielded no results.

    “as well as give Women the right to called it Justified Homicide if they killed someone when Pregnant.”

    I have also been unable to locate any proposed legislation allowing for pregnancy, and no other factor, to be used as an affirmative defense either for an act of homicide or for an act of deadly force. The most similar measure that I have observed is a proposed law to permit the defense of an unborn fetus to be used as an affirmative defense for the use of deadly force against an aggressor. This legislation was proposed because of a case in Michigan where a pregnant woman was convicted of manslaughter after killing an attacker who stabbed her repeatedly in the stomach and, in so doing, caused a miscarriage; evidently prosecutors in the state of Michigan do not believe that a pregnant woman should be permitted to repel a violent attacker. However, this proposed legislation would not allow any act of homicide committed by a pregnant woman to be considered “justified”; as an affirmative defense, the woman must subsequently prove that she acted against an attacker whom a reasonable individual (as determined by law) would conclude would likely cause the woman to experience a miscarriage.

  50. “Take a look at how/how often this “Dimensio” person uses terms like “reason” and passes judgment on what is “not rational.”

    Have you any actual argument to make against my statements?

  51. Byron–

    Playing devil’s advocate–just because someone uses words like “reason” and “rational” in an argument doesn’t necessarily presume that the person’s argument is either or both of those.

    And just because Dimensio claims that I point I made was irrational, doesn’t make it so.

    I guess I’d have to ask: Who determines what is rational and what is reasonable in this debate? And just because someone may quote statistics, that doesn’t necessarily prove anyhting. The statistics maye be correct; they may be incorrect. Statistics can be used–and abused.

  52. Dimensio–

    You said: “If you express objection or “disturbance” regarding lawful and nonviolent individuals possessing firearms in a public location where such possession is not illegal that is of no rational basis, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that your concerns are not rational.”

    The owning of slaves was once legal in this country. I guess if I had lived during those times and expressed feeling disturbed by slavery, you might have considered me irrational.

    As for any further discussion on the topics of guns–I’m done. I’ve got work to do.

  53. “Playing devil’s advocate–just because someone uses words like “reason” and “rational” in an argument doesn’t necessarily presume that the person’s argument is either or both of those.”

    I am willing to consider that my assessment of statements and positions are mistaken, if an explanation of the error in my reasoning — including an explanation detailing the actual rationale of a position that I have stated to be irrational — is provided.

  54. Elaine:

    I was commenting on TomD.Arch diminishment of reason as a means for judging the merits of something. How else but with reason can one get to the truth about a subject?

    I did not read all of his posts nor yours. The ones he wrote seem quite rational for his point of view.

    What I object to is how people with opposing points of view are deemed mentally ill or racist (unless they truly are) if there is disagreement on an issue. I was responding to TomD.Arch’s implication that Dimensio was somehow mentally ill and therefore his argument suspect.

    Since TomD.Arch is all for the abolition of reason, I suppose his point makes perfect sense.

  55. ElaineM:

    owning slaves and gun control are similar issues in that an individuals rights are abused. It would at all times in human history be rational to oppose slavery. I doubt Dimensio would ever call you irrational to oppose such an institution based on his opposition to gun control. Now that would be irrational.

  56. Dimensio,

    I actually agree with you on this issue. It’s like the sex offender list. Broad categories inevitably lead to people having labels that they shouldn’t.

    Here’s the thing though: Your other arguments are severely flawed. I’ll just pick the most obvious.

    “Automatic firearms have been used in less than five homicides since 1934.”

    Firstly I have severe doubts as to the accuracy of your number, and claims require proof. For now I’ll just assume you’ve got a credible source for that claim (one which I’d LOVE to see). By considering the question as binary (are automatics dangerous, yes or no) you are falling prey to your bias. Do you think that the lack of homicides (as an aside, are you using the legal term homicide or homicide as generic term for murder, because the two would have different implications in this discussion. Which definition of “automatic weapon” you use is also an important thing to clarify) might have to do with the control placed on automatics by the various governments involved? I bet the number of people killed by moonshine is pretty low too. So perhaps automatic weapons are more dangerous, but thanks to the restricted assess to them, the danger towards the general population is negated (think tigers in zoos).

    Bron,

    I think Thom was offended by the use of reason as a cudgel against all criticism. His reason is just as biased towards his view as those opposing him are biased by theirs. I picked that example, but I could have also pointed out that things can be dangerous without killing, not all deaths are intentional, things can be used legally and still result in death.

    The fact is, you’re both coming at this from the same place, so of course you both view his arguments as rational, that’s the way human minds work. Elaine views her arguments as rational too. There is are plenty of rational conclusions that are wrong because they are based off of faulty premises (just ask me to prove the moon is made of cheese).

  57. Gyges:

    I did not take TomD.Arch’s post as such, he may have meant it that way and I think in your consistently good natured and optimistic way you are seeing the best side. I will follow your lead.

    by the way Bron is fine, it is actually my childhood nickname which I wish I would have kept.

  58. Hey, has anyone thought that we have not seen Bdaman or Billy for a while. They are just as good and insulting as Dimeniso. Just wonder…

  59. “Firstly I have severe doubts as to the accuracy of your number, and claims require proof.”

    I should have been more specific to note that I was making reference to homicides committed with legally owned fully automatic firearms; obviously, suggesting that a prohibition or restriction upon the possession of such firearms would have prevented crimes committed with wholly illegally possessed firearms of that nature are entirely irrational. I have been able to locate two reports of homicides committed with a legally possessed fully automatic firearm since 1934. Roger Waller, a police officer in Dayton Ohio, used a fully automatic Ingram MAC-11 submachine gun to murder a police informant; as a police officer, Mr. Waller was one of the few individuals in the United States permitted to obtain a fully automatic firearm that had been manufactured after 1986. The second homicide was committed in Ohio by a Dr. Shou Chao Ho in the year 1996. I have obtained this data from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html; additional sources are referenced therein.

    “(as an aside, are you using the legal term homicide or homicide as generic term for murder, because the two would have different implications in this discussion.”

    While I should have specified that I was making reference only to criminal homicide acts, such a lack of clarification does not actually alter the accuracy of my statement; I have been able to identify only one occurrence of a justified homicide being committed with a fully automatic firearm, as Harold Fish was acquitted after being prosecuted following his use of deadly force against a violent criminal who threatened him with both a motor vehicle and a firearm.

    ” Which definition of “automatic weapon” you use is also an important thing to clarify)”

    An “automatic weapon” is one that discharges more than one round of ammunition in sequence per trigger pull. Such firearms have been federally restricted since 1934.

    “Do you think that the lack of homicides (as an aside, are you using the legal term homicide or homicide as generic term for murder, because the two would have different implications in this discussion. Which definition of “automatic weapon” you use is also an important thing to clarify) might have to do with the control placed on automatics by the various governments involved?”

    Given the ability for criminal individuals to obtain legally banned products when desired, I suspect that it is the cost of obtaining such firearms — which may itself be influenced by current restrictions of such firearms, but this would be valid only after 1986 while there exists no data that rates of crime committed with such firearms were reduced after that time — as compared to the cost of obtaining other objects of equivalent or greater lethality combined with the relatively cumbersome nature of most fully automatic firearms (as typically such firearms are long guns) that are the main factors in their underrepresentation in violent criminal acts.

  60. Byron, you said something in response to Tom:

    “By the way he [Dimensio] seemed pretty rational to me with the arguments he presented and all were clearly understood. You may not agree with them but I don’t think that gives you the right to imply that he is off his rocker as a means of rejecting his argument(s). Most totalitarian states use the same system to prevent dissent.”

    And your response to me:

    “What I object to is how people with opposing points of view are deemed mentally ill or racist (unless they truly are) if there is disagreement on an issue. I was responding to TomD.Arch’s implication that Dimensio was somehow mentally ill and therefore his argument suspect.”

    ************

    Wasn’t Dimensio dismissing me in the same way by using the words “not rational” in his argument against opinions/concerns that I have expressed. I fully understand the meaning of “not rational” and what he/she is trying to imply about my ability to reason…my being of sound mind. Isn’t that what you allude to when you say that totalitarian states used that type of system to prevent dissent?

    Another thing: There is a difference between stating something as a fact–and expressing an opinion, a thought, or feeling. In a number of my comments above, I used words like “think”–“wonder”–“seems.” I wasn’t claiming I was right–just expressing my personal opinions and feelings.

    No one commenting here knows the reasons why I feel the way I do about guns. Some may think I reached my opinions using faulty logic or premises. Dimensio can claim my thinking/opinions/feelings/concens are irrational–as others are free to do. I would beg to disagree with them.

  61. Elaine:

    I went back and read all of Dimensio’s posts and your posts.

    He never called you irrational, he specifically stated that a particular view was irrational based on the facts of the matter. I believe that one can certainly be rational and have irrational views.

    I consider myself to be a rational person, but I have an intense fear of spiders. I would rather be castrated than have a Tarantula crawl on my arm. Even knowing a Tarantula’s venom is no worse than a bee sting. I consider that to be irrational, I hazard a guess that you think it is irrational as well.

    And that is exactly what Dimensio is saying, on a particular issue someones assessment does not add up to the facts of reality and is therefore irrational. He made no claim that you were irrational, i.e. mentally incompetent.

    Another example is Pit Bulls, people think they are crazed baby killers and so are deathly afraid of them. I have a friend who owns a Pit Bull and that dog is one of the sweetest most gentle dogs I know. Do I give Pit Bulls a wide berth if I don’t know them, yes. Do I give Gaia (her name) a wide berth, no. It would be irrational to give the particular a wide berth but not the general.

    In the case of packing heat, the majority of law abiding citizens who carry guns legally are not crazed killers, so there is nothing to fear from them. Should you see a gun owner using unsafe firearm handling then it is rational to avoid them like the plague.

    In my opinion Dimensio answered every one’s queries in a polite and thoughtful manner, he was not afforded the same courtesy.

  62. Byron–

    I said: “I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago.”

    Dimensio responded: “Given that no individuals were harmed by the armed protester, it would seem as though your concern is not rational.”

    ************

    I fail to see how my being concerned about people bringing firearms to protests such as the one I noted is irrational–just because no one was harmed. There are lots of unstable people around. Some may be carrying guns–or other weapons–for which they have permits. What if such an individual gets in an altercation/heated discussion at such an event and loses his/her temper/self-control?

    Some of the folks I’ve seen at teabagger protests and at townhall meetings held by politicians give me pause for thought. Some are birthers. Some scream about death panels. Some appear to be really agitated.

    ************

    You said: “In the case of packing heat, the majority of law abiding citizens who carry guns legally are not crazed killers, so there is nothing to fear from them.”

    How am I supposed to determine if a person carrying a weapon at a protest is harmless or not? You know Gaia. I didn’t know the fellow with the gun strapped to his thigh.

    There are violent crimes committed by people who–before they committed their crimes–were law abiding citizens.

  63. Elaine:

    I see your point. I guess it comes down to someones comfort level. I used to go to the shooting range quite a bit as well as hang out with people that shoot. We used to destroy beer cans and old computers and refrigiraors among other items.

Comments are closed.