We 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.”
“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.
“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.
“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?
“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.
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?
PTL:
Praise the Lord;
Pay the Leader; and/or
Pay the Lady as in Jessica Hahn.
AY–
Oh, forgive me, I thought PTL stood for Praise The Luger!
Elaine M.,
Praise the Lord. I see that Gun Justice Shall Prevail. I think I knew that.
AY–
An NRA-backed law now allows those with a concealed weapons permit to bring guns into bars and restaurants in Arizona.
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.
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.
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.
I’m equal I’ll
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….
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.
So you are a single issue person. Kinda of like the RCC and abortion. Then silently take jabs at other issues.
“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.
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?
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.
“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?