Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Conservatives Want Severely Mentally Ill People To Have Guns" video.

What kind of mental disability? That is very vague. There are lots of people who have a mental disability that are not violent at all. Obama's law is stripping away people's right without due process.
13
Jeremy, you are talking about a situation which is similar to my sister where she lives in a mental home. Those people are no longer adults at that point and there are many things they can't do. That is a severe case but rare and it was already illegal for those individuals to own guns.
2
jerico641, you are deputizing psychiatrist with your idea. Also, you are putting them on the spot and creating a situation where any red flag can prevent someone from owning a gun. Say someone has symptoms of being autistic. Really a lot of people do, including me. But it is not considered "severe". But that that person goes out and shoots up a place. If that person say a psychiatrist it will be asked why they were allowed to own a gun with those symptoms. So it is not that easy.
2
"Common sense would also tell....." Not an argument. The second you use the words "common sense" your argument falls apart as the issue is more complicated than what you are making it and you refuse, or simply don't know how to justify your opinion in any other way.
1
Die Arez, with your thought process we should just put all depressed people in rubber rooms to prevent them from committing suicide. If they didn't have a gun they will find some other method.
1
Heather, I can read just fine.
1
" Just because another method exists is no reason why the most deadly method can't be discouraged." How about we discourage suicide all together? We should be curing the person, not taking away their rights. " No depressed pr schizophrenic person contemplating suicide is going to be able to also commit homicide with a bottle of pills or a rolled up bedsheet." You have never meet people with mental problems. Many of them are incredibly smart. One sign of a sociopath is having high intelligence. They lack remorse and social skills. My sister was smart and found ways to attempt suicide that were creative. The hospital was monitoring her constantly so they stopped her easily. People find creative ways and have been successful. But we don't take away people rights if they have never done anything to be a threat to society.
1
In reality laws at the state level already exist preventing people with mental issues that are so severe that they need a caregiver from getting a gun. So another side to this is that this is killing federal government overreach.
1
One side of the argument is that laws like this already exist at the state level. This is just federal overreach at that point.
1
samiamrg7, it is about state rights. So no, it should not be a federal law. Also, it is just added layers of bureaucracy that needs to be removed at the federal level.
1
Not true.
1
samiamrg7, you are automatically assuming that I am 1. a conservative 2. don't see a role for the federal government There is a role for the federal government and it is listed in the constitution. Basically it is to serve the states and the states were to serve the people. We can get into more details than that but that is basically the setup.
1
Alkis05, I agree with you for the most part. On general welfare it says "promote the general welfare", not create, guarantee or force it. The federal government may suggest things but they can't force it. For example the federal government can create K-12 education standards but states don't have to use them, and as of right now around 7 do not use CCSS. With this gun law it is strictly a state issue. As long as due process is not violated than everything is fine. As a whole the duties of the federal government are listed in the US constitution and what is not listed is left up to the states.
1
To add, we always try civil ways to settle disputes, but at the very end we should always have the ability to use violence if needed to prevent tyranny. It is similar to how some say the government holds us by gun point to make us do things. Ultra liberals will say they don't. But if you go through the process they do. If the government creates a tax and I don't pay it they will arrest me. If I resist they will hold a gun to my head forcing me down. If I continue to resist I will get shot. In the very end they are holding a gun to my head. We don't get to that point because we remain civil and change laws in a civil way if we don't like them. But in the very end they hold a gun to our head. This is why the government does not become tyrannical because the citizens have that ability to do it right back. If the people don't like the law they can try to change it. If it doesn't work they can protest against it. If the government becomes deadly we can shoot back. We don't get to that point because we are civil on both sides. Also, we are supposed to be very independent from the government. We don't have a cop on every street corner so if someone breaks into my home I have the ability to stop them instead of relying on the cops. That, again, falls in line with the constitution.
1
samiamrg7, the rights are listed on nothing more than a piece of paper. If the government goes tyrannical how do you stop them? With guns. Guns are ultimately the equalizer in this. Again, we don't go violent as we always try to remain civil and hope to continue in doing so. But in the end that ability to go violent has to exist.
1
Look at the American Revolution, that involved guns. Same with the Mexican Revolution. While you are right we can make weaponry, it is much easier to have them already.
1
I agree with you on self defense the more I think about it.
1
No, but we had guns at that time. What that right does makes it so that the government can't take away your guns. Just like how they can't censor you. You don't have a right to drive thus the government can prevent you from driving if they so desire. That is why the right exist. If the right did not exist they could make guns illegal with on resistance. In the end you want the people to be armed and have the chance to fight back. You bring up places like Iran, Afghanistan and China when those are places that are not established and are third world in many ways. You also have the religious factor in there that has led to many radical groups fighting each other where there exist little organization. It is a rather poor comparison.
1
Alkis05, I agree with what you are saying.
1
samiamrg7, the right to bear arms creates a barrier for the government in becoming tyrannical. We can remove the right to free speech but people can still talk, and will. Having that right to free speech creates a standard for the government to follow. If we did not have it than the government can just kill us for expressing ourselves. With the right to free speech they can't without being persecuted. With the right to bear arms it is the same thing. if the right didn't exist we can still own guns, but the government can just take them away with much less resistance, especially if a society is brainwashed into believing that guns are evil. With that right it creates a barrier that actually creates civility, and also reminds the citizens of what their rights are and why they exist. You mentioned Iran, China and how people did not have that right during the revolution. Noticed how that turned out? It went to war and violence. Since those rights we have had a Civil War, but what that led to was more amendments and rights and since then we have had civility in settling disputes. That is one thing those rights do where ultimately we can go violent if needed.
1
"why is driving a privilege but owning a gun is a right? " Because owning a gun is a killing machine that can be used to fight against a tyrannical government. You are talking about this situation " Look at every regime that resorted to killing it's own citizens as a means of repression. Tsarist Russia, Britain, Revolutionary France, various regimes in Africa and South America, and even China. Rarely are the regimes able to continue repressing their people after resorting to slayings. The regime always caves to pressure and makes concessions sooner or later. In this situation it is better for the health of society to have controls on civilian firearm ownership so as to prevent the facilitatation of crime. It's not like people in other countries don't own guns or that gun control means they are totally banned anyway." But the key thing is that you are saying they don't have the rights to begin with. We do. We have a standard that ends up leading to civil ways to discuss laws and how the are created. With gun ownership the standard is there to give citizens the ability to control government, and any discussion of gun control only happens because of the 2nd amendment. It has prevented the government from disarming the citizens. "Driving allows for greater freedom than not, and driving would also be valuable in a revolution. " Not really. Government controls the roads. Also you do have freedom to move all over the country no matter what means that may be. So you have freedom to travel which is covered in the constitution as well. "If gun ownership is a right, why shouldn't we have the right to own anything we want?" For the most part you. Gun ownership set a hard line because it is a tool to fight with. Owning a car isn't, same with a house. But you have the right to pursue happiness like owning a car and home. "If the reason the state can regulate cars is in the name of safety, then why should they not do the same for guns?" In the public sector they do such as having a CCW or not having a loaded gun in your car (like in CA). You can own the gun, but in public there are restrictions. Much like DUI checkpoints don't violate the 4th amendment. You can own a car without registering it and you can drive it without having a license, as long as you stay on private property. Just like my gun is concealed in my home. "Do you understand now why making gun ownership a guaranteed right not make perfect sense?" You don't fully understand the constitution. Gun ownership was the hard line set in the constitution. If contested it will lead to a civil debate as opposed to the government just marching into your harm and taking your guns away like the British did. On car ownership that falls under state rights and the right to pursue happiness. You are given the right to own a gun, but you are not given a gun. Just like have the right to pursue happiness, but you are not guaranteed it. If a state were to ban driving that is their right as a state, but their economy will suffer as people are free to move.
1
" The government can't just take your property as that would violate the 4th amendment which prohibits unlawful search and seizure" Actually that violates the 5th amendment. There is a difference between taking and making something illegal. if gun ownership was not a right they can make guns illegal and arrest you for owning one. They are not taking your property, they are taking away your rights with due process. But the right to bear arms prevents that. Also the right to property prevents the government from taking it. Before the 5th amendment people in the Colonies still owned property. So based on what you said in the past we don't need the 5th amendment either. "by authoritarian regimes because the people didn't have guns, they got taken over because they did" In the end violence happen. Having those rights in place alleviates the chance of violence, but in the end it can still happen and the people must be armed.
1
" and as a direct result this country has a massive problem with gun violence" How about you find a way to help the person so they don't commit violence as opposed to just taking away their rights. If you want to lower violence and crime I would suggest taking away the 4th amendment. Allow the government to spy on us and randomly search people's property. That will lower crime a lot. Do you support that? Right away you are supporting taking away a right for "safety" which is a problem. "We, the people, are supposed to rule this country through our government, but Corporations have stolen the government from us" That is because we have a federal government with too much power. . If we limited the powers of the federal government than it can't be bought. The more local government it the easier it is to control and that is what the founding fathers wanted and how they designed the country with state rights.
1
" It would be great if we could have things like more robust welfare, universal healthcare (including mental health), free college (or at least more subsidies and forgiveness of student loans), more infrastructure spending, paid family leave, and policies to promote higher wages, but Republican politicians are opposed to all of those things as well. " It is more of the fact that they are unconstitutional. Also, I assume you are a person who feels that money in politics is a problem and politicians are corrupt, do you want to give those same federal politicians that kind of power to run all of those services? "For example, they always love to say "we have a mental health problem" and then turn around and try to repeal the largest healthcare reform the country has seen in decades." Obamacare made healthcare worse. Just because the government provides something doesn't mean it is the best we can have. "Weak government is exactly what the corporations that buy our government want! " Nope. If the federal government has no power than it can't be bought. A limited federal government means that corporations can give as much money as they want to federal politicians but nothing will happen as the powers are limited. "How can you be so blind!? Why do you think all that the Corporatist politicians want to do is de-regulate business and defund regulatory agencies?" They have the power to regulate to begin with. Democrats make "regulations" that favor certain companies. "When the government is weak, no one is there to stop corporate entities from doing whatever they want" And the federal government has no power, so there is no need to buy it. "Local and state governments are even easier to buy than the Federal Government " Not true. If you are involved in your community you can see first hand how government is working for you and control it. Also you can move and remain a US citizen if it continues to fail. "The only way to end corruption is to cut it out like the cancer it is. " The cancer is the federal government have growing power. The symptom is money in politics. Money in politics is just a symptom, you need to kill the disease. If you allowed the federal government to run healthcare you have just given it the power to pick and choose which provider we have to get our care from.
1
I am not strawmanning you . You want to get rid of the 2nd amendment for safety, well I can say the same about the 1st amendment. Two girls stabbed another after hearing the story of slender man. There have been movies that inspired killings. We did not have the internet and TV in the past, should we regulate the 1st amendment? "Guns are not unique as tools for fighting tyranny." Ask any veteran what will they rather go to battle with? A gun or a shovel? "The answer is because the 2nd amendment is outdated and becomes completely arbitrary in a modern context where muskets and cannons are not the only weapons of war. " One, there were more than just muskets during that time. Next, the founding fathers saw technology improving. And finally, why not apply that to freedom so speech? The internet did not exist at the time.
1
samiamrg07, most funding for K-12 education is at the state and local level and the states run K-12 education, not the federal government.
1
There are not any limitations on free speech. "Guns kill 33,600 people every year in the US" Most are suicides. In the UK with strict gun laws the number one method so suicide is hanging. S. Korea and Japan have strict gun laws and higher rates of suicides. That is not a gun problem.
1
"I don't care if it is the State government or the Local government or the Federal government that provides these services, I just want some part of the US government to provide these services and provide them well" The constitution cares. ", it is undeniable that the Federal government holds valuable resources " Eh, not really.
1
Suicide is not a gun issue. If you ban guns based on the amount of deaths that occur than you need to ban cars and pools as they cause just as many. "Citing suicide rates in Japan and SK as examples arguing against gun control is incredibly disingenuous. It ignores all the context surrounding why those two countries have such high suicide rates" Ironic you say that as you are ignoring why someone will commit suicide and instead want to attack the guns. Why not attack ropes? Hangings is the number one method in the UK. Suicide is not a gun issue.
1
They make their money through Wolf PAC and now through Justice Democrats.
1
In most states you can't.
1