Read the Constitution, idiot. Mandatory mental evals by the government over every US Citizen. Reminds me of Reagan's line of, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!!"
OT: Gun Control Changes
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
I've thought about this as well. Sure, more could have been done. But did his statements/social media presence rise to the level necessary to have him involuntarily committed? I think it is a close call, but you probably know more about Florida's mental health acts than I do (I know nothing).
I don't need the constitution, I have Common Sense and God on my side. Besides the fact, you liberals don't seem to care about the constitution no ways
I wouldn't say he is an asshole, he just doesn't agree with you. I'm more interested in your rationale.
How do you reconcile mandatory prayer in school with the Establishment Clause. How would mandatory psych evaluations square with our constitutional right of privacy? These are important questions. What are the answers?
Agree with you, schools need to be made much safer. But we have improve the background check process and prevent the legal sale of firearms as much as possible to individuals with red flags. Yes some might still obtain weapons illegally. We have laws against theft even though thieves are going to steal, laws regulating drugs even though addicts will find a way to use, speed limits even though people speed.
Lol you think I'm a liberal. You're a liberal to discard the Constitution. But, Carry on, moron liberal.
He won't because he's an idiot. And, more of a liberal than Hillary & Obama combined.
Honestly you have the better side of this. Federal law defines the unorganized militia as being all male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45(?) if I'm not mistaken. But I think there is a good faith argument to be made against that law being a valid interpretation of the Constitution in today's times.
The answers already exist in the Constitution.
There has always been crazy people, there are crazy people and there will always be crazy people. It is not illegal to be crazy until you invade someone’s personal property rights, whether it be your health, safety or property, according to the Constitution you have all legal authority to defend these rights with force if necessary. This IS the second amendment.
Why do these conversations never focus on the fact that this country is led by the most powerful, aggressive, destructive, autonomous force ever known to the human race, better known as our military industrial complex? We get jacked up people on prescription drugs, their whole environment, t.v., video games, movies, the news, is all about resolving problems with deadly force. It’s 27/7/365. This country has been in continuous war since my son was born in 1999, he knows nothing of peace and never seen it in his lifetime, it’s pathetic.
Maybe I missed it but did anyone throw out a temporary gun buying / possessing restraining order for mentally fvcked people like Nikolas Cruz? I’m not endorsing the idea, but would be open to discussing pros and cons. The police were called 39 times to his house, the FBI tipped more than once. Thoughts? People want to ban certain guns when I guarantee you the next one has already been purchased and in the hands of that preditor.
I don't know anything about Florida law specifically. My wife is a Clinical Psychology PhD student in South Carolina and I know that it's not easy to involuntarily commit someone. They have to be credibly threatening self harm, basically.
Having a hard time following how this relates to the Establishment Clause and rights within the constitutional penumbra, namely the right to privacy. We're talking about school children, so I don't think anyone is advocating for them to bring guns to school, so the 2nd Amendment isn't an issue re: his talking points.
Just to nitpick, the Constitution doesn't provide you with the right to defend your property with all necessary force. State common law doctrine provides you with the privileges of defense of self, others, and property. However, the force used has to be proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances. The use of deadly force to solely defend property is never reasonable and not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited:
I looked it up. Basically, the legal standard is that the person has to be substantially likely to inflict serious bodily injury to someone in the near future. Several criteria are involved. I don't think it is a given that even had all tips been followed up on with this kid that he would have been removed from the public. It is a high standard, as it should be, as procedural due process and the individual's liberty rights are concerned. Past behavior and statements cannot be the sole basis for involuntarily committing someone in Florida at least.
I think the notion of “committing” someone is not the right call. But......a very serious sit down interview with the FBI and/or State Police with a mental health professional in attendance would nip a lot of this in the bud.
My point is, the problem is much greater than protecting school children, you or me. American society in today’s time is not built on protection, more specifically a person or their affects, it is built on the agenda of force over each. It’s as if we intentionally want to equip crazy people in all the best ways possible and then fleece all our constitutional rights along the way in an attempt to make all us “feel” more safe and secure. The opposite always occurs.
Yes, the use of deadly force is always reasonable if a person is left in doubt of their safety, even if the intent is some form of burglary or theft. Simple forced entry deaths occur all of the time and the occupant who kills an intruder is rarely if ever convicted, I have no idea where you are coming from.
I'm slightly disagreeing with your language, not really with your message. Home invasion scenarios are almost always justified by self defense and defense of others (your family). If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, a jury would almost always agree that you would be justified in using deadly force to protect your self and your family, as an intruder in your home at night gives rise to a reasonable belief that your life is at risk.
However, defense of property is never a justification for the use of deadly force. In fact, common law doctrine specifically forbids the use of deadly force to defend property if there is no threat of serious bodily harm or death. The reason I am being precise about this is because there is a common misconception amongst property owners that they are entitled to defend their property with guns, even if there is no threat to life or limb. This mistake could be costly for them, as you would be charged with a felony and not have a defense.
For example, you have a trespasser on your property. If you threaten them with a gun or deadly weapon, you could be facing criminal or civil liablity unless you have a reasonable belief that they pose a deadly threat. Someone being on your property does not in itself give rise to a conclusive presumption that your life was threatened. There are landmark cases of spring guns and traps used to defend property, and in every case the courts have held that defense of property is not available if deadly force is used.
Again, whenever someone has defended their home with deadly force, the defense is always self defense or defense of others. You will never see defense of property raised in these cases.
I’m not talking about putting someone in custody, but allowing for due process to occur to determine their right to possess or purchase. It’s the only thing I can think of that doesn’t have to tread on law abiding citizens rights.
Not angry, just shocked someone can hold such strong positions with zero actual real world experience.
For 10 years we confiscated AKs in Afghanistan, regardless of the person’s ideology, because we know the effect that weapon has against a military force.
Honestly I’m not angry at clemsonpaw, I’m disappointed in our society that produces people like him.
Anybody else still think we should arm our children with pepper spray?
I don’t care if you got a AR15, this is South by God Carolina... We roll 40 deep per class and and that’s hell vs a AR. Bring it
I don’t care if you got a AR15, this is South by God Carolina... We roll 40 deep per class and and that’s hell vs a AR. Bring it
what in the hell would you know about my "real world experience"? because i'm young and didn't serve in the military--because i had no logical cause to--i can't have an informed opinion? i mean, you're like 35+ and brag on the internet about your degrees and the attractiveness of your wife, so i actually feel pretty secure about my maturity and understanding of the "real world."
you are an angry little elf. It is so strange to me that you discard the opinions of anonymous TI posters because they did not serve in the military, yet you gleefully worship at the alter of President Draft Dodging Donald (the one who said POWs were pussies). How do you know that @clemsonpaw00 didnt have bone spurs that prevented him from serving his country?
yeah but dude what kind of hunter gatherer would trump be
after all, this is the year 2018, and despite @CUtiger (actual) repeatedly stating that liberalism is dying and conservatism will reign supreme, we're also somehow on the brink of global destruction. so all that really matters is how well someone would fare in an apocalypse. sorry that you sheeple can't see it.
Does anyone know the context on this gif? Who is this lady? She looks terrible. Serious replies only please.
College professor getting into the face of a conservative student trying to record their BLM protest, if I remember correctly.
just so i'm clear - what exactly is your barometer on the age i have to be before i'm allowed to hold an informed opinion? cause if being "mature" is using tired gifs rather than anything of substance then maybe i don't wanna be that way.
you only have to be 18 to vote, and a lot of these pissed off high school kids will be 18 by the next presidential election. While they normally would not vote and continue in abject apathy, they are now motivated to take down Trump and the NRA.
There will be just as many pissed off high school kids in TX, Wyoming, Montana, Iowa, Georgia, SC etc etc etc who will support Trump and the NRA as well.
Time will tell, I suppose. I do not happen to know any high school students but I suspect future generations are going to care a lot less about gun rights (statistically) than the outgoing generations.
I'm 30 and only hang out with the people that I hang out with but the staggering majority of people my age that I personally know hate Trump and would prefer much stricter gun control.
I mean obviously it's hard these days to discern the facts from people over exaggerating in their reporting, but I've seen reports that his host family has said that he has physically threatened people with guns on multiple occasions, so you add that with the verbal death threats, and posts about being a professional school shooter....I'm not sure how much more you'd need aside from the guy actually trying to kill someone.
Statistics clearly show (FBI data) that when you have a gun in your home, that weapon is FAR more likely to be used on a family member than on an intruder. That includes accidents/domestic violence/what have you. That's just a plain old fact.
I'd suggest that arming a bunch of teachers and half ass training them would result in more deaths than we currently have from mass shootings. This is a bad idea just from simple numbers.
I'd suggest that arming a bunch of teachers and half ass training them would result in more deaths than we currently have from mass shootings. This is a bad idea just from simple numbers.
I bet statistics would also show that arming people with a bunch of bathtubs is very dangerous since almost every home in America has one. This includes slips/ falls/ drownings/ what have you. This is a plain fact.
I suggest arming homes with buckets of water instead and training families on how to scoop and dump water over themselves so as to not cause any harm.
Did the premise of mine make as much sense as yours? The problem is not guns just like it isn’t bathtubs.
Don't bother. These people don't really matter. They're not open minded, and there will always be more men like me and you than these little weirdos running around trying to get rid of guns.
If it makes you feel any better, these types are always the first to die anytime a country is invaded.
Last edited:
