Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Would you prefer if I change it to ‘most trumpers’?
I sure don’t see too many complaint about trump ****ing us in the 2ndA hole. In fact, just like bumpstocks, most Trumpers are defending this BS
And just like that Trumpers started supporting red flag laws......
- Thread starter Midnightrider
- Start date
I sure don’t see too many complaint about trump ****ing us in the 2ndA hole. In fact, just like bumpstocks, most Trumpers are defending this BS
This_person
Well-Known Member
It depends somewhat on the standards, don't you think?
Or, if your thought is that the federal should not be taking money to give to states, then we agree that is entirely outside the scope of the Constitutional authority.
I'm not sure which part you disagree with. To me, if it is the money, we agree 100%. If it is the law, it's completely reasonable to debate the appropriateness of limits on the 2A. We already agree it is not universal, as our prisoners do not enjoy the freedoms of a citizen even though they are a citizen - so we can agree limits are appropriate. It's just a matter of how far those limits go.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You made that point in a thread created to complain about the issue with bump stocks, where virtually ever person was against it. It was not valid then, it's not valid now, no matter how many times you suggest that it is.
Repeating a lie may make it true in your mind, but it doesn't make it true in reality.
I have many associates and friends that support Trump. Haven’t heard any of them say the support red flag laws....so you must associate with a different group of Trump supporters than I do or you’re making crap up again like you usually do...
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
If this was being proposed by pelosi or Schumer those same Trumpers would be protesting in the streets. Instead they are either silent, or like black dog and TP, actually defending it.
Where are all the Trumpers who are calling this out as a bad decision by the dear leader?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Red Flag laws in general. Or at least what Trump and other politicians are calling for.
Trump said:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-mass-shootings-texas-ohio/
Current laws state that states have to show "clear and convincing evidence" that someone with a menatl illness poses a danger to themselves or others.
Believing in white supremacy, or black supremacy, or other racist ideologies should not be grounds for involuntary confinement.
Unfortunately, Trump's Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, seems to believe otherwise. Highlighting the problem with a government deciding things like this.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-19-mick-mulvaney-rep-veronica-escobar/story?id=64764985
It's disheartening that these Constitution-loving people don't understand the 4A protections we, the people, have.
SCOTUS as already ruled that:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/441/418.html
To make things even more complicated, each state differs on what constitutes reasoniong for involuntary confinement.
https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/state-standards/state-standards-for-civil-commitment.pdf
So, when people (i.e. Trump) say we need to "better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence", hopefully he's not talkign about loosening any sort of restrictions that would cause innocent people to be caught in this dragnet.
From a practical standpoint and from people much smarter than myself,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/health/mass-shootings-mental-health.html
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hastlj55&div=3&id=&page=
More to the point, psychiatrists are notoriously bad at predicting individuals' predication for gun violence.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/463/880.html
This_person
Well-Known Member
Some of us are smart enough not to care who a proposal comes from to evaluate it, but rather we look at the proposal.
In this case, Trump has NO proposal.
The one Chris spoke of is broad and undefined.
The concept is a valid one.
Just like when Obama made the Bush tax cuts "permanent", and sent in more troops, and treated Cuba differently, I agreed with him. Regardless of it being Obama. Just like when Obama became the Deporter in Chief, he was doing the right thing so I supported it.
Just because this comes from the right instead of the left doesn't make it automatically good, or automatically bad.
If you leave the cult of personality and join those of us who evaluate based on the Constitution, not the submitter, you'll see consistency. Maybe you'll start to have some.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
And that’s why they aren’t going to try to commit the people, they just want to take their guns. It’s a very typical liberal gun grabbing response, which is why we shouldn’t be surprised trump is pushing it
This_person
Well-Known Member
We can agree on a lot here:
- There needs to be a clear and convincing standard by which to adjudicate someone unsafe to the public.
- That standard needs to be available for due process BEFORE a citizen is involuntarily committed.
- The government has a long history of trying to usurp more power and should have little to do with establishing the standard's specifics
- It is a slippery slope that needs to be severely limited in application, and closely monitored by the citizenry.
What I think you did, though, was conflate Mulvaney's comments and Trump's. I think most of us can reasonably agree that white (or black, or red, or yellow, or brown) supremacists are sick in the head. I did not take Mulvaney's comments to mean that would be a standard by which to adjudicate involuntary commitment. If it was, we can agree that is worse than problematic - it's plain wrong. People have the right to be wrong, to hate, to discriminate within their personal lives, etc.
We can also agree that the standard is unlikely to be universally accurate - or, sadly, close enough for government work. It's likely to have many flaws. It is worse than problematic to remove rights from a person without a crime committed and adjudicated, allowing the accused due process. But, that doesn't alleviate the clear and present danger from mentally deranged people. There is a tradeoff that should favor freedom over safety - something else on which I imagine we agree. But, that doesn't mean it is unreasonable to try.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Link to him pushing a gun grab? Not your opinion that he's "pushing" and what he's pushing "must be a gun grab", but something that Trump actually said that is a gun grab.
TYIA
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
What I did was point out how the government can manipulate what constitutes a psychiatric diagnosis requiring involuntary confinement and a loss of a Constitutional right. I didn't intend for it to seem like Mulvaney was laying out a particular standard, just that meeting the government's definition can sometimes (many times) differ.
I agree that really mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. I'm saying that definition doesn't appear to have a set standard and even the people in charge of determining someone's level of mental illness are wrong a majority of the time.
All these "common sense" things that get brought up each and every time are nothing more than a talking point to ride out the "storm" after every mass shooting . Despite how infrequent they actually happen.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
While I can't speak to the accuracy of "prediction" wrt this particular issue I agree in the main. "All of this" has been made much more complicated by the shifting of public perception as to what "disturbed" means. Many behaviors that earlier would have been seen as disturbed/deviant are now normalized (and to a lesser extent, behavior that was once considered normal is now being considered disturbed/deviant).
And this doesn't even take into account the wide range of professional opinion as to what's disturbed/deviant; depending on one's theory of mental illness or personal views we get a situation where the old adage rings quite true: ask 100 mental health professionals to assess a case and don't be surprised when you get 100 very different responses. And we're not even talking about the fear of being sued (or fired)....
Further, "all of this" presumes the effectiveness of getting the individual "in" for evaluation. When folks cover for someone who needs evaluation so that the individual isn't evaluated (for whatever reason; as what happened at Sandy Hook or Parkland) the system is already broken.
I'm not saying a fair and competent system can't be built; I am saying that it is an incredibly complicated issue; we are having difficulty even agreeing on basic "terms of reference." To claim different would be - to my mind - disingenuous.
I wouldn't agree. Specifically, wrt defining the two terms in play (i.e., "supremacy" and "sick in the head"). But also in the more general sense; these days terms once used with great reservation are being too easily tossed out and around. We are painting (and being painted) far too broadly with far too poor a brush.
Yup. Right out of the "Totalitarian Government Strategies For Dummies" book. A favorite tactic of numerous regimes; the one I'm most intimately acquainted with that used it frequently was the Soviet Union.
Appreciate the interesting and necessary back and forth. Thank you, all.
--- End of line (MCP)
Hank
my war
Wrong... Reagan & Republicans repealed the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980...
That's fascinating... 96th Congress under Tip O'Neil and Walter Mondale Jan 1981 - Jan 1983
Democrat House Senate
277 58
Republican House Senate
158 42
Independent House Senate
0 1
So having neither control of the house nor the senate...
Last edited:
black dog
Free America
Attachments
Thank you for not making me make “Hank the Genius” look stupid again...,,
Hank
my war
n
96th was 79-81....
Just noticed when you replied my devices spell check changed Mondale to Monday.
I really hate iOS devices.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
True. As part of the OBRA (1981) the MHSA (1980) was repealed.
I'd be curious as to your take why that was a bad thing. I've read a bit on this (I work in the MH field) and it seems to me that much of the criticism stems from partisanship (meaning, politically or ideologically-motivated reasons) rather than a discussion of the greater context (i.e., fiscal necessity) at the time. Given the almost veto-proof majorities the Democrats enjoyed at the time (by this, I mean the 1980s) why wouldn't Congress advance a new bill?
Nothing prevented states from continuing care (or expanding it). The state I lived in at the time (run by Democrats, btw) decided to end much of the state-level institutional mental health care because it was seen as stigmatizing. And this process began in the mid-1970s (before we even had the MHSA). My point: heaping coals on the heads of Reagan and the Repubs seems too cute, too simple for what was, at the time, a very complicated (and contentious) issue.
Am genuinely interested in your take. Apologies, in advance, if I missed your point.
--- End of line (MCP)