Please point out where I'm wrong. You think it's ok to sacrifice freedom in the name of safety? Really. For the children?

 

I'll wait for you to take your own advice.

 

 

 

That wasn't the point, not in the slightest. So lets get back on track. The point was, that this law, is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. How in the heck can you be this obtuse even after Zeke spelled it out for you. Your lack of comprehension is impressive.

 

Criminals and the mentally unfit are forced to give up their rights on a daily basis, for safety. But you're telling me, in your view, that murders and schizophrenics should be free to run amuck?

 

Don't try to tell me that's not what you meant, because you just painted with an all encompassing brush. And if you're fine with ignoring intent and twisting words as your argument, then you have no right to protest a counter-argument using the same tactics. So get off your high horse, and swallow that phony self-righteous indignation. 

That wasn't the point, not in the slightest. So lets get back on track. The point was, that this law, is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. How in the heck can you be this obtuse even after Zeke spelled it out for you. Your lack of comprehension is impressive.

 

Criminals and the mentally unfit are forced to give up their rights on a daily basis, for safety. But you're telling me, in your view, that murders and schizophrenics should be free to run amuck?

 

Don't try to tell me that's not what you meant, because you just painted with an all encompassing brush. And if you're fine with ignoring intent and twisting words as your argument, then you have no right to protest a counter-argument using the same tactics. So get off your high horse, and swallow that phony self-righteous indignation.

The only one confused here is you. No where did I ever say that criminals don't give up rights. But you know the difference, a judge is the difference. In every case. It's really hard to take you seriously when you can't understand such a simple difference. I also never said the law wasn't a solution without a problem, In fact, I even stated that in my first post that you quoted, but your reading comprehension is so nonexistent that you missed it.

 

Do I really need to explain to you again that we are talking about citizens having their rights stripped without adjudication?

 

Stop embarrassing yourself.

And now it's jus silly

The only one confused here is you. No where did I ever say that criminals don't give up rights. But you know the difference, a judge is the difference. In every case. It's really hard to take you seriously when you can't understand such a simple difference. I also never said the law wasn't a solution without a problem, In fact, I even stated that in my first post that you quoted, but your reading comprehension is so nonexistent that you missed it.

 

Do I really need to explain to you again that we are talking about citizens having their rights stripped without adjudication?

 

Stop embarrassing yourself.

AFAIK there is no separate hearing that strips a paroled murderer of various rights and privileges. Nor do we go to court to argue if a 5 year old should own a gun. Technically if you're a crack addict or advocate the overthrow of our fabulous government you must check "no" to a box on the permit form, which will disqualify you without a trial or hearing. I'm not crazy about those blanket prohibitions either but I have more relevant things to worry about.

 

Our laws are written in part to avoid the need to adjudicate every damn thing you do that somebody might object to. 

 

NJ has a horrible system but I wonder how many other states would act in the case of a blind gunsmith with a conviction for disturbing the peace, who shot himself, and who made his guns available to a criminal who sold them.

 

To return to the original topic, I contend that degree of disability is the norm not the exception among many older people who are in conservatorship. So the law is not actually in search of a problem. There is a problem (that plus suicide), and there's no question that the law errs on the side of caution, which is often itself an error. Whether that is morally right or not cannot be answered by repeating something Ben Franklin said 5,000 frikking years ago. 

5 year olds don't vote either.

With regards to my question about how many people unable to manage their finances have firearm related incidents per year...my stance in asking that was in opposition to this legislation. I dislike laws passed that limit any rights, especially when it prevents so few of incidents. It's also demoralizing to me seeing our government spend so much time and effort on such trivial things instead of real issues. As generation after generation passes with nothing being accomplished, our overall rights are being chipped away like this, drowned in a sea of stupid little half-measurs like these.

5 year olds don't vote either.

I've purposely not mentioned voting because the next 30 posts would instruct me that "VOTING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT!" But yeah it's along the same lines. 

Smh. So much fail

BTW, a very detailed article about this topic was just posted on National Review Online. Interestingly, the author hit on one of my initial concerns, but went even further, saying, "There were a host of reasons to object to this measure. On separation-of-powers grounds, the prospect of the Social Security Administration playing judge, jury, and executioner is flatly intolerable..." and then he goes on to list all the other reasons it was simply bad law... and further, lists a large array of diverse groups who opposed it, including the ACLU and many groups concerned about the rights of disabled people.

 

So, yeah, that may have been just incredible overreach on the part of the SSA.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

 

"ACLU: Gun control laws should be fair"  http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/20/gun-control-congress-aclu-editorials-debates/98147914/

Oh I dont know, Id say anyone thats unstable. I dont want someone who see's dead people aiming a gun at my head!

Then commit them. The only other thing that can keep a gun away from them is their family. The government saying, "You can't have guns" does not make a dangerous person "un-dangerous."

 

This is not the government's business outside of committing dangerously insane people.

I've purposely not mentioned voting because the next 30 posts would instruct me that "VOTING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT!" But yeah it's along the same lines.

Here you go...

 

It's neither. It's a pact made between people, with the rules they agree upon. It's a deal.

Here you go...

 

It's neither. It's a pact made between people, with the rules they agree upon. It's a deal.

It's a deal with preconditions, within agreed-on boundaries, with the practical effect of law.

 

I'm gonna shoot the person who gave you Black's Law Dictionary for Christmas. You can then explain to the D.A. why "murder" is an inapplicable term.

Then commit them. The only other thing that can keep a gun away from them is their family. The government saying, "You can't have guns" does not make a dangerous person "un-dangerous."

 

This is not the government's business outside of committing dangerously insane people.

Nailed it!

In the summary of this Act, you will find the following text:

 

....who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings)....

 

 

This seems to indicate that to be considered mentally incompetent you have to meet certain requirements.  The following is a link to Section 12 which spells out what constitutes mental disorders according to the SSA.

 

 

https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/12.00-MentalDisorders-Adult.htm

 

After reading this, I don't think they are talking about someone who has their kid drive them to the doctor or handle their finances. IMO, if you meet these requirements, I would have to say you should not own a firearm.

In the summary of this Act, you will find the following text:

 

....who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings)....

 

 

This seems to indicate that to be considered mentally incompetent you have to meet certain requirements.  The following is a link to Section 12 which spells out what constitutes mental disorders according to the SSA.

 

 

https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/12.00-MentalDisorders-Adult.htm

 

After reading this, I don't think they are talking about someone who has their kid drive them to the doctor or handle their finances. IMO, if you meet these requirements, I would have to say you should not own a firearm.

 

Please read through the list, because while I agree that someone with Alzheimer's shouldn't handle a gun, the list includes things like Anxiety and OCD which should not be automatic disqualifiers. If either condition is severe enough to warrant removing firearms from a person's possession, then the existing legal routes should be taken.