Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Saturday, March 4, 2017

If This Doesn't Scare You, Kansas City--and America--Nothing Will


From the national news, ABC, this week.


Isn't that marvelous?

This is what the National Rifle Association, the NRA, and the Right Wing and Republican policies all get us. That is, guns. Lots and lots of guns. More than any other otherwise civilized, educated, industrialized nation in the world.

Kudos, America.

Now.

What are we going to do about it?


18 comments:

Sevesteen said...

This is a huge part of why I want to end the war on all drugs. Gangs don't do drive-by shootings for no reason, it is almost always related to drugs and drug dealing. Legitimate businesses (or semi-legit ones like pot stores where state law allows despite federal law) don't expand their turf with guns. The NRA is a handy scapegoat, but it's really rare that you find an NRA member doing a drive by or any other kind of gun violence.

Mo Rage said...


I don't disagree with you on ending the drug wars or anything else here but the NRA is far more than a handy scapegoat. It's the NRA and their money and their owned Republicans individually and collectively that has made far more weapons available and possible in the nation. There is no better example than right now, with those same Republicans doing the same NRA bidding and making weapons available for people who are clinically, officially mentally unstable. It's that same new administration in the White House, 70 year old fool that he is, that wants to undo legal marijuana by states.

Sevesteen said...

making weapons available for people who are clinically, officially mentally unstable..

How long has this rule that the evil republicans are changing been in effect?

Is there any mental health treatment that in your opinion should NOT result in a loss of gun rights for life?

Do you think it is a good idea that gun nuts think voluntarily getting help for mental health issues may result in loss of gun rights for life?

Mo Rage said...


The rule the Republicans are changing has been in effect for, I believe, a few months. President Obama put it into effect.

It isn't about my opinion of any mental health treatment shouldn't result in a loss of gun rights for life. It's whether or not someone is diagnosed clinically, mentally unstable whether schizophrenic or whatever.

I think it's a good idea that, if anyone going voluntarily for "mental health isses", vague a term as that is, should lose their gun rights for life if the mental health professional(s) think it's warranted, yes, absolutely, you bet.

Sevesteen said...

The Obama administration put it in place after the election--that alone should tell you their intent. It isn't constitutional, wasn't meant to remain, it was meant to generate social media outrage. If it had been a serious proposal it would have been done much sooner, when it could help Hillary's election.

How about if a random criminal justice professional thinks it's warranted, then yes, absolutely, you bet you should permanently lose rights? If a TSA professional thinks you are a terrorist threat, then yes, absolutely you should be banned from the country?

Or is it that any excuse to ban any guns will do?

Obviously my love of guns means to you that I don't deserve anything...but if I need mental health treatment do you really think it is good for the safety of everyone if I have to choose between guns and therapy? You're willing to gamble that if one of us snaps it will only result in suicide, and not something worse?

Mo Rage said...


So you're just one more gun-loving Right Winger who, again, thinks that and supports the idea that if a person has been classified officially mentally ill, they should still have "gun rights" and be able to own a weapon.

Honestly, you seem, at times, more logical than that, brighter than that, more educated than that. Sorry you stick with the same, dangerous point of view and, honestly, nonsense.

That second paragraph of yours, above, is a random, messy attempt at a question, I'm afraid, again, honestly.

No, one random criminal justice professional thinks it's warranted to lose rights, that wouldn't be okay. Once again, you, a Right Winger, takes an intelligent, legitimate position--in this case, mine--and takes it to some irrational, even absurd extreme. Nice job.

Here's another example of just that--your taking one of my positions and taking it to an absurd, ridiculous extreme:

"Obviously my love of guns means to you that I don't deserve anything..."

Honestly, as an adult, you should be ashamed of yourself. You won't be but you should.

Again, I point out, I don't take your positions and extrapolate them to absurd lengths. I also don't "put words in your mouth" or attribute things to you.

You should, yes, be adult and respectful of the person with whom you're speaking and grant them that same position and respect.

Sevesteen said...

There isn't any significant difference between losing rights because of the opinion of one mental health professional and losing rights because of the opinion of one law enforcement or criminal justice professional. There is some mental illness that should result in removal of gun rights, but not based on one person's opinion, not without due process and not for life without any effective recourse. There is other mental illness that does not make you a danger to others, that deserves treatment and compassion but not the loss of rights. There are also in between cases where someone's illness might justify a temporary restriction but less than a lifetime ban--that's probably the biggest weakness in our current system.

Maybe that's not what you mean,but in this context you are arguing for less due process than a traffic ticket to permanently remove constitutional rights.

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible. Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate. (Wikipedia)

I'm not claiming that you believe that one cop should be able to take your rights--that should be absurd in America. It is just as absurd to give one mental health professional that power--If I'm wrong, you should be able to easily point out the difference instead of resorting to "don't put words in my mouth". I didn't--but you won't put any limits on any proposed restriction of gun rights, no matter how absurd the result.

You've also deflected the practical argument--risk of losing gun rights is likely to discourage treatment, does leaving more of us untreated in hopes you can ban a few more of us from owning guns make society safer? There is a reason we have doctor patient confidentiality--exceptions to that should be extremely rare to make sure we don't discourage treatment.


Mo Rage said...


Yes, well, except that "...opinion of one mental health professional..." is a doctor.

This isn't some arbitrary thing and a throw away. This is a clinical diagnosis, a medical diagnosis. This isn't about whether the car color is turquoise or blue, it's about someone being, again, mentally ill. Officially. Medically. I know right wingers have big problems with science---and even educated people--but come on, on this you should let it go.

And it's patently not "...less due process than a traffic ticket."

Again, you act like doctors and the medical community are cavalier about diagnosing someone mentally unstable. News flash: they aren't.

And as far as Constitutional Rights go?

Again there, too, you guys just really don't like that second part about being a "well-regulated militia", do you? So much so that you disavow the first four words of your all-important 2nd Amendment completely.

It gets tiresome.

It's also dangerous. In fact, it's killing literally tens of thousands of Americans every year because you do.

To you, it seems as though "gun rights" are right up there with food and oxygen. Fortunately for the rest of us out here in America, fewer Americans own guns, statistically.

Sevesteen said...

If "needs help balancing your checkbook" meets the definition of defective, that's wrong. That is the majority of what we and the ACLU are arguing about here. Do you really think becoming absent minded about bills indicates a danger to others, requires stripping of rights? How about gender dysphoria? That's a recognized disorder in the DSM...but like many other disorders irrelevant to whether you are safe with a firearm.
If a single person (no matter what their credentials) can take your rights for more than a minimal emergency period, that's wrong--whatever those rights are. Maybe it would be reasonable for a single therapist to take gun rights pending a hearing under some circumstances, that's up for discussion.

Well Regulated means "properly running", obvious in context with "shall not be infringed". "All able bodied citizens may be part of the properly running militia, this is necessary for the security of a free state therefore the right of an individual to own and carry private arms shall not be restricted. "

I'm near certain that you can't come up with a version using both "highly regulated" and "shall not be infringed" together in a way that makes sense and leaves anything to be protected.

Constitutional rights in general are just below food and oxygen. The second amendment is the part you're most willing to throw away, so it's where we conflict the most. I've argued with you about the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th at least a little. If you started arguing that the government should be able to quarter troops in our homes, I'll argue against you there as well.

And as usual questions with obvious but inconvenient answers are ignored several times.

Mo Rage said...


Being truly, clinically, medially unstable or out and out ill is no way even remotely just about needing help balancing one's checkbook. No way. You belittle the status of mentally ill or unstable. And it's not just about being absent-minded, either. You're, again, reducing it to an absurd, disconnected unreality. These are not what we're referring to in any way.

It's also not just about "a single person" taking away one's rights, either. I said this earlier. That's a convenient, if completely inappropriate, scapegoat for you. It's a whole medical system. It is, again, science. It's doctors. It's a true, medical evaluation. Again, you belittle in your attempt.

None other than former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger said it best for the rest of us, for the nation.

Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right To Own a Gun

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=160176

"Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

Naturally, you not only won't agree with the justice but will, if anything, flip out.

You put guns above people. Since we've been writing, that's clear. I don't. I don't and lots of us don't. Unfortunately, due to the NRA and weapons manufacturers and Right Wingers like yourself and the Republicans and all the money they pour in on this, to date, you all have been winning.

While Americans are dying.

Congratulations.

Sevesteen said...

Maybe most of these conditions justify restrictions...but not all of them, and no constitutional right should be removed by the government without due process. If permanent abridgement of rights is necessary, it isn't too big a burden to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't object to removing the right to own guns from dangerously crazy people if done with due process, I object to removing a constitutional right without the formal due process to prove it is necessary in each individual case. Most psychotics should not have guns, but declaring someone a psychotic should require at least a brief hearing and a chance to defend.

If you want to treat guns as identically to cars as possible, I would consider that a huge win for gun rights--maybe even going too far in my direction. I put people's rights above irrational fear. Legal gun owners are rarely a problem--far less often than legal car drivers. I'm trying to use a fair definition of legal owner here, meaning that I'm not discarding people who were legal just before they committed a crime.

Gang shootouts are primarily caused by prohibition. We had a brief time when there were shootouts over alcohol. We now have shootouts over other intoxicants. The solution is the same--end the prohibition. Legal alcohol led to reduced deaths due to bad moonshine, it's likely that legal drugs will reduce overdose deaths due to uneven quality and potency, in addition to reducing violence.

We throw a lot of money at this, $25 at a time. I'm pretty sure Bloomberg alone outspends us, he's managed to outlaw sharing guns at the range by lying about it.

Mo Rage said...


See? On all of this? All this you wrote? The first two paragraphs?

"Maybe most of these conditions justify restrictions...but not all of them, and no constitutional right should be removed by the government without due process. If permanent abridgement of rights is necessary, it isn't too big a burden to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't object to removing the right to own guns from dangerously crazy people if done with due process, I object to removing a constitutional right without the formal due process to prove it is necessary in each individual case. Most psychotics should not have guns, but declaring someone a psychotic should require at least a brief hearing and a chance to defend.

If you want to treat guns as identically to cars as possible, I would consider that a huge win for gun rights--maybe even going too far in my direction. I put people's rights above irrational fear. Legal gun owners are rarely a problem--far less often than legal car drivers. I'm trying to use a fair definition of legal owner here, meaning that I'm not discarding people who were legal just before they committed a crime."

I completely agree! We completely agree! I agree with all of it! Especially this:

"no constitutional right should be removed by the government without due process. If permanent abridgement of rights is necessary, it isn't too big a burden to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't object to removing the right to own guns from dangerously crazy people if done with due process, I object to removing a constitutional right without the formal due process to prove it is necessary in each individual case."



Sevesteen said...

I don't consider a social security bureaucrat or even a doctor adding you to a list as proper due process, that's where most of my objection comes from. There's a difference between a diagnosis and a court finding.

This interview with Christopher Hitchens showed up on another blog I read, it's appropriate here:

I think decriminalization of drugs is long long overdue, it will be look back on it is done as what was all that about; how did we let Richard Nixon declare war on drugs and ruined so much of our society, throw away so many of our liberties, incarcerate so many innocent people deny ourselves in the case of marijuana so many potential remedies...how do we ever let this prohibition go as far as it has gone. I would add to what David Frum says that not not just would be a great decline in the murder rate, because I’m not threatened physically at all if someone in my building or on my block wants to put a substance into their system which is their right, and is none of the government’s business. That doesn’t threaten me at all, what does threaten me is the people who will shoot each other in the street for the right to sell him that stuff if it is illegal. The second thing that terrible consequence, fell consequence that arises from that is of course tremendous corruption. Whole police departments have been lost to the drug Trade. You know...I think it won’t be long before there will be judges too, it will be much much worse than Chicago in the twenties. listen to the whole thing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytdNhW4ePeE

Mo Rage said...


It isn't "one doctor" who has someone shown to be mentally unstable or psychotic, or whatever, first. It's a whole system and second, it's scientific and objective and not in any way taken lightly or cavalierly.

Sevesteen said...

So what is the process, and what are the safeguards?

Mo Rage said...


They clinically diagnose the person, run them through tests They do 3 things:

--A physical exam. Your doctor will try to rule out physical problems that could cause your symptoms.
--Lab tests. These may include, for example, a check of your thyroid function or a screening for alcohol and drugs.
--A psychological evaluation. A doctor or mental health provider talks to you about your symptoms, thoughts, feelings and behavior patterns. You may be asked to fill out a questionnaire to help answer these questions.


http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20033813

The safeguards are laws that keep the doctor from losing his license, for starters.

Sevesteen said...

Your version of due process and the 14th amendment is effectively nonexistent when it is a right you disagree with. As I've said before, the big difference between right wing and left wing is merely which rights to give away first...just different flavors of statist.

We're probably too far apart on due process for further discussion to be useful.




Anonymous said...


You're just dying to disagree with me, for whatever reason. Perhaps you're merely a contrarian. I think it's very likely more that you want to either be or seem to be somehow "above it all", above what you think is "ordinary thought." Whatever it is, you're both elusive and full of blame. It's the other person who is always wrong, always incorrect.

My "version of due process and the 14th Amendment is effectively nonexistent when it is a right you disagree with"? Really? The only Amendments to the Constitution you want to talk about or that we've spoken of, really, is the 2nd. Suddenly, suddenly you're on due process.

The fact is, we haven't discussed either the 14th Amendment or due process. You are, once again, as you repeatedly do, extrapolating my positions and opinions though I've said nothing of them. You are here, once again, taking anything I say to an outrageous, extreme point, something you think and assume an extremist Liberal would say or think, and then hang me with it.

You are too interested in accusing me of things for us to discuss due process.

Or virtually anything, really, truth be told.