The 2nd Amendment was created with the intent of "protecting" our government.

[kentuck]

Not with the intent that our government was evil and that we had to be protected from it.

This entire debate about guns is very frustrating.

I do believe that a fish rots from the head first and that we cannot expect the NRA to think rationally on this topic until there is new leadership in that political organization. And more than anything, it is a political organization.

We, in Colorado, seem to have more than our share of these tragic events. We ask ourselves "Why?" Why do these things happen?

Is it really about guns or is it about sick people - that use lax laws and political cowardice by our politicians -who are permitted to use guns in ways that are a threat to our society?

When we have the means and the technology to prevent or to intervene in large purchases of ammo and other military equipment that has no meaningful purpose for any citizen except to kill fellow citizens, why do we continue to let things like this happen?

It is all very frustrating.

[pipoman]

1. This has to do with access to mental health services

and ability to have dangerous people committed prior to commission of a criminal act. You should read the actual debate about the 2nd at the time of the BoR. The 2nd is in fact in place as a protection of our people and government. It is also there for sustenance, self defense, and to keep a tyrannical government in check.

When we have the means and the technology to prevent or to intervene in large purchases of ammo and other military equipment that has no meaningful purpose for any citizen except to kill fellow citizens, why do we continue to let things like this happen?

This weekend within 50 miles of any of us there are millions of people using AR15 rifles quite lawfully. They are shooting hundreds of rounds each, quite lawfully. To proclaim the only "meaningful purpose for any citizen except to kill fellow citizens" is ridiculous and demonstrably completely false.


The US Olympic shooting team expends thousands of rounds per month, as do millions of other sport, and competitive shooters, not to mention recreational shooters.

[kentuck]

2. "The US Olympic shooting team expends thousands of rounds per month"...

And they don't come equipped with tear gas canisters and bullet-proof vests and drum clips of ammo.

Yes, it is a mental health question and we have the means to follow these purchases and to intervene with these mental health problems before they commit another tragedy but some refuse to let that happen because it somehow interferes with their 2nd Amendment rights.

We can follow people that purchase gas masks, large amounts of ammo, bullet proof vests, and other dangerous military equipment with our present technology. It would not be an exception to how people are followed with their credit reports, what consumer products they purchase, etc.

I am not persuaded by your argument.

On edit: BTW, I don't think I mentioned AR-15's?? Also, I don't think it says anything in the 2nd Amendment about protecting yourself from a "tyrannical" government. That is only in your imagination.

[pipoman]

7. You do know

that there are volumes of documents which provide the debate which lead to each Amendment in the BoR, no? Denial that keeping a tyrannical government from arising is contrary to history.

AR15 rifles are the most commonly sold rifle platform in the US today. The mechanism is over 100 years old and is unquestionably used by all but a tiny fraction of a single percentage point for lawful purposes.

You think tracking all purchases is realistic, eh? You haven't a clue how many people shoot recreationally then.

You are right, "intervene with these mental health problems before they commit another tragedy", in most states a person will not be involuntarily committed without first committing a crime. This is a huge mistake which could actually be remedied without violating anyone's civil liberties.

As it is right now, we have the 'National Instant Check System" (NICS). When a person purchases a gun from a licensed firearms dealer, the person must pass an NICS check. If a person is denied, and this happens every day, it is usually the result of the person not answering the questions on the NICS form honestly, which is a crime. It also means that a person who is legally ineligible to own firearms is actively trying to acquire a firearm. The FBI and ATF now know that this ineligible person is trying to buy a gun. They have their name, address, phone number and yet less than 1% of NICS denials are even investigated. And you want ALL purchases to be investigated? Nonsense impossibility. I simply want a realistic, constitutional approach to reduce the chances of these things happening.

[MattBaggins]

18. You could not be more wrong

You can not involuntarily commit a person that is not charged with a crime and not have violated their civil liberties.

[pipoman]

25. Due process through complaint

does not violate civil liberties.

[MattBaggins]

29. You asked for incaeration without due process in your first statement

[pipoman]

33. A family member or other interested person

should be able to petition the court for involuntary commitment based on the probability that the person is inclined to harm themselves or others. This used to be the case, it is not possible in most states because there is no state mental hospitals with the capacity. They were eliminated.

[Edweird]

35. In Florida we have the 'Baker Act'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (commonly known as the "Baker Act&quot is a Florida statute allowing for involuntary examination of an individual.

The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person

has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).

Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.

[LonePirate]

11. Speaking of the US Olympic shooting team, I am always amazed at how poorly our team does

You would think with all of the gun loving people in this country who can legally fire and practice with them as often as they want, that we would dominate the shooting events at the Olympics. That's almost never the case for some reason. The US won 6 out of 45 medals at the 2008 Olympics and we performed even worse in 2004. This country may love its guns but we cetainly do not know how to use them well.

[geckosfeet]

6. The "availability of mental health services" diversion has been quite overused here recently.

It's a great talking point, a good diversion, but that's usually where it ends. Those people using this tactic will never support instituting any screening measure for firearms purchasers. They are in fact, generally, actively engaged in removing such provisions around firearms purchases.

But lets play the game.

How does one pay for such expanded mental health services? A firearms registration fee perhaps? How about increasing taxes? Taxes on ammunition and firearms sales? Or just tax increases in general.

And how exactly do improved mental health services equate to fewer people being shot? Are these services for the traumatized survivors? Or will the criminally insane seek help before they legally buy their weapons and commit their acts of madness. Or do we screen everyone who walks into a gun shop and buys a gun? Or do we encourage society at large to seek mental health screening on say a yearly basis? And again, how do we pay for this?

Now I have no qualms with the 2A. I am a sport shooter and ccw. But I do take offense with empty talking points presented as a means to divert honest discussion in search of solutions. Especially the mental health diversion.

Gun owners need to face facts. Both sides are going to have make an effort. It can't be a one sided argument. Diversion and dishonesty are not good mental health choices, and do not make positive contributions to the effort of preventing mass killings.

Health care has been a plank in the democratic party for generations. But in general every member in the guns clubs I belong to rail against Obamacare while simultaneously spewing this specious health care diversion argurment. It is quite an amazing thing to watch there, as it is here on DU. And it works well because liberals are in favor of health care and improved mental health services, and 2A advocates get to divert the conversation to lack of health care.

Since we all agree on the health care issue, specifically the mental health care screening issue, the question becomes how do we as a nation pay for mental health screening for gun owners? How does such a program work?

[pipoman]

9. In nearly every single one of these cases

either the killer has sought help or family has for the person...but alas without first committing a criminal act there is no way to get services because there is no money to pay for them.

This could easily be funded by dismantling the failed Raygun War on Drugs. Decriminalizing most drugs in the vein of Portugal. Using the billions of dollars currently being used to fight loosing wars on drugs around the globe and money used to incarcerate nonviolent drug offenses. The money currently being wasted on these programs would fund mental health services and addiction services.

There is no need to "pay for mental health screening for gun owners". A miniscule percentage of a single percentage point of "gun owners" ever commit unlawful violence with their guns. Try contacting law enforcement and telling them that a relative is talking about shooting up the mall. They may go talk to the relative, but ultimately they will tell you that the relative must first commit a criminal act before he can be committed. In years gone by, prior to the defending of public mental health care, a family member could petition the court to involuntarily confine a person who was a danger to themselves or others. Not an option any longer.

No the real diversion is pretending that the answer is to concentrate on impossible gun control. It is never going to happen. How about looking at the possible instead of wishing for the impossible?

[MattBaggins]

19. Good

"In years gone by, prior to the defending of public mental health care, a family member could petition the court to involuntarily confine a person who was a danger to themselves or others. Not an option any longer."

Good.

[pipoman]

23. Then no whailing

about crazy people doing crazy shit, eh?

[MattBaggins]

28. non sequitor? eh?

[safeinOhio]

8. Don't they shoot 22 long rifle amo, thru

a bolt action rifle?

[pipoman]

10. Millions shoot AR15 rifles competitively

and recreationally.

[safeinOhio]

17. You posted a picture of

a team that uses 22 LRs thru bolt action rifles. I doubt if "millions" shoot AR15 rifles competitively. Perhaps a thousand or two at most.

[pipoman]

22. No time now, but I believe the number

of AR15 rifles in private hands in the US is in excess of 10 million. Most are used competitively or recreationally.

[quaker bill]

12. No, it doesn't

Truly mentally ill people for the most part don't seek out treatment, even when given access. This argument is old and bogus.

The argument that the pop guns we are allowed would "keep a tyrannical government in check" is delusional beyond measure.

[pipoman]

15. Seems I remember

both Cho and Laughner had people asking for mental health evaluation, to which they received nothing 'until a criminal act has been committed'.

Bogus is hand wringing proclamations of constitutionally impossible limitations on enumerated civil liberties to the exclusion of actual legal and constitutional ideas to reduce the problem.

[quaker bill]

30. Would you use police power to compel them into therapy, prior to a criminal act?

There was apparently no legal authority to remand Cho or Laughner into mental health treatment against their will. In the case of Cho, the University surely had counselors available to the students, as all major Universities do. Mental health counseling is available at Universities for students that care to access it.

Given neither sought treatment, if they needed a forced committment to treatment, would they lose the RKBA? Who gets to decide which persons are sufficiently unstable to remaind to treatment and lose the RKBA? Perhaps a government program? It gets a bit sticky here, and therein lies the problem.

In the absence of a criminal offense, how does government get the right under the constitution to take away your Freedom and place you under treatment for mental illness? I know about the Baker Act and have used it. It gets you a quick evaluation in 72 hours and 30 days of treatment if the eval comes back that that the patient needs it. In most cases, the Baker Act is used for someone found violating the law or doing themselves bodily harm (terminal stage alcoholics, suicide attempts, and such... not guys with off the menu ideas and lots of guns)

Let's look at a society where if your neighbors/classmates/coworkers happen to think you might be unbalanced, but you think you are just fine. Who gets to make the call to remand you into treatment? Is it a majority vote? Do they confiscate your weapons on the way in? Would there perhaps need to be some evidence, and if so how much?

Can you even vaguely imagnie the society you are postulating?

A community mental health police would be a fascinating concept.

Now of course, once someone is a proven criminal, the RKBA argument is over. So the question only really applies pre-crime.

[kentuck]

32. If you could not compel them into therapy...?

Could you keep them from buying different types of weapons, by court order?

[quaker bill]

34. I do not think so

Under current law, due process would seem to require at minimum some substantial finding of mental impairment sufficient to commit to treatment to restrict RKBA in any individual case. Being "a little strange" or "a loner" generally would not cut it.

[napkinz]

20. access to guns v access to mental health services

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002994701

[pipoman]

21. Exactly

[xchrom]

3. It's become part of our national character

To think of 'The Government' as 'Them' - a thing outside of us.

[kentuck]

4. Not the least of those...

that promote the evils of government are the NRA and kindred political thinkers.

[xchrom]

5. oh absolutely. nt

[baldguy]

13. If the extremist RW gun worshipers really supported the 2nd Amendment

They'd be campaigning to eliminate our standing army in favor of local militias.

[slackmaster]

14. It was intended to protect security at all levels

From the state down to the individual. A state is not secure if the people, families, neighborhoods, towns, etc. that make it up are not secure.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. IMO, the second amendment was created to protect some State governments

specifically, slave states.


Any reasoned discussion about the original intent of the second amendment will include something like "protection from a tyrannical federal government". The major issue at the time of the drafting of the Constitution was slavery. I believe that if you think it through you will realize that the slave states could not possibly trust the free states. They must have wanted to insure that they retained some military power so that they could secure their "freedom" to own slaves from a tyrannical federal government hell bent to end slavery.

[ananda]

24. Yeah.. I've been wondering why Colorado?

I guess Texas has certainly had its share of crazy violence with
Kennedy's assassination and all the incompetence afterwards.

We also had Charles Whitman in the sixties; and those horrible serial
killers in the seventies ... and of course Waco and Luby's.

Not much lately though except that Rick Perry shot himself in the foot.
I guess that about sez it all. Woulda loved to see Molly writin on that one.

[aikoaiko]

26. The larger concern was the "security of a free State" regardless of who the oppressor was.

We are not letting tragedies happen. I don't think we know enough about this situation to know what we could do to improve laws.

[ananda]

27. Not so. We ARE letting tragedies happen.

That is a tragedy in itself.

[cthulu2016]

31. Your thesis is incorrect

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the People and the States from the Federal government.

You can say that's silly in today's world, and I will agree, but that was the intention in the 1780s.

[1-Old-Man]

36. At least one person here knows what the 2nd Amendment is about

There was a time when an armed citizenry could control its own Governance, something our forefathers demonstrated when they threw the British out of the Colonies. It may not be true today, but then it might be true today, but the point is moot because we have the right to bear arms- something that the Court has told is is a personal right.

[spin]

37. You might feel that in today's world the 2nd Amendment is silly and will be useless to protect ...

the people from a tyrannical government.

Recent events in the Middle East prove that dictators can be overthrown.