(02-20-2018 11:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:48 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

I believe the system currently in place where a mental health professional makes their case in front of a judge is sufficient, especially because there is an appeals process for the person being denied of their rights to seek redress.

And I'll agree with a mental health evaluation prior to purchasing a gun as soon as one is required for voting and expressing one's opinion.

That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

I'm the opposite in regards to any of our rights. Blackstone's formulation applies:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

I am fine with that general position, although I seem to remember you being ok with civil asset forfeiture which seems to be a big invasion of people’s rights if they are not found guilty of anything.

(02-20-2018 02:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:48 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

I believe the system currently in place where a mental health professional makes their case in front of a judge is sufficient, especially because there is an appeals process for the person being denied of their rights to seek redress.

And I'll agree with a mental health evaluation prior to purchasing a gun as soon as one is required for voting and expressing one's opinion.

That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

I'm the opposite in regards to any of our rights. Blackstone's formulation applies:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

I am fine with that general position, although I seem to remember you being ok with civil asset forfeiture which seems to be a big invasion of people’s rights if they are not found guilty of anything.

I'm only in favor of it after conviction so you only partially remember correct.

(02-20-2018 02:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 02:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:48 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I believe the system currently in place where a mental health professional makes their case in front of a judge is sufficient, especially because there is an appeals process for the person being denied of their rights to seek redress.

And I'll agree with a mental health evaluation prior to purchasing a gun as soon as one is required for voting and expressing one's opinion.

That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

I'm the opposite in regards to any of our rights. Blackstone's formulation applies:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

I am fine with that general position, although I seem to remember you being ok with civil asset forfeiture which seems to be a big invasion of people’s rights if they are not found guilty of anything.

I'm only in favor of it after conviction so you only partially remember correct.

Fair enough. I remember someone being fine with it whether the party was convicted or not. I apologize for assuming it was you.