Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Again, I'm completely on board with gun control, I'm just trying to get a handle on what the realistic options are.
First of all, who's going to track this and administer this and decide what posts are grounds for putting a person an a no guns list? This is a legal hornets nest. I read where the FBI gets 1500 tips a day and most are based around face book posts. Also again a post is not a crime, nor can any conviction be granted without a crime.
Can you even do something like this in the name of public safety, because frankly it goes against innocent before guilty, especially since no crime has been convicted.
We've all said that the idiot quota is filled daily by posts on forums and public media. I just don't see how anything like this can be enforced.
I mean are you ok with Kathy Griffin for example being put on a watch list and heavily investigated because she held up a bloody fake head of Donald Trump.
I would argue by being able to change people's status based on social media, but the other side will argue that this is the first step to a police state.
Also lets say that this guy goes online and says I'm going to murder people. They dispatch the FBI and he says, look, I was angry and I was blowing off steam, I would never ever do anything like this, then are you obligated to remove the whole he can't buy guns thing, or do you need to establish a whole other court system where a judge has to make that decision?
What's the grounds for the subpoena? What's the crime that's been committed? You're going to basically have to strike down the first amendment fights to self expression, the second amendment rights to fire arms will have to be redefined, and you're going to really clutter up the courts getting a subpoena, based on facebook posts or a threatening conversation.
On top of that, I would think that if that came to pass, that less people would actually seek treatment in help due to the fear of someone being able to pry into my private treatment without an actual crime being commitment.
I've used the term minority report style law enforcement, and I think that a lot of people want that right now because they're angry and they think that its the answer. But they probably will until it goes into effect.
Isn't that up to the individual. The therapist or Doctor certainly can't enforce it, they can suggest it. I think that what you're going to say is that if the therapist or doctor senses that there's a real threat, that he should be able to call a tip line that would create a record or even bring in law enforcement for the good of society. However again, I would worry about the impact for anyone that's seeking help for serious mental health issues or even addiction issues being willing to voluntarily ask for help from the system for fear that what they say can be laid bare without a crime being committed.
What you're talking about is something like "Can nobody do something about this damn priest". Saying the courts need to be bought to heel is a frightening proposition. Just because you think that something is right doesn't mean that you can subvert the rule of law to make it happen, that leads to a government with way too much power.
The courts ask as a powerful check to government, but if you can suddenly have the government bringing the courts to heel. Or worse yet you suddenly want a fully electable supreme court that has to campaign on how they'd change the law instead of acting as priests to enforce and interpret the law, you have a really frightening concept.
Until you have the discussion around privilege vs right and redefine the constitution, this is really not a discussion. I'm not trying to be a jerk here or say give everyone a gun. That's not the point of this.
Once you start eroding and redefining rights what goes next. Do people that do shootings lose their right to a defense attorney, does that become a privilege as well. What about the right to humane treatments, and even the rights to citizenship?
I know I'm being a bit over the top on the last part. But the point that I'm getting at, is if you start removing constitutional rights based on possibilities its not going to be a genie that you can put back in the bottle.
I firmly believe that the path to gun control is a mechanics issue instead of fighting constitutional battles.
I believe that gun control is based around enforcement and access, then guessing that someone is going to do harm.
|
So much depends upon why a person is in therapy.
Just from personal experience- I went into therapy because I was threatened/stalked and scared to death.
I wasn’t going to go on a rampage and kill masses of people. I was a nervous wreck.
Yet, I’m sure some could view that as someone in that position as being a risk by calling it paranoia- if they wanted to stretch it.
No, I don’t have a gun and have never attempted to get one. If I move to a rural area I might, and often wonder if the therapy thing could someday be held against me.
Well said as always, Cap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk