General discussion


Gun Permits for the mentally ill

By aidemzo_adanac ·
Tags: Off Topic
In the USA, these issues always appear to be so hard to resolve as one state permits, one state does not, one state has some allowances etc. In Canada, the same problems are usually pretty easy to sort out, all the provinces will agree to a unified solution ( in most cases) , while Quebec does something else that nobody cares about and doesn't affect anyone else. In written legal terms, there's always the 'except in Quebec' clause, as they are restricted from doing pretty much anything.
When it comes to employment rights, same thing, the rest of Canada's provinces all get a level of protection, except residents of Quebec, who's employment laws are very similar to the US where the company is protected and can do pretty much what they want to an employee.

Preamble over, after watching the morning news I was wondering how Americans deal with issues when they are so separated by state laws. I completely understand the independence of states but I also see how it detracts from moving forward as a nation on many issues.

Gun laws: Today I almost fell out of bed while watching US news and how one state has denounced a new gun law amendment to protect the medical records of mentally ill people from being released to FBI conducting background checks for new permits.

I was sure I didn't her it right so I them looked it up and found it was true! So protecting a person's medical record release, when they sign a form accepting a background/security clearance check, medial records are off the record?

Their reasoning was that, if Americans know they MAY be restricted form buying a firearm, if they have a history of mental illness, they will be less likely to voluntarily enter a mental illness facility.

Even after confirming it, I still think they are having a laff. It appears that most states have laws where IF you've been voluntarily admitted and then released, you can still get a permit. If you were admitted against your will and THEN released, you were not, then again some states allow it for both.

I just don't get how ANYONE, EVER having been admitted for ANY reason would be allowed a firearms permit.

Shouldn't that be like question #1 for a gun permit?
Are you or were you ever a nutter? If YES, no gun for you!

How can there be ANY gray area around it? Are Americans THAT mental that even someone with a history of mental illness has his right to own a firearm defended?!? I still can't quite get my head around it myself, it's just so far out of this world that I don't see how anyone can actually say it with a straight face.

The state argues that medical history records are private, unless specifically authorized for release by the patient. Fair enough, I couldn't agree more. But when you sign a release for a criminal background history check, finding out if you are mentally unstable should be authorized at the same time.

So not only do pro gun activists feel ANYONE should have a gun and be able to get one quickly an without further delays, they also feel that the mentally ill (assumed "cured") should be able to get one without revealing their past mental illness history.

Seriously, you think you have problems in the middle east, try looking right next door instead. Your problems are internal, not in foreign countries.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

82 total posts (Page 4 of 9)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

You've completely missed the point

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I used to have a phobia,

This isn't about people's mental illness stopping them from buying a gun. The issues is people's mental history is unavailable for review at all!

Would you want someone with a metal history of violent outbreaks to have a gun? HE/she may not have a criminal record at that point but may still have mental problems that lead to violence...a ticking time bomb.

How about severe bipolar disorder? "Gee it wasn't like him, he seemed so cheerful, most of the time!"

or someone who has had marital issues that have resulted in mental disorders, a desire to exact revenge, nervous breakdowns etc. Should ANYONE in America carry a gun, no matter what, just because people can't determine what the real meaning of the 2nd amendment is due to the many rewrites and so much grey area?

Collapse -

Your point is taken

by john.a.wills In reply to You've completely missed ...

about the non-reviewability of important aspects of a would-be gun owner's history, but I question your claim that the Second Amendment has been rewritten. The U.S. Constitution has suffered 27 Amendments, and I do not think that any of the 3rd (we should perhaps really count from the 12th, as the first 11 came together) through the 27th rewrite the 2nd. You may be thinking of judicial rewrites, as in Imbler vs Pachtman and Roe vs Wade, but I do not think that there has been anything equivalent regarding the 2nd; do you know of any?

I also do not know of any rewirites to the Bible since Pope Innocent I promulgated his list of books in 405; some would-be reformers, notably Karlstadt, Zwingli and Luther, disliked certain books, and certain small churches have a 151st Psalm or a 3 Maccabees or a 3 Ezra, but I don't think those can be what you are thinking of: the vast majority of Xn use Innocent's Bible unchanged.

Collapse -

I think he's talking about the various interpretations

by NickNielsen In reply to Your point is taken

And, quite possibly, the Supreme Court's D.C v. Heller that overturned two centuries of precedent and determined the Second Amendment applied not only to militias, but as an individual right.

Collapse -


by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I think he's talking abou ...

In the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings and is why there is still scrutiny between courts.

I personally find context issues the hardest to discuss. Most people understand the basics with grammar....Some people understand the basics with grammar, but I find countless people who have no concept of context. It makes discussion and especially debate all but impossible.

Context, to me, is imperative in everything written or said, CONTEXT is the key to language. It's like a cornerstone that the English language rests upon, with the correct context, you can completely screw up grammar and even use incorrect terms, but proper context will result in the same understanding of what is said.

People who don't comprehend context will land people in jail, will make unjust and false accusations, will completely misunderstand the nature and focus of what is said and so much more. Without context, we don't have language and yet, I find that, it is horribly understood by most.

Context removes the need for further interpretation, it s what everything we say is built upon. Yet so many have no grasp and, as such, completely misconstrue what people say or write all the time.

Collapse -

Nick was right, in a way, but there were actually two versions.

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Your point is taken

I was talking about how simply rewriting it over times, same words, different punctuation and capitalization, makes it mean different things.

I think what most Americans forget is that it was NOT intended as a means for future American citizens to have the right to carry and use weapons to defend their TV from being stolen.

The original Constitutional right was taken from the English Law (which most of our North American Charter of Rights and Constitution is built upon).

In England it was written so that Protestants could protect themselves from the religious and political unrest of the time. Then in order to stop an uprisin gin the US, it was amended and the right to bear arms and form an organized militia was put forth, so that an organized group of citizens could act against uprising, if needed, until other measures (the military for example) were able to convene and act upon issues themselves.

Today, you get some uneducated yokel shooting off his mouth about how it is his right to carry a weapon for personal protection, as if granted by God himself.

One US description states
"The Second Amendment is the only right having an introduction: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." In 1789, "militia" included our modern concept of "police," a word not in common use then. Volunteer "vigilance committees" did policing."

So already, according to the above commentary, it was NOT initially designed for people to walk into Target with a side arm, JUST IN CASE someone pi$$es them off.

The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read those two as meaning the same thing, back to grammar school for you.

The first focuses on the Militia not being infringed upon by the State.
The second focuses on the people's right to bear arms.

Two extremely different meanings, two tiny changes in grammar. It is also said that in the 1700's, English grammar was overwrought with the use of punctuation, this the extra comma to separate and define the language. Later dropping it, leave it open to misinterpretation by today's poor use of grammar.

Collapse -


by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Your point is taken

Rewrites. The bible was translated from Hebrew to English, where there are many words that must be ASSUMED or GUESSED as to the correct replacement, otherwise it implies a completely different context.

One interpretation is that Jesus walked up on water. Using the same rules, the same Hebrew writings can also mean, Jesus walked BY water or walked BESIDE water. SO which is it? Did he walk ON water, BY water or BESIDE water?

Nobody knows or course, just speculation as to what was meant.

English language has also changed a great deal in so many years. What we once would have used to translate a specific Hebrew word may be completely different today.

So without downplaying the initial Hebrew writings themselves, without looking at what did and didn't happen, right from the get go, there are more holes than in Windows XP (well maybe not quite THAT bad but you get my point).

GIven that the bible has been reinterpreted hundreds, if not thousands of times, in MAnY Languages where similar terms are not available, it is purely up to the translator to decide if Jesus walked ON water, BY water or Beside water. Any translator would be pleased to say Jesus walked ON water, it simply sounds a lot more riveting.

Without even getting into specifics, various rewrites,m new translations to countless languages etc, one simply cannot accept the Bible, in English, as a true translation, yet alone read it repeatedly an base your entire existence, morals and beliefs on such a poor translation.

That's before even getting into the reality of what was said vs logic.

Collapse -

You seem to be assuming that

by john.a.wills In reply to Bible

1. The stories of Jesus walking on the water come to us in Hebrew;
2. The language of those stories lacks a good supply of prepositions or equivalents;
3. I most often read the Bible in a translation into English;
4. I most often read the Bible in an antique translation.
All these assumptions are false.

Collapse -

They aren't assumptions nor need to be for validity

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to You seem to be assuming t ...

Regardless of what language stories originate, they are translated and much is lost in translation.

Regardless of good prepositions, I have seen before how several direct English translations offer different results when converting that exact phrase.

The language YOU choose to read the Bible in is irrelevant, unless reading directly from the original Author's source. Great book, slow read but an interesting 'story' all the same.

Again about translation? Why?

As always when it comes to defending religious beliefs, no support, just an attempt at creating some form of doubt without relevant fact. Like pretending to throw a ball to a dog and hiding it behind your back, 'look over there!' In the case of the inexplicable, the famed "god has his ways' always prevails, to an idiot anyway. LOL, what a maroon!

Collapse -

You have got to be kidding me

by maxwell edison In reply to Bible

Are you claiming to be some sort of expert on the various writings and translations of the Bible? Really? This is laughable.

Not for content, because I have no idea; but I know that you have no idea either, because you are about the farthest thing from a Biblical Scholar. I laugh at you and how you claim to be an expert on all things.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool, rather than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Collapse -

I watched a whole series in the translations

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to You have got to be kiddin ...

No I don' claim to be an expert and, reading through my post, I don't know where you got such an opinion as it was not even implied.

What I do know is that even those tasked with translation today, have agreed that it is 100% dependent on the translator as to what exact words come out of the translation, as I specifically illustrated.

You can laugh all you like, you also have no idea what my biblical exposure is, although no longer a practicing Christian, I don't go to church every Sunday, the Bible is not exactly a secret tome. It's writings have been criticized, supported, questioned, believed and translated so many times into so many different languages, that it's not like a members only handbook.

I have actually read the bible, many times (a daily routine) as I was in a Christian school as a child, sang in the choir and all the rest of that rubbish.

The funniest part though is thinking ANYONE is an expert on a subject yet to be proven even exists. Nobody that was there is still alive today, so who can claim to be an expert on what really happened? Some of the most skilled translators worldwide have differentiating opinions as to what the original scripts actually say. Just the mere fact that it is open to choice of translation must cast doubt as to the accuracy and validity of ANY translation, new or old.

Did Moses part the Red Sea? that's open to translation
Did Noah build an ark? That's open to translation.
Did Jesus walk on water? That's open to translation.

There's no doubt in my mind that something SIMILAR to these events occurred but the dramatics and details WILL vary based on the translator's choice of words.

Saying a guy felt a storm a comin ' and built a large ark to try and save his family, friends and his own farm animals/livelihood isn't half as exciting as saying God told him to build an dark and save two of every breed on Earth, though it is MUCH more realistic.

Apparently Jesus stayed behind to climb the mountain and pray, while his disciples set out on stormy sea of Galilee. Now depending on which Gospel you buy into, Matthew, Mark or John, Jesus either walked to the ship, where he protected his disciples or Peter walked on the sea, toward Jesus, and doubted his faith/feared the storm before starting to sink himself, Jesus then did a Baywatch move an walked on the water to rescue Peter (well, even in Baywatch they swim, after a sexy. slow-mo jog into the surf). But hey, what' s a little continuity issue when it comes to translating your favorite stories right?

You can only be a believer, someone who has believed what they were preached, believed what they have read and simply have FAITH, not expert opinion, as to what is true or false.

The fact that even ancient translations have been proven easily questionable due to several English words offering a nearly direct translation, is what I am getting at. Even early translations were shown to have multiple meanings, with the best, most inviting selections included in the English text.

Nobody back then was looking to find out that writings were not as eventful, faithful and exciting as initially assumed, they were looking for words that supported their faith or belief. Translations which made the most exciting stories, which supported religious claims etc.

It wasn't like modern day skepticism that is focused on uncovering the untruths. It is a biased translation, which has been found inaccurate, or at least not the ONLY possible translation, by scholars worldwide.

Expert on religion, you crack me up when you offer up such mindless BS.

Back to After Hours Forum
82 total posts (Page 4 of 9)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums