Limbaugh: "Left Mobilizes to Politicize School Shooting"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacknife737

Mental health reform doesn't automatically mean locking random people away on Shutter Island - more like putting increased resources into identifying children/teens who are suffering from mental illness while they are at school, and then ensuring they are able to receive easy and affordable access to the appropriate medications.

---

Yes, one of the few appropriate actions right now seems to focus on at-risk persons. The fact that there are 0.0001% of people out there who might turn into a murdering psychopath like Lanza does not justify banning assault weapons, but it sure as hell does justify increasing gun control (i.e., personality/psychopathology testing before someone purchases a weapon like that) by a lot. Also, as jacknife said, better mental health care in general is a very good idea.
ps: my personal opinion on this is a bit more strict (to ban assault rifles and non-hunting handguns, but that is just my personal opinion)

Personally, I find it insulting how willing everyone is to suddenly divert resources to combat "mental illness," now that a bunch of cute little kids got killed. Is that really what it takes? Nobody wanted to help the mentally ill when Columbine happened, nobody wanted to help mentally ill people after the Aurora shooting; before all these shootings happened, America didn't give two blind fucks about the "mentally ill." My mom and I have worked with the mentally ill for years, and she actually worked at a mental health facility for a couple years. Most of those people are simply left there because their families didn't want to deal with them, and the facilities themselves are grossly under-funded (and sometimes, they simply close them down and turn the patients loose with nowhere to go). And being mentally ill in this society is treated as more of a joke than anything --- if you can't perform to task in society because of it, you're ridiculed and people say things like, "Oh, get over it!" Sort of like telling a diabetic to "produce some insulin, already!" And yet this is commonplace behavior, considered largely acceptable even in the media.

And now, suddenly, I'm supposed to believe that half the country cares about the mentally ill? Oh, please. I hope you guys can understand how this looks like America is only "taking care of the mentally ill" now because they're scared of them. They're a punching bag demographic until people start getting killed, then we just blame mental illness and act like we're suddenly so concerned.

If you're part of the bandwagon who suddenly "cares," that's fine, but at least admit that it's not out of genuine concern for the mentally ill, but rather out of fear that "those crazy people might come kill you if they don't get proper care." It's insulting, and it's also a brilliant way to scapegoat the mentally ill for America's gun violence problem. For the record, I'm not against treating the mentally ill with better resources -- I'm actually totally, 100% for it -- I just have to shake my head at this fake concern spawned out of fear. It seems like the only way we can ever get anything done in America, is if we learn to be afraid of something over it. It's the same reason I'm mystified by people who only now, after myriad shootings and hundreds of civilian deaths, are finally voicing a desire to ban assault weapons. I'm glad they feel that way now, but this is something that could easily have been worked out in principle beforehand (and that many people did work out in principle beforehand); only now that it's too late for those people, have the majority decided they are "okay" with outlawing assault weapons. I, and many others, have been for a full ban on assault weapons for the better part of a decade now; it's sad that it takes the massacre of children to get us to re-think this.

Also, for the record? The mentally ill are no more statistically prone to violence than you or I, as long as drugs or alcohol are not involved (and even then, the correlation is still the same).

As for gun control; It seems to me that a large number of people are dismissive as soon as they hear the phrase "gun control;" when asked directly if they favor gun control, a large number of people say they oppose it. And yet, if you break it down issue by issue, the answers change dramatically --- if, for example, you ask whether they support banning the purchase of guns by people whose names are on the terrorist watch list, the overwhelming majority (even of NRA members) say they support such measures. If you ask if there should be a psych evaluation, or a background check, before you are allowed to own a firearm, the majority says yes; and if you ask if civilians should be able to own bombs, grenades, rocket launchers, etc., they overwhelmingly feel that they should not. So it seems that the phrase "gun control" itself has become politicized to the extent that people have a knee-jerk reaction to say "no," even though they actually agree with its composite elements. It doesn't help that many polls regarding "gun control" phrase it as a false dichotomy --- "do you support gun control, or do you support the right to bear arms?" They are not mutually exclusive.

As for the "right" per the constitution, it's the second amendment, right after the first one. What's interesting to me is, people claim that we need a completely deregulated second amendment right to gun ownership, but they're perfectly okay with regulating our free speech, whether they realize it or not --- I can't help but notice that most of them don't seem to have a problem with the fact that, for example, we don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or "bomb" on an airplane or airport; we don't have the right to make violent threats or otherwise intimidate others. And I don't hear any of these "absolutely NO regulation of constitutional rights" people protesting that.

Of course, there's a reason why --- it's because the aforementioned abridgments of our first amendment rights are for reasonable purposes, in the interest of public safety --- the loss to your "freedom" to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, is far outweighed by the concern for public safety and potential harm to others, should you do so. One of our founding fathers famously (approximately) said that "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." Well, this applies here --- you only have a "right" insofar as it doesn't interfere with my safety and my rights. So the "it's in the constitution, therefore it shouldn't be regulated at all" argument can be disregarded categorically, because we can and do regulate constitutional freedoms every day.

Side note: Another interesting thing I've noticed, is that the people who support a completely deregulated second amendment right tend to be (though aren't always) the *same* people who claim that "socialized healthcare is unconstitutional," on the grounds that you don't have a right to someone else's services. If that were the case, I would think that the second amendment would be unconstitutional, since it gives you a "right" to own something that was manufactured by someone else, and it's entirely predicated on a scenario in which the manufacturer sells it to you willingly.

Imagine --- for the purpose of a thought experiment --- if all of the world's gun manufacturers were (for whatever reason) to suddenly decide that they didn't want to sell you a weapon, just because. Would you be able to sue them in order to protect your "right" to their property? Or is your "right" contingent upon their willingness to sell you one? If it's the latter, then how, exactly, is your right "inalienable?" I'd be interested in a thoughtful exploration of this scenario.

I agree with your entire post 100% besides a bit of a false analogy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Static_Martyr

Side note: Another interesting thing I've noticed, is that the people who support a completely deregulated second amendment right tend to be (though aren't always) the *same* people who claim that "socialized healthcare is unconstitutional," on the grounds that you don't have a right to someone else's services. If that were the case, I would think that the second amendment would be unconstitutional, since it gives you a "right" to own something that was manufactured by someone else, and it's entirely predicated on a scenario in which the manufacturer sells it to you willingly.

---

Those that support a completely deregulated second amendment believe that nobody has a right to anything for free. Unless they support the government giving away guns to everyone (there very well might be some pscyhos out there who do), it doesn't fit. They buy their guns and believe that certain people (obviously not them, of course) should be forbidden from owning guns. I'm sure many of them would love to forbid minorities, gays, and women from owning guns, as well. It's not really about freedom for most of these people... that's just an excuse.

The most ironic part about all this debate, though, is the hierarchy of the far, far right's beliefs. I've seen a LOT of anti-universal healthcare folks, who refer to it as Obamacare and think it involves death panels, suddenly saying shit like, "If mentally ill people had access to health care, this wouldn't happen. It's not the guns' fault; it's the fault of Obama for not passing a bill to get health care for all." They don't want universal healthcare... UNTIL YOU TRY TO REGULATE THEIR GUNS.

Yeah, how dare my primary concern about with the mentally ill be rooted in self-interest. I must be the most selfish person in the world not to think that protecting their quality of life and reaffirming their sense of personhood and treating them like special little snowflakes isn't a higher priority than trying to prevent them from murdering me.

Quote:

---

Those that support a completely deregulated second amendment believe that nobody has a right to anything for free.

---

But that makes even *less* sense, because it assumes that healthcare is free. It's not. Even under Obamacare, you're still required to BUY insurance. Nobody gets it free. And yet, the claim persists that it's "socialism."

Side thought: I wonder, off the top of my head, what the NRA crowd would think if Congress passed a law *requiring* every US citizen to own a gun (they could justify it by saying that civilians could use it to defend the government/assist the peacekeeping effort in times of crisis/rioting), and offering a tax credit to offset the purchase of that gun? Any NRA sympathizers/gun advocates here? I'm actually interested in a philosophical exploration of this scenario.

Quote:

---

Yeah, how dare my primary concern about with the mentally ill be rooted in self-interest. I must be the most selfish person in the world not to think that protecting their quality of life and reaffirming their sense of personhood and treating them like special little snowflakes isn't a higher priority than trying to prevent them from murdering me.

---

^Case in point; any concern expressed on behalf of the mentally ill is met with mockery and disdain.

Anyhow, I'm surprised that you see nothing wrong with passing legislation based solely on fear and overreaction? What we get when we do that is incomplete, inaccurate legislation; if I may recommend this article, which was recently recommended to me --- it's an explanation of what happens when we pass gun laws based on overreaction to public incidents, rather than principled, timeless reasoning. It seems logical that the same is true of mental health legislation; if we pass rules to "regulate" mental health, not in principle, but as a fear-based knee-jerk response to a prominent incident, then we're going to wind up with half-baked, politicized legislation that gives the appearance of addressing concerns but actually does nothing (or makes things worse). If we're going to reform laws to provide for the mentally ill, it needs to be based on actual, established scientific fact, not the fear and paranoia of an ignorant public looking for a demon to blame for the latest incident and a cause to throw their money at until they feel safe again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llamas

I'm gonna bite at this part, though. Why do we need this? Why is state govt better than federal? Why don't we just break up the US and have 50 countries? Let's make the laws totally different in each state and require a passport to travel between them. I seriously don't get why state govt is better than federal. Governors and senators and mayors fuck up just as often as the feds, and it's moronic to have the ability drive across the border - still in the same country - and have totally different laws.

---

Why? Because where do YOU have more say in the laws that govern YOU?

I don't believe state government is better than federal government, but my opinions (obviously) differ from yours, and I dont want people YOU elect, having as much to say about laws in MY state as the people I elect.

Maybe you haven't studied history, but that WAS the intent of the founders. In fact it was the only way the Constitution got ratified.

Rather than have issues like abortion tear the country apart, let the states decide. Same with drug laws.

And no, you don't need to "break up" the US, there are ares that a federal government are important.

You say I am full of libertarian non-sense, and the analogy with a thermometer is off, yet you still haven't said how a ban could possibly make any difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bronc_28

Why? Because where do YOU have more say in the laws that govern YOU?

I don't believe state government is better than federal government, but my opinions (obviously) differ from yours, and I dont want people YOU elect, having as much to say about laws in MY state as the people I elect.

Maybe you haven't studied history, but that WAS the intent of the founders. In fact it was the only way the Constitution got ratified.

Rather than have issues like abortion tear the country apart, let the states decide. Same with drug laws.

And no, you don't need to "break up" the US, there are ares that a federal government are important.

You say I am full of libertarian non-sense, and the analogy with a thermometer is off, yet you still haven't said how a ban could possibly make any difference.

---

That's the problem with libertarians and republicans... you automatically assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you on guns supports banning guns. I don't. Very, very few liberals do.

And making different laws for things like abortion for every state only drives the country apart more and more. The more we do that, the less united and more untied the country becomes. The US is on its way to falling in the next few decades, especially with more and more people wanting states to have more power and the US government to have less and less. I like libertarianism in concept, but it's far too idealistic to actually work. Dream land.

Quote:

---

I like libertarianism in concept, but it's far too idealistic to actually work. Dream land.

---

Sort of agree on the "too idealistic" and "dream land" parts. But I actually despise libertarianism. It's the political equivalent of a child that constantly tells his parents and teachers, "You can't make me!" just to be facetious. There's very little about libertarianism that's actually practical, and it usually involves foregoing actual results in favor of idealistic statements/protests (hence why I agree that it's too idealistic and not grounded enough in reality); libertarians seem to consider compromise of any kind to be "kowtowing" or "backing down," and they're so quick to accuse anyone of "selling out" the minute they show any sign of not being a complete ideologue/martyr for the cause of pure libertarianism. In that sense, I'd say they're just as bad as Tea Partiers and Republicans; all in all, libertarianism seems more like an organized way of obstructing the flow of society in general just to "prove a point," than with actually doing anything or aspiring to any real goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llamas

That's the problem with libertarians and republicans... you automatically assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you on guns supports banning guns. I don't. Very, very few liberals do.

And making different laws for things like abortion for every state only drives the country apart more and more. The more we do that, the less united and more untied the country becomes. The US is on its way to falling in the next few decades, especially with more and more people wanting states to have more power and the US government to have less and less. I like libertarianism in concept, but it's far too idealistic to actually work. Dream land.

---

Umm, in case you haven't noticed, since the country was founded, states have had different laws. I have moved all over this country, and laws have been different. To say that different laws in states is going to rip the country apart is asinine.

And while the country may be divided on abortion, there are states where there is a clear majority that abortion is wrong. Should they be forced by people in another state to allow what they consider to be murder? Of course not, no more than states that have a majority of people that believe it to be a woman's choice, should be told by another state that it is illegal. I don't understand your fear of strong states. Allow a state to be as conservative or liberal as the voters in that state want, wheres the problem? How is that so scary?

I fear you're right, the country is in jeopardy of falling in the next few decades, but it will not be because of states rights, or gun laws. It will be as Alexander Tyler said in the early 1700's:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

This is the root of my disdain for a big federal government, and liberalism. The Fed can print money, a state cannot. A state must live within it's means. There are more checks and balances, and the ultimate safety valve, if the state gets too fucked up, you can easily move without changing citizenship.

I have never used the word libertarianism, although I find myself aligned with them more and more. I have only been speaking of the ideas that make up the Constitution, which isn't too idealistic to work, it did for 100+ years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Static_Martyr

Sort of agree on the "too idealistic" and "dream land" parts. But I actually despise libertarianism. It's the political equivalent of a child that constantly tells his parents and teachers, "You can't make me!" just to be facetious. There's very little about libertarianism that's actually practical, and it usually involves foregoing actual results in favor of idealistic statements/protests (hence why I agree that it's too idealistic and not grounded enough in reality); libertarians seem to consider compromise of any kind to be "kowtowing" or "backing down," and they're so quick to accuse anyone of "selling out" the minute they show any sign of not being a complete ideologue/martyr for the cause of pure libertarianism. In that sense, I'd say they're just as bad as Tea Partiers and Republicans; all in all, libertarianism seems more like an organized way of obstructing the flow of society in general just to "prove a point," than with actually doing anything or aspiring to any real goal.

---

And liberalism seems to me a way to make other people fall in line because, because they, the liberals, are smarter/more sensitive/more compassionate or whatever.