@pthenq1 yes they did, they are talking about banning certain types of guns, therefore taking away our right to access to those guns.

@freemo okay. I support the right of get weapons.

Still, nobody can get always the guns they want. Today, for example, I would like portable small atomic bombs. You know, the ones handy to blow up 1 or 2 blocks.

They do not let us put our hands on that... and other weapons.

@pthenq1 Its even illegal for nations to have nuclear weapons, even the ones that have it arent allowed to as they were required to disarm ages ago and didnt... so no, bad example buddy.

@freemo same story. When/If they declare some weapon illegal and you have it, you will have to surrender it.

Other than that, perhaps someone wants a semiautomatic to defend himself from bears.

I want a nuclear mini-nuke to combat field mices. We are all tuned against dangerous environments...

@pthenq1 Nope, not how it works in america. Automatic weapons were made illegal in the 70's but since they were legally bought they can only block you from buying new ones, cant take back what you already have.. thats why everyone who owned automatic weapons before the ban in the 70's now still legally has them. You can even buy automatic weapons but only ones that were in circulation before the ban. So they cost HUGE amounts of money and illegal to buy new but legal to sell the old ones.

In short, if they become illegal my 5,000$ AR-15 will be worth 50,000$ .. and I cant buy anymore but can sell or keep what I have.. So if anything **more** of an incentive to buy them.

@freemo I was thinking in get one. They are fun.

@pthenq1 you should, its a wonderful sport, lots of fun, and no reason not to really.

@pthenq1 Also an AR-15 and pretty much any other semi-automatic would be useless against bears. You'd use a slugged shotgun for that or some other single-shot style weapon most likely.

@freemo or you just leave them alone ;)

@pthenq1 kill them with lonliness, I like your style :)

@pthenq1 @freemo the constitution bans ex post facto laws. since guns are property (and not under some 'license' shitbaggery like the losers in canada) it can't be "bought back" without basically violating the constitution.

@icedquinn

Yup, they can only prevent people buying new ones, or the making of new ones... freedom baby!

@pthenq1

@freemo @pthenq1 They can't even do either of those things. You have a right to keep and bear arms

SCOTUS had just refused to hear cases because they are useless idiots.

@icedquinn

Well true, that too.

@pthenq1

@freemo @pthenq1
> as is necessary for a well regulated militia
they really desperately want to interpret this as a loophole to inject all their gun grabs
> the right to keep and bear arms

> shall not be infringed
they have a hard time understanding how not infringing works.

and this is an enumerated right, meaning the tenth amendment cannot even give states the privilege to gun control you.

they only do it because SCOTUS is literally worthless and won't hear cases. which basically is itself a violation of your right to due process. which they can also just refuse to hear cases on.

remind me why we haven't spaced them

@icedquinn @freemo @pthenq1 Technically if we refuse to take a crime to trial, it isn't illegal, because of innocent until proven guilty, so actually the government did nothing wrong!

@galena in my non-lawyer legal opinion, refusing to hear cases about how someones rights are violated is itself a violation of the constitution.

i tend to have very harsh opinions judges who commit acts of bullshit.

@freemo @pthenq1

@icedquinn @freemo @pthenq1 We can't know for sure until the court hears your case on whether or not refusing to hear cases is a violation of your constitutional rights. Sorry bud, but the court refuses to hear your case, I guess we'll never know!

@galena it would be a shame if we passed a law that fired all the judges. @freemo @pthenq1

@icedquinn @galena @freemo @pthenq1 In some legal systems, a notice has to be issued in reasonable time. This notice grants opens up the option for another authority to assume the role of prosecutor. This is a modern safeguard against the situation where the state refuses to investigate, gather evidence and then says 'we aren't prosecuting on the grounds of insufficient evidence'. I'm not a lawyer either btw but this is the situation in South Africa at least.

@pthenq1 @freemo our combination of having an absolute right to keep and bear arms has been quite a thorn which is why they spend so much effort on scare tactics and "extreme risk warrants" to find ways to seize them without having to admit to seizing them.

@icedquinn

If they actually played by the rules they would just make a new amendment, legal, no problem.. oh wait.. they cant get the votes! So instead they try to erode it in other ways.

@pthenq1

@freemo No. They cannot. It is just about banning weapons on mentally impaired people..

@icedquinn

@pthenq1 @freemo The amount of mentally impaired people doing shootings is very small. And some number of those appear to be instigated by government terrorists (FBI.)

@pthenq1 @freemo the problem with any attempts at "reasonable" anything is

- it's an enumerated, inalienable right, to which any argument is literally attempting to alienate it
- reasonable things are just gateways to more

@icedquinn should be enumerated. Almost all the massive shootings were done by those 2 types of personalities (psychopaths and psychotics). Those mind conditions can be easily diagnosed.

@freemo

@pthenq1 @freemo from a constituional angle you would need a formal amendment to add clauses that your inalienable rights can be voided by a psychologist.

which would also be doing something the country was very directly designed against.

@pthenq1 @freemo similarly your inalienable rights can't be voided by a pandemic either, so.......

@pthenq1

you just ignored all the concerns raised and reiterated your point... so your basically telling people that if they are found to have a condition they loose rights and thus are punished for seeking medical treatment if they feel they have a mental disorder... worst suggestion ive ever heard.

@icedquinn

@freemo No Freemo. You do not get psychopathy or Psychotic: you are born like that. Or your are not (and you are called neurotic) and you can go to the mental institution and all good.

those conditions describe how is mechanically your brain wired. It does not change with medical treatment.
@icedquinn

@pthenq1 @freemo high functioning psychopaths exist. indeed, most psychopaths also don't commit violent crimes.

@pthenq1 @freemo the reason there are no exceptions is because exceptions are exploited.

under this regime, everyone will just start being classified as "mild autism."

@pthenq1 @icedquinn @freemo Almost all the massive shootings were false flags perpetrated by the federal government.

@mystik like the last one in Boulder? Or the one in Boston? @icedquinn @freemo

@icedquinn They can be triggered for anything. That is why they should not be able to access to them. @freemo

@pthenq1 @freemo and yet instead of finding these people and getting them to a mental hospital, our government is exploiting them to push agendas.

@icedquinn The one that destroyed mental institutions was Reagan. Long time ago. @freemo

@pthenq1

There are two things you can mean by that.. banning it for people who were commited against their will by commiting a crime, those people are already banned from having guns..

Or your suggesting the right to bare arms should be revoked for anyone who voluntarily chooses to go to a psychiatrist and has been treated?

The second one is the only one where they can currently get tguns.. but it makes no sense. There is no public registry where people who seek psychiatric treatment on their own get registered and publicly can be "pinged" in a check... so your suggesting something quite obscene, that if I decide to call a psychiatrist and seek help then I will get on a public registry where gun shops can look me up, and my rights become revoked...

For one having a public registry where people are punished for seeking mental health is beyond a horrible idea, doubly so if the consequence is to loose your fundemental rights.

Do you really think anyone who is struggling with a mental disorder who feels they need to see a psychiatrist is going to do it if the law states that should they go to get treated they forfit a basic right for the rest of their life?

God what a horrible idea.

@icedquinn

@freemo @pthenq1
> having rights revoked for seeking mental help
this is why the baker act exists in florida

@freemo @pthenq1 the baker act allows someone to self commit for i think 24-48 hours and it can't be put in any databases / paperwork that can be used against you legally.

@icedquinn no. Only for psychotics and psychopaths

Normal people (neurotics) looking for mental help are OK with weapons. We have the brain correctly wired (and perhaps we are fuck up because family or life history). The other 2 groups have broken brains basically.
@freemo

@pthenq1

So a psychotic o psychopath who wants to get help.. only they will be forced not to get help?

And schizophrenics who hallucinate people that arent there, them your cool having guns?

@icedquinn

@freemo schizophrenics have are a type of psychotic. All of them share the same problem: They do not have a real perception of reality. Except (perhaps) with pills.

Neurotics have a good check of reality. And that never changes. Even when someone get LCD and "see things" they know it is because the LCD. And they will be OK after the effect is gone.

Normal people (neurotics)'s rights will be OK. With or without treatment.

@icedquinn

@pthenq1

I know what they are but you havent addressed the problem.. You are suggesting a system where my friend who was schizofrenic should have continued to hide his condition and avoid a psychiatrist to retain his rights, something he did successfully for years, making him far more of a risk than a medicated person with their rights in tacts and condition treated.

@icedquinn