“The material world is a lie" motivations of Oregon CC shooter

[DDD]

Books and posts are protected by the 1A, guns by the 2A. Therefore, any power you give government to violate the 2A you are implicitly asserting they have to violate the 1A. If you think brain scans (!) could be made a mandatory condition for gun purchases, that the USFG has that power via I presume the commerce clause, then they also have that power for book purchases and posts via the exact same argument.

False analogy with books and guns. Reason is that they are largely made for different purposes nevertheless.

Background checks have already been occurring without violations. They may need an upgrade to involve brain scans and help people detect mass murderers (i.e., 2A abusers) and make it more difficult for them to get guns.

 

[roguenuke]

Nazi party was socialist not republican. So I dont understand how you think any of this was connected other than the fact he was psycho. He was also really into Zombies. Along with that how many Atheists are really on the republicans side? I thought they were mostly liberal. A large majority of them seem very Anti Traditional values, So I dont see why most Atheists would be pro Republican. He also seemed to be really into zombies. Are you going to start going after all the Zombie fans? A lot of zombie fans are not crazy. They just like Zombies.

Zombies represent Republicans.

6 Mind-Blowing Ways Zombies and Vampires Explain America | Cracked.com

 

[Kobie]

Nazi party was socialist not republican. So I dont understand how you think any of this was connected other than the fact he was psycho. He was also really into Zombies. Along with that how many Atheists are really on the republicans side? I thought they were mostly liberal. A large majority of them seem very Anti Traditional values, So I dont see why most Atheists would be pro Republican. He also seemed to be really into zombies. Are you going to start going after all the Zombie fans? A lot of zombie fans are not crazy. They just like Zombies.

The Nazi party wasn't socialist. The "National socialist" label is what we now call "clever marketing."

 

[Citizen.Seven]

False analogy with books and guns. Reason is that they are largely made for different purposes nevertheless.

Background checks have already been occurring without violations. They may need an upgrade to involve brain scans and help people detect mass murderers (i.e., 2A abusers) and make it more difficult for them to get guns.

Whether they are made for different purposes or not is irrelevant: they have similar constitutional protections. If anything, the right to bear arms is arguably stronger: "shall not be infringed", which includes laws, policies, and actions by states or other individuals. while freedom of speech "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" only strictly speaking covers federal laws. Further, until SCOTUS found that the amendments extend to the states, the states were not precluded from abridging this freedom, whereas the right to bear arms had a much more robust "shall not be infringed", implying no one, anywhere, could do it.

 

[DDD]

Whether they are made for different purposes or not is irrelevant: they have similar constitutional protections. If anything, the right to bear arms is arguably stronger: "shall not be infringed", which includes laws, policies, and actions by states or other individuals. while freedom of speech "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" only strictly speaking covers federal laws. Further, until SCOTUS found that the amendments extend to the states, the states were not precluded from abridging this freedom, whereas the right to bear arms had a much more robust "shall not be infringed", implying no one, anywhere, could do it.

Yet people undertake background checks in order to get to guns, right?

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Yet people undertake background checks in order to get to guns, right?

Yes, they do, which is imo unconstitutional by a simple reading of the 2A; it's not a right if you can't freely exercise it, and imposing a requirement by necessity means you can't freely exercise it. Consider, if you had to get a background check for every book purchase or public posting.

Of course, that was implemented towards (hopefully) the end of 70 years of the willful misreading of the 2A by SCOTUS. I guess time will tell.

 

[DDD]

Yes, they do, which is imo unconstitutional by a simple reading of the 2A; it's not a right if you can't freely exercise it, and imposing a requirement by necessity means you can't freely exercise it. Consider, if you had to get a background check for every book purchase or public posting.

Of course, that was implemented towards (hopefully) the end of 70 years of the willful misreading of the 2A by SCOTUS. I guess time will tell.

So brain scans should just be perceived as an upgrade to that already established background check requirement.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

So brain scans should just be perceived as an upgrade to that already established background check requirement.

A brain scan is a medical procedure, you need a physician prescription to get one and, furthermore, ethically and legally there has to be a medical necessity for it. "Enhanced Background Checks" (that sounds eerily familiar) don't qualify. That's a bit more than an "upgrade" to a background check. It would be an onerous burden to exercise a right. This would be seen easily, and universally, if the same criteria were applied to speech, voting, or abortion.

 

[MisterLogical]

The Nazi party wasn't socialist. The "National socialist" label is what we now call "clever marketing."

A Little Secret About the Nazis (They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today)

Conservatives wont even let you take their guns away, you really think they are going to let you indoctrinate their kids and tell them what they can and can not say? The conservatives often fight for freedom of speech, gun rights, and privacy rights. They dont want drones in their homes and their children turned against them.

If its said things like drones are being used in the name of safety or assistance the liberals would jump all over it. They believe the goverment is here to help and we should be giving them more responsibility and power over us. The conservatives often think we should have the right to do most things on our own.

 

[Phys251]

The bottom line on all this is that people need to become actively involved in their own defense rather than passive and let others try to do it for them.

Maybe if we didn't have a culture where blaming the victim for "not taking enough responsibility" for keeping themselves safe weren't so common, potential crazy-people-turned-killers would be less likely to strike.

Speaking of which, this: Once Again, Mass Shooter Tries to Pin the Blame on Women Not Wanting to Date Him

 

[Riveroaks]

Maybe if we didn't have a culture where blaming the victim for "not taking enough responsibility" for keeping themselves safe weren't so common, potential crazy-people-turned-killers would be less likely to strike.

Speaking of which, this: Once Again, Mass Shooter Tries to Pin the Blame on Women Not Wanting to Date Him

If all women were trained and armed with a gun in their purse, there would be a lot less crime against women.

4 of the Oregon shooting victims were women.

5 were male and I cannot believe these 5 did not rush the shooter.

 

[Kobie]

A Little Secret About the Nazis (They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today)

Conservatives wont even let you take their guns away, you really think they are going to let you indoctrinate their kids and tell them what they can and can not say? The conservatives often fight for freedom of speech, gun rights, and privacy rights. They dont want drones in their homes and their children turned against them.

If its said things like drones are being used in the name of safety or assistance the liberals would jump all over it. They believe the goverment is here to help and we should be giving them more responsibility and power over us. The conservatives often think we should have the right to do most things on our own.

Free Republic? Seriously?

 

[DDD]

A brain scan is a medical procedure, you need a physician prescription to get one and, furthermore, ethically and legally there has to be a medical necessity for it. "Enhanced Background Checks" (that sounds eerily familiar) don't qualify.

Currently, yes. But the technology can be used for background checks also.

That's a bit more than an "upgrade" to a background check. It would be an onerous burden to exercise a right.

What burden?

This would be seen easily, and universally, if the same criteria were applied to speech, voting, or abortion.

Those are not challenged upon.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Re: “The material world is a lie" motivations of Oregon CC shooter

Currently, yes. But the technology can be used for background checks also.

Not without radically changing laws for medical prescriptions. Even then, there is the ethical dilemna faced by physicians, even if legal, of ordering or interpreting a procedure that is not medically warranted. It's very likely they would lose their board certification. At the risk of Godwin, that's the sort of thing Mengle did.

It would be like ordering/reading a mammogram for a 25yo woman with no symptoms of cancer. The risk associated with the procedure is not warranted by any potential benefit.

What burden?

Cost, loss of privacy, risk of procedure.

Those are not challenged upon.

Now, by you, but you're primarily focused on limiting 2A rights. However, if you maintain that the government has the power to require a brain scan prior to exercising 2A rights, then you are implicitly acknowleding they have the power to require other tests prior to exercising other rights. Say a brain scan prior or psychological test before buying a book or engaging in public speech, or a drug test before voting.

 

[Phys251]

If all women were trained and armed with a gun in their purse, there would be a lot less crime against women.

More victim-blaming.

4 of the Oregon shooting victims were women.

5 were male and I cannot believe these 5 did not rush the shooter.

Because they had so much time to train for what to do in this kind of scenario. :roll:

 

[Riveroaks]

More victim-blaming.

Because they had so much time to train for what to do in this kind of scenario. :roll:

There is no reason why people cannot at least get pepper spray and carry that with them wherever they go.

Since the college campus has become the lurking place for copy cat psycho's, all students in college need to be prepared for the potential of an armed mass assault.

When the 19th Century pioneers crossed the plains to get to the West Coast and the Intermountain states, they were armed and prepared to deal with the Plains Indians.

Nothing has changed.

Now the Plains Indians have simply been replaced by young adult psycho's.

 

[DDD]

Re: “The material world is a lie" motivations of Oregon CC shooter

Not without radically changing laws for medical prescriptions. Even then, there is the ethical dilemna faced by physicians, even if legal, of ordering or interpreting a procedure that is not medically warranted. It's very likely they would lose their board certification. At the risk of Godwin, that's the sort of thing Mengle did.

The issue is not a medical one. The instrument is not a medical one. People decide to which purpose should the MRI be used. If it is policy and the MRI is used to oblige to the policy issued then it is neither a medical issue nor there is a risk to lose a job.

It would be like ordering/reading a mammogram for a 25yo woman with no symptoms of cancer. The risk associated with the procedure is not warranted by any potential benefit.

Bad analogy, because a woman with no cancer has nothing to offer and the mammogram not necessary. While finding out whether there are murderers out there that should have it more difficult to get their hands on legal guns should mandate the use of MRI technology in order to stop them (uses still are for no medical consideration, but rather for a social policy one).

Cost, loss of privacy, risk of procedure.

Cost should not be too high. Hillary should make it so with her economic geniuses.

Privacy may not be lost for people already undertake background checks.

The risk only applies if some people have metals in them.

Now, by you, but you're primarily focused on limiting 2A rights. However, if you maintain that the government has the power to require a brain scan prior to exercising 2A rights, then you are implicitly acknowleding they have the power to require other tests prior to exercising other rights. Say a brain scan prior or psychological test before buying a book or engaging in public speech, or a drug test before voting.

Take it with those that propose using brain scans or tests for books, public speech, or drug tests, for voting. This is neither raised from me, nor it is a subject of the thread. This thread is about making it harder for people such as Mercer to get their murderous hands on legal guns as a proposal to stop further mass shootings.

 

[Phys251]

There is no reason why people cannot at least get pepper spray and carry that with them wherever they go.

Since the college campus has become the lurking place for copy cat psycho's, all students in college need to be prepared for the potential of an armed mass assault.

When the 19th Century pioneers crossed the plains to get to the West Coast and the Intermountain states, they were armed and prepared to deal with the Plains Indians.

Nothing has changed.

Now the Plains Indians have simply been replaced by young adult psycho's.

Well I was going to try to hear you out and perhaps rethink my position, but you just had to go full racist, didn't you.

The Natives were here first, in case you have forgotten your US history.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Re: “The material world is a lie" motivations of Oregon CC shooter

The issue is not a medical one. The instrument is not a medical one. People decide to which purpose should the MRI be used. If it is policy and the MRI is used to oblige to the policy issued then it is neither a medical issue nor there is a risk to lose a job.

If you perform a medical procedure on a person, it's a medical issue. You can call it policy, but that does not change the inherent nature of the activity.

Bad analogy, because a woman with no cancer has nothing to offer and the mammogram not necessary. While finding out whether there are murderers out there that should have it more difficult to get their hands on legal guns should mandate the use of MRI technology in order to stop them (uses still are for no medical consideration, but rather for a social policy one).

Medically, the MRI has nothing to offer since it is not indicated as necessary. Forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure to exercise a right has two effects: it exposes the person to unnecessary risks with no medical benefit and it makes the right no longer a right. That's what "shall not be infringed" means, and requiring a medical exam of any type is just about as intrusively infringing as you could get.

Cost should not be too high. Hillary should make it so with her economic geniuses.

Um, sure. Suddenly the cost, and operating expenses, of an MRI are going to plummet? And the cost to order the exam, have a technologist run the machine, and then interpret results are going to plummet as well?

Privacy may not be lost for people already undertake background checks.

Yes, it is, but that does not mean there should be more, especially of such an intrusive nature.

The risk only applies if some people have metals in them.

Which won't be known until they are injured by the MRI.

Take it with those that propose using brain scans or tests for books, public speech, or drug tests, for voting. This is neither raised from me, nor it is a subject of the thread. This thread is about making it harder for people such as Mercer to get their murderous hands on legal guns as a proposal to stop further mass shootings.

It wasn't proposed by you, but it is the logical consequence and potential outcome of your advocacy that the USFG has the power to require medical exams to exercise fundamental rights as listed in the BOR. If you think they do for the 2A, then they also have it for the 1A. You might not like that, nor advocate for it, but it's fairly obvious that you don't want or care for the 2A (or 4A and 5A as applied to gun owners). That's fine, I guess, but once you give the USFG that power, they have it for all the rights and it's just a matter of whether at some point in time 51% of people think it's a good idea. Drug testing requirement for voting I could see getting popular support, especially if brain scans are seen as fine for gun ownership.

Personally, if ever such a monstrous thing would come to pass, I would never buy another firearm from an FFL in my life. I would only engage in private sales or I would just get 80% receivers and make my own.

 

[DDD]

Re: “The material world is a lie" motivations of Oregon CC shooter

If you perform a medical procedure on a person, it's a medical issue. You can call it policy, but that does not change the inherent nature of the activity.

Medically, the MRI has nothing to offer since it is not indicated as necessary. Forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure to exercise a right has two effects: it exposes the person to unnecessary risks with no medical benefit and it makes the right no longer a right. That's what "shall not be infringed" means, and requiring a medical exam of any type is just about as intrusively infringing as you could get.

I disagree that having people perform advanced background checks by MRI makes it medical. There is no medicine, nothing to be cured, its just that the instrument, the MRI, is being used for detecting murderers.

To tell you that not anyone entering an MRI is medically concerned I wish to point out that there are many researchers from other fields than medicine that also use MRI for their research. Similarly, just like the MRI instrument is not used for medical purposes for research, it should also be used for non-medical purposes for upgraded background checks.

Um, sure. Suddenly the cost, and operating expenses, of an MRI are going to plummet? And the cost to order the exam, have a technologist run the machine, and then interpret results are going to plummet as well?

Yeap.

With increased countrywide usage, prices will drop. Just for starters I can claim the following that: More MRI must be installed for this to be a countrywide use of MRI. Competition usually predicts that prices drop. For more details, Hillary and her wise economists should tackle the issue thoroughly and see if it is cost effective at a far more lower price than $2K.

Yes, it is, but that does not mean there should be more, especially of such an intrusive nature.

Just like background checks do not violate confidentiality, so MRI images wont neither.

It wasn't proposed by you, but it is the logical consequence and potential outcome of your advocacy that the USFG has the power to require medical exams to exercise fundamental rights as listed in the BOR. If you think they do for the 2A, then they also have it for the 1A. You might not like that, nor advocate for it, but it's fairly obvious that you don't want or care for the 2A (or 4A and 5A as applied to gun owners). That's fine, I guess, but once you give the USFG that power, they have it for all the rights and it's just a matter of whether at some point in time 51% of people think it's a good idea. Drug testing requirement for voting I could see getting popular support, especially if brain scans are seen as fine for gun ownership.

Slippery slope logical fallacy.

Personally, if ever such a monstrous thing would come to pass, I would never buy another firearm from an FFL in my life. I would only engage in private sales or I would just get 80% receivers and make my own.

Okay.

 

[Riveroaks]

Well I was going to try to hear you out and perhaps rethink my position, but you just had to go full racist, didn't you.

The Natives were here first, in case you have forgotten your US history.

Oh poor you.

Wounded duck.

 

[Phys251]

Oh poor you.

Wounded duck.

Welp, that utterly and completely demolishes my points. GG.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Re: “The material world is a lie" motivations of Oregon CC shooter

I disagree that having people perform advanced background checks by MRI makes it medical. There is no medicine, nothing to be cured, its just that the instrument, the MRI, is being used for detecting murderers.

To tell you that not anyone entering an MRI is medically concerned I wish to point out that there are many researchers from other fields than medicine that also use MRI for their research. Similarly, just like the MRI instrument is not used for medical purposes for research, it should also be used for non-medical purposes for upgraded background checks.



Yeap.

With increased countrywide usage, prices will drop. Just for starters I can claim the following that: More MRI must be installed for this to be a countrywide use of MRI. Competition usually predicts that prices drop. For more details, Hillary and her wise economists should tackle the issue thoroughly and see if it is cost effective at a far more lower price than $2K.



Just like background checks do not violate confidentiality, so MRI images wont neither.



Slippery slope logical fallacy.



Okay.

If you use a medical device on a human, it is a medical procedure. Sure, you could use an MRI to image any non-transition metal object, and it wouldn't be a medical procedure because you are not doing it on a person. You can also sew cloth together, which is usually called "sewing", but if you do it to a human, it's a medical procedure.

So, you're arguing that increased demand will make prices fall? Really? I'm not familiar with the economic theory that predicts that. And what if Clinton and her wise economists don't gain power? Who will pay the 1000 for an MRI? Insurance won't cover it since you maintain it's not a medical procedure. Even if you acknowledge the obvious truth that it is one, it would be elective, so insurance still won't cover it.

 

[blackjack50]

“The material world is a lie" motivations of Oregon CC shooter

Yes, they do, which is imo unconstitutional by a simple reading of the 2A; it's not a right if you can't freely exercise it, and imposing a requirement by necessity means you can't freely exercise it. Consider, if you had to get a background check for every book purchase or public posting.

Of course, that was implemented towards (hopefully) the end of 70 years of the willful misreading of the 2A by SCOTUS. I guess time will tell.

Personally I don't see that as a violation in so much that it is a requirement in stores and is not about controlling firearms. If they extended it beyond stores I would feel differently. It is a protection for stores not selling to convicted felons or anyone else that could be considered a felony. It is like checking your ID to go into a bar. The business doesn't have the luxury of being able to discriminate or profile their customers. That would be a violation of another law, so they must resort to this.

Forcing me to pay for background checks to purchase firearms privately would be an infringement. Especially since I CAN profile.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Oh poor you.

Wounded duck.

The natives were reacting to a foreign invader encroaching on land that they occupied for a thousand years and trying to protect their way of life.