Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill

[Cathoholic]

More Government (not citizen) error now seen regarding the Nikolas Cruz issues.

Deputy and Counselors Recommended Institutionalizing Nikolas Cruz Long Before School Massacre
.
by Breitbart News18 Mar 2018
.
MIAMI (AP) — Officials were so concerned about the mental stability of the student accused of last month’s Florida school massacre that they decided he should be forcibly committed.
.
But the recommendation was never acted upon.
.
A commitment under the law would have made it more difficult if not impossible for Nikolas Cruz to obtain a gun legally.
.
Cruz is accused of the shooting rampage that killed 14 students and three school employees at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland on Feb. 14. In addition, 17 people were wounded.
.
But more than a year earlier, documents in the criminal case against Nikolas Cruz and obtained by The Associated Press show school officials and a sheriff’s deputy recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be involuntarily committed for a mental evaluation.
.
The documents, which are part of Cruz’s criminal case in the shooting, show that he had written the word “kill” in a notebook, told a classmate that he wanted to buy a gun and use it, and had cut his arm supposedly in anger because he had broken up with a girlfriend. He also told another student he had drunk gasoline and was throwing up. Calls had even been made to the FBI about the possibility of Cruz using a gun at school. . . .
.
. . . . Such an involuntary commitment would also have been a high obstacle if not a complete barrier to legally obtaining a firearm, such as the AR-15 rifle used in the Stoneman Douglas massacre on Feb. 14, authorities say.
.
There is no evidence Cruz was ever committed. Coincidentally, the school resource officer who recommended that Cruz be “Baker Acted” was Scot Peterson — the same Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy who resigned amid accusations he failed to respond to the shooting by staying outside the building where the killings occurred. . . . . .
.
. . . . The documents show that Cruz was very much on the radar screen of mental health professionals and the Broward County school system, yet very little appears to have been done other than these evaluations.
.
Other red flags have also surfaced, including calls to the FBI about Cruz’s potential to become a school shooter and numerous visits by county law enforcement officials to his home – both before his mother died in November and after. . . .
.
Again, very little was done. . . .

(emphasis mine)

Deputy and Counselors Recommended Institutionalizing Nikolas Cruz Long Before School Massacre - Breitbart

MIAMI (AP) — Officials were so concerned about the mental stability of the student accused of last month's Florida school massacre that they decided he should be forcibly committed.

www.breitbart.com

 

[pnewton]

Earlier you appealed to people NOT having trained in “hand-to-hand combat” and implicitly suggested they shouldn’t have guns.

No it doesn’t. You showed examples of those who could not have any other means of protecting themselves, those in a very small minority among gun owners.

I have never said anyone should first have physical training or an alarm system before being allowed to own a gun. If one cannot understand this, how reliable is their understanding of the more difficult Constitution. What I did say is that I do not believe self-defense is the real reason most people own guns, using the lack of more reasonable and effective self-defense as but one point of evidence.

If you do not want to believe the evidence, that is up to you. I find it open-and-shut, when someone wants their home defended by Smith and Wesson, but will not even have a simple window alarm on their bedroom windows. Causing a burglar to flee would be the first thing one would want, as opposed to a shoot out in the hallway.

 

[pnewton]

I just did a search of this thread where I even mentioned “pnewton” and I didn’t even SEE the word “liberal” on THOSE posts. (I probably missed it, but I did look)

You said:

"To people reading this thread. pnewton has just MADE my point about the liberal mindset "

 

[pnewton]

You said something earlier about the people changing the law.

I rhetorically reminded you that Congress allegedly has NO POWER to abrogate the Second Amendment short of Amending the Constitution

The Constitution does not grant unlimited arms and weaponry, as the word is not defined. Whether this particular law is exceptionally burdensome will be decided by the Supreme Court, but the principle of limitation is established law and is Constitutional.

 

[pnewton]

This MAY be legit. But it MAY NOT be too.

I’m not sure WHY they take this person in “FOR TREATMENT” instead of taking this person in “FOR DIAGNOSIS”. It sounds like there was a PRE-DETERMINED outcome (unless one of this guy’s physicians was involved in this with the Government).

And a few posts later you criticize law enforcement for not acting.

This is truly a case of “d—ed if you don; d----ed if you don’t,” for law enforcement. This also shows that the misdirection of solving gun violence by intervening with the mentally ill is just so much NRA rhetoric.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic:

I just did a search of this thread where I even mentioned “pnewton” and I didn’t even SEE the word “liberal” on THOSE posts. (I probably missed it, but I did look)
.
You said:
.
"To people reading this thread. pnewton has just MADE my point about the liberal mindset "

Thank you for finding it pnewton. I looked but could not find it. I figured I probably did. That’s why I said as such. But I didn’t see it skimming through all the returns. Again thanks.

I’ll assume your other posts expound on that and I will look at them (now) and try to have the discussion with you.

 

[pnewton]

For the sake of clarity, I am not a liberal (by most definitions), Democrat, nor in favor of banning all firearms, even all handguns, opposed to the right to carry, or even against hobby gun-owners. I simply do not see this bill and similar legislation as prohibiting these.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic:

Earlier you appealed to people NOT having trained in “hand-to-hand combat” and implicitly suggested they shouldn’t have guns.

Pnewton:

No it doesn’t.

OK. You are NOT suggesting citizens should NOT have guns. (I am thankful for you respecting their Second Amendment Rights)

That means you are suggesting at least in your point of view, these citizens are OK having their Second Amendment Rights NOT abridged right? (Edit: Based upon your last post, which I had not yet seen when I posted this, you DO affirm the Second Amendment Rights of a free citizenry at least in SOME form. This is gratifying because it is who America is–a land of citizens that are FREE to make such decisions for themselves.)

Pnewton. You went on saying . . . .

You showed examples of those who could not have any other means of protecting themselves, those in a very small minority among gun owners.

But a “minority” or a “majority” is irrelevant pnewton.

America does not respect the rights of its free citizenry BASED UPON if they possess a “minority” OR “majority” of needs of certain people.

It bases it upon the fact that they are a FREE citizenry.

So it is meaningless for you point out “a very small minority”. It is an irrelevant point and I’m not going to abide by that pre-supposition.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . . .

For the sake of clarity, I am not a liberal (by most definitions), Democrat, nor in favor of banning all firearms, . . . . I simply do not see this bill and similar legislation as prohibiting these.

Fair enough pnewton. Thanks for the correction.

Let’s have the discussion.

 

[pnewton]

But a “minority” or a “majority” is irrelevant pnewton.

America does not respect the rights of its free citizenry BASED UPON if they possess a “minority” OR “majority” of needs of certain people.

It bases it upon the fact that they are a FREE citizenry.

So it is meaningless for you point out “a very small minority”. It is an irrelevant point and I’m not going to abide by that pre-supposition.

Let me explain what I mean. Earlier, I was addressing the argument from self-defense that guns need to be available. I think the argument is more rhetoric than substance, at least as it applies to most people. It is against this argument I was presenting evidence, not against the right.

I understand the argument against disarming the mentally ill, due process and all. However, I simply see no alternative that does not cost more lives than it saves. I have known a lot of people who have been involuntarily committed. None of them should have access to firearms, although the fact is, the greatest danger is to themselves.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton:

Let me explain what I mean. Earlier, I was addressing the argument from self-defense that guns need to be available. I think the argument is more rhetoric than substance

And maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.

But it is indisputable that there are SOME instances of the need for self-defense.

And assuming a free law-abiding citizenry, it is THE CITIZEN that makes such decisions for HIMSELF. NOT pnewton, not Cathoholic, and NOT the Government.

Now you will object and say . . . “What about the NON-Law-abiders?” And I agree. But you MUST focus on THEM. NOT attack and truncate the rights of the GOOD citizens and quasi assign the good citizens “blame” because of the bad guy.

THAT is “collective guilt!”

That’s the attitude of many of the liberal the Democrats back in the 1960’s who said things like “because there are SOME black criminals, “ALL” blacks must be suspected as criminals.”

They wouldn’t put it that way (especially today, but I saw it. I KNOW it occurred.).

And so now they use many of their SAME PRINCIPLES, in this case “collective guilt”, and just vilify a more politically correct “demon”.

Their “demon” may be “The NRA”, for some, “Gun-owners” for others, “Second Amendment supporters” too at times, etc.

It might be beating up a student BECAUSE he wears a MAGA cap (if SOME people who support "Trump are racist . . .why . . . . ALL Trump supporters MUST be “racist”. That is bigotry. It is politically correct bigotry. It is socially acceptable bigotry. It is bigotry we see nightly with the MSM “news”. But “bigotry” and “collective guilt” it is. And I reject that mindset and I hope you do too.)

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton:

What I did say is that I do not believe self-defense is the real reason most people own guns, using the lack of more reasonable and effective self-defense as but one point of evidence.
.
If you do not want to believe the evidence, that is up to you. I find it open-and-shut . . .

And what I am saying, is THAT is irrelevant to a free citizenry.

And it is also irrelevant if I believe it or not.

The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution regardless of these points you are bringing up pnewton.

And to trample upon part of the Constitution, tramples upon ALL of the Constitution.

.

SECOND AMENDMENT 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 “militia” was the citizenry. That is not in dispute anymore.

The Founders saw this “right of keep AND BEAR arms” as being . . . . NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state.

Someone will object and holler about no shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater and all of that.

But shouting “fire” in such an environment is an action that risks hurting others.

someone will object and say, a law-abiding good citizen, even HAVING a gun is an “action that risks hurting others”.

But if THAT is their conclusion, it would NECESSITATE doing away not only with the Second Amendment, but disarming police and military because it is a “risk” for them too.

And if THAT is what the framers intended, the rest of the Second Amendment WOULDN’T MAKE SENSE. It is a non-sense interpretation.

The Amendments are put in place to PROTECT and INSURE free citizens from Government OVERREACH. THAT"S what they are there for. Some might not like it. They WANT MORE GOVERNMENT. But THAT’S what the Amendments are there for–protecting the people from an overarching Government.

Someone might object saying, “Well having arms doesn’t protect them against Government tyranny! The founders of the best country in the world were wrong and I’M RIGHT!” (Or that these ideas are "passe’)

And they are free to arrogantly think such things.

And others think such things about free speech.

And others might think they know better about mandating housing soldiers in our citizens homes.

And others think THEY know better about restraint on the Government against ILLEGAL search and seizure."

etc. etc.

But in the meantime the Constitution IS IN PLACE, and I and many others will not agree to the DEMANDS of such short-sighted LAWLESS people.

 

[pnewton]

But in the meantime the Constitution IS IN PLACE, and I and many others will not agree to the DEMANDS of such short-sighted LAWLESS people.

I am sure we will see soon how this law measures up to the Constitution.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton:

I understand the argument against disarming the mentally ill, due process and all. However, I simply see no alternative that does not cost more lives than it saves. I have known a lot of people who have been involuntarily committed. None of them should have access to firearms, although the fact is, the greatest danger is to themselves.

Nobody knows what “mentally ill” people even means. Why? Because it seems to be constantly RE-DEFINED at the whims of whatever the fashionable Rights-grabber thinks it is this week.

But first of all pnewton . . . The Constitution is not malleable based upon what you “simply see” or what “I simply see”. OK?

The “problem” with this “mentally ill” objection is Government ABUSES that have been IGNORED. (We already HAVE laws in place that deal with the mentally ill. But they need to be carried out individually.)

The Government can’t just start declaring people “mentally ill” if they need accounting help like Obama attempted to do to our social security recipients and vets. (This results in a sort of “psychological gulagaing” of people and is a distortion of a “free” citizenry.)

So you NEED to put the BLAME, at the heart of the BLAME here.

Government POWER ABUSE by politicians. NOT citizen ABUSE.

When these abuses were happening, WHERE are YOUR POSTS, defending the good, innocent hard-working, law-abiding citizens here? (And maybe you DID complain here. I am happily open to being corrected. I’ve read a lot of these threads and I don’t recall you ever defending the citizens in this regard. I COULD be wrong and again I am open to correction.)

WHY should good law-abiding citizens count on people who think like YOU in the future against Government abuses, when you have been absent in the past?

And WHY should good law-abiding citizens count on people who think like YOU in the future against Government abuses, when they supposedly have the Constitution to protect them?

WHY should good law-abiding citizens count on people who think like YOU in the future against Government abuses, when SOME of your GUYS . . . . DEFEND illicit actions by the Government (like “No-Fly, No-Buy”).

The whole reason for the “stand your ground” legislation, is because of citizens hard WORK in legislators to proverbially “DEFANG” overzealous DA’s who were prosecuting citizens for defending in their own homes! Some of these DA’s were trying to “make an example” out of the homeowner. Everyone knew that.

Now you might say, “Well the system worked. The people fought back and won!” But that ignores the fact that the good citizens shouldn’t HAVE to fight at great expense to themselves for justice that SHOULD have been served before.
The Second Amendment is in place to PROTECT YOU. And if you want to throw away YOUR rights, that’s your call. But please don’t attempt to throw away EVERYBODY ELSE’S Constitutionally enumerated rights.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton:

I am sure we will see soon how this law measures up to the Constitution.

And we’ve seen how other “laws” have “measured up to the Constitution”.

It takes the citizens YEARS of great personal financial expense to undo these illicit strokes of pens.

Government can just assign an army of attorney’s to do their bidding. And if they don’t have enough monies, they just assign more taxes in many cases.

The citizens can’t do that pnewton.

Government has ENORMOUS advantages over the citizens.

That’s WHY it is key to have good honest law-abiding politicians who serve the people over a “self-serving” mindset.

For example (in PRINCIPLE): If Obama runs of SUPPORT of traditional marriage" in 2007, and many sound the alarm about how he is attempting to inveigle or fool the electorate, then he gets in and this foundational position just coincidentally “evolves” it would be easy to at least consider, the voters had just “been had”.

It is very important for Government to police itself pnewton. Because it is next-to-impossible for the citizens to do it (that principle is the origin of the old saying, “You can’t fight City Hall.”)

Making laws that shred the Constitution violate these principles and incrementally weaken our great country pnewton.

I see this. many others see this. I am not sure you do.

 

[pnewton]

And we’ve seen how other “laws” have “measured up to the Constitution”.

It takes the citizens YEARS of great personal financial expense to undo these illicit strokes of pens.

I do not know how to respond to the use of scare quotes like this. I am a believe in following the law, whether I like it or not, and not denigrating the ones I do not like. I would say one who is not willing to respect the laws one does not like is only law-abiding by coincidence.

 

[Cathoholic]

I do not know how to respond to the use of scare quotes like this.

The quotes are from what you said pnewton.

Quit the ad hominems (“scare quotes”) and let’s discuss the substance here.

You intimated you want to have the discussion and I am open to that.

I can’t recall exactly, but I think Heller was in the courts in one form or another for MANY YEARS.

JonNC?

HarrySottle?

MonteRCMS?

(You guys know these things a lot better than I)

This is just FACT pnewton. Not “scare quotes”.

When bogus “legislation” is rammed through, it takes enormous work and great citizen expense to undo the damage (if they ever can).

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . .

I am a believe in following the law . . . .

Then why not begin by OBEYING the law of the land, the Constitution.

WHY not just come out and admit Congress has NO POWER to supersede the Constitution.

I am all for following “law”. But there is another aspect to that formula . . . “ORDER”.

Law AND ORDER.

 

[pnewton]

But first of all pnewton . . . The Constitution is not malleable based upon what you “simply see” or what “I simply see”. OK?

Nor is it open to interpretation by every Tom, Dick, and Harry. We will know soon enough if this is Constitutional.

When these abuses were happening, WHERE are YOUR POSTS,

If you find the thread to which you refer, it is likely you may find my post.

The whole reason for the “stand your ground” legislation, is because of citizens hard WORK in legislators to proverbially “DEFANG” overzealous DA’s who were prosecuting citizens for defending in their own homes!

“Stand your ground” applies outside the home. “Castle doctrine” is when you defend your own home.

 

[pnewton]

When bogus “legislation” is rammed through,

Your opinion of a bill does not make it bogus legislation. If a bill passes, it becomes law. If it is overturned by the courts, then it ceases to be law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] sneer quotes,[3] and quibble marks) are quotation marks a writer places around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense.[4] Scare quotes may express that the author is using someone else’s term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression “so-called”;[5] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.