Robert Card (Maine Mass Shooter) Case Analysis

[Bad Brain]

Most of the "rights" (amendments) were created to protect ourselves from the legal system

You’re getting it mixed up, they weren’t created, they were “enshrined.” The rights existed before the state.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

No, you’re thinking about it wrong—rights are taken only if you infringe on other people’s rights. And I’m talking about fundamental, essential rights, like the right of self-ownership, property, etc., not made up rights like the “right to an education, healthcare, to feel safe,” or whatever trendy thing people think is good and therefore call it a right.

I’m pretty confident being alive is an undeniable right. The death penalty will take that away. The constitution is not infallible. It has been amended many times.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

You’re getting it mixed up, they weren’t created, they were “enshrined.” The rights existed before the state.

You’re getting it mixed up, they weren’t created, they were “enshrined.” The rights existed before the state.

Your rights are rights because of the constitution

 

[Bad Brain]

They can't tell the difference between the meds stopping psychotic episodes, or being off meds in a full psychotic episode. It all seems the same, so they figure they're better, and don't need the meds, so they come off them, or don't take them at all.

Not sure if you’re aware, but there is a link between some psychotropic meds and violence. Something like 90% of these shooters are on them. It’s not so black and white as “take your medicine, it’s good for you.”

 

[Bad Brain]

Your rights are rights because of the constitution

god dammit do i need to prove this? Read the philosophy of the founding of the country if you don’t believe me. You’re welcome to have a different opinion regardless.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

god dammit do i need to prove this? Read the philosophy of the founding of the country if you don’t believe me. You’re welcome to have a different opinion regardless.

That’s kind of a cop out man. An idea based on an idea from the country we left was passed when our country was like 13 states big. It’s why I’ve said before, if the best argument for still having a right is that it’s a right, it’s time to rethink it. I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for not changing it besides that.

Why people hold 2a higher than others is a mystery to me. Have you ever enjoyed a beer? Be happy that amendments can be changed.

 

[Bad Brain]

That’s kind of a cop out man. An idea based on an idea from the country we left was passed when our country was like 13 states big. It’s why I’ve said before, if the best argument for still having a right is that it’s a right, it’s time to rethink it. I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for not changing it besides that.

Why people hold 2a higher than others is a mystery to me. Have you ever enjoyed a beer? Be happy that amendments can be changed.

How is it a cop out? I’m not even really a big fan of the constitution, but I certainly agree with the concept of natural rights. Nothing is perfect, but history is full of examples of the horrors authorities inflict on populations when rights become privileges bestowed by the state.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

How is it a cop out? I’m not even really a big fan of the constitution, but I certainly agree with the concept of natural rights. Nothing is perfect, but history is full of examples of the horrors authorities inflict on populations when rights become privileges bestowed by the state.

So what if we changed the law to say that we can only own guns that were available in 1791? Would that be infringement?

 

[CrazyNutz]

Not sure if you’re aware, but there is a link between some psychotropic meds and violence. Something like 90% of these shooters are on them. It’s not so black and white as “take your medicine, it’s good for you.”

Oh I'm aware the wrong meds will make things worse. Which IS WHY someone has to babysit them, someone needs to observe their behavior for improvement, regression, or worsening of symptoms.

 

[Bad Brain]

Oh I'm aware the wrong meds will make things worse. Which IS WHY someone has to babysit them, someone needs to observe their behavior for improvement, regression, or worsening of symptoms.

I’m talking about causing violent impulses when there were none previously.

 

[Bad Brain]

So what if we changed the law to say that we can only own guns that were available in 1791? Would that be infringement?

In my view, yes. What would be the point?

 

[Dan Gleesak]

In my view, yes. What would be the point?

People who think modern weapons are more dangerous than old ones are happy, those who think 2a cannot be infringed are getting what the people who wrote it had. It’s a win/win
You seem to think nukes are too dangerous, it’s really just a line in the sand after that.

 

[Bad Brain]

People who think modern weapons are more dangerous than old ones are happy, those who think 2a cannot be infringed are getting what the people who wrote it had. It’s a win/win
You seem to think nukes are too dangerous, it’s really just a line in the sand after that.

Yeah, to some degree it’s a continuum issue. Personally I don’t think they are really any more dangerous. As I’ve mentioned I think something else is driving the phenomenon. And it’s not that I think nukes are too dangerous — I think they are impossible to use as a weapon without killing innocent people.

 

[CrazyNutz]

I’m talking about causing violent impulses when there were none previously.

That would be covered under "worsening of symptoms" Which I said.

 

[Bad Brain]

That would be covered under "worsening of symptoms" Which I said.

No. Sorry to be contrary, but that’s creating symptoms, in this case the very thing you’re trying to avoid.

 

[CrazyNutz]

Personally I don’t think they are really any more dangerous.

Wait, are you saying you don't think modern weapons are more dangerous to the people on the receiving end?

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Yeah, to some degree it’s a continuum issue. Personally I don’t think they are really any more dangerous. As I’ve mentioned I think something else is driving the phenomenon. And it’s not that I think nukes are too dangerous — I think they are impossible to use as a weapon without killing innocent people.

My idea of “dangerous” is mass casualties. Mass shootings are the problem at hand. Individual acts of violence will never be stopped, but one person harming many can certainly be slowed down.
If people only had access to single shot weapons, I reckon mass shootings would drop drastically.

Now do I think we should make this a law? No of course not. However it illustrates that laws can be changed without infringing rights.

 

[CrazyNutz]

No, sorry to be argumentative, but that’s creating symptoms, in this case the very thing you’re trying to avoid.

You're spiting hairs here, man.

I'm saying making things worse than it was, this can include attacking people or whatever ?‍

 

[Bad Brain]

You're spiting hairs here, man.

I'm saying making things worse than it was, this can include attacking people or whatever ?‍

Well I think it's an important and relevant distinction.

Wait, are you saying you don't think modern weapons are more dangerous to the people on the receiving end?

More dangerous than what exactly?

 

[Bad Brain]

My idea of “dangerous” is mass casualties.

Yeah, but as I pointed out, nukes create way more mass casualties, as with escaped viruses and world wars. Seems like you've got tunnel vision with this one issue, and you believe that getting rid of a certain type of gun would fix it, which I don't believe it would anyways.

Now do I think we should make this a law? No of course not. However it illustrates that laws can be changed without infringing rights.

I never conceded that it wouldn't infringe rights. I think it would.