Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Origen

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Breaks Courtroom Silence

Recommended Posts

This is going to be an interesting case. I always wondered exactly how misdemeanor charges or even mental treatment could warrant the loss of Constitutional rights. Seems the government could pass such stringent requirements that no citizen would qualify to own a firearm.

 

Thomas Clarence is my most favorite Supreme Court Justice, and it sickened me how people attempted to slander him before and when after he took his seat. I thought the story of him buying someone a soda and them claiming he put a pubic hair on top of the can was humiliating and degrading.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution says, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Which word don't Democrats (who created the KKK and are behind 90% of all murders of black people today) understand?

 

On the other hand, I think the whole concept of punishment is about taking away Constitutional rights, maybe even the right to life itself. When we lock up someone in jail, which is totally constitutional, they're rightly denied gun possession. Why do they have to be confined to maintain the suspension of their right to posses weapons? It's not about stringent requirements to own a gun, it's about punishing a criminal, especially when it's a punishment that fits the crime.

 

Now, back to Thomas, who one of the only two people on the Supreme Court that respects the Constitution. His question is really about the 8th Amendment (no cruel and unusual punishment), and I absolutely agree with Thomas' question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not about stringent requirements to own a gun, it's about punishing a criminal, especially when it's a punishment that fits the crime.

 

My question is also whether it is constitutional to deprive one of the right to bear arms if they have ever been treated for a mental illness? Where's the line drawn? When I was being treated for depression, I heard many in the mental ward complaining about having to sign a piece of paper to be admitted into the hospital. The paper relinquished them of the right to bear arms, the hospital would not allow one particular man treatment unless he signed. Can anyone explain this? Since when is it a crime to have depression or other mental illnesses?

 

Care to take a stab at it Cornelius? Here's a rather interesting find: New York Disarms the ‘Mentally Ill’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is also whether it is constitutional to deprive one of the right to bear arms if they have ever been treated for a mental illness? Where's the line drawn?

 

The current Supreme Court case is not about mental illness, but about taking away a constitutional right over a small crime.

 

Do you mean while in the hospital? If it's a private hospital, shouldn't it be their right to deny service to anyone who wants to posses a gun? The hospital probably has liability concerns. But, the government shouldn't ban "mentally ill" people from possessing guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The current Supreme Court case is not about mental illness, but about taking away a constitutional right over a small crime.

 

Do you mean while in the hospital? If it's a private hospital, shouldn't it be their right to deny service to anyone who wants to posses a gun? The hospital probably has liability concerns. But, the government shouldn't ban "mentally ill" people from possessing guns.

 

My point is that they seemingly can revoke gun rights from anyone they deem at risk to commit violent acts like the case before the Supreme Court. Even when that person has no record, but only a health record of mental illness. If they can do this, why is it surprising that they can impose laws based on crimes committed? This is law in Washington State:

 

Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or involuntarily “committed to any mental institution.”1 No federal law, however, requires states to report the identities of these individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database, which the FBI uses to perform background checks prior to firearm transfers.

 

I find that rather interesting. No law states that the identities must be reported, but you have suggested that liability may be a concern for not reporting them.

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No law states that the identities must be reported, but you have suggested that liability may be a concern for not reporting them.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of a depressed person, when recovering from depression, shooting himself. (I've heard that depressed people tend to commit suicide when they're recovering and no longer feel so helpless.) You know, the family of the deceased suing the hospital, claiming negligent and inappropriate treatment, and even that the hospital knew he was mentally ill but let him keep a weapon.... then a jury returns a multi-million dollar judgement against the hospital.

 

I'm completely against the government denying constitutional rights to innocent people based on what they might do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy