- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 36,705
- Reaction score
- 17,867
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I mean why don't you stand for election on the basis that there should be no restriction on unstable or mentally ill people having the right to buy and carry guns?
Your position is clear though. Thank you. You do not believe that behaviour which demonstrates instability or a lack of normal self-control in personal behaviour be taken into account by the authorities when they decide whether to issue a license. As long as such behaviour is not criminal.
Did Laughner see a shrink. Was he declared to be mentally unfit to carry a weapon? Is that no that he never saw a shrink? Again do you want the government to restrict people's rights based on nothing more than hear-say instead of professional mental health expertise?
After being ruled by some little inbred dictator from across the sea our founding fathers developed a serious mistrust of governments and developed the constitution to restrict what the government can and can't do. THe people today should carry that same mistrust of the government. Uncle Sam should be seen as that creepy child molesting uncle instead of a friendly relative you can trust.This is a logical position for a libertarian to take. Why for example should the State have the right to restrict anyone else's right unless they have been convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers?
The problem is that people like Loughner, who were judged too unstable to join the army, are therefore permitted to carry guns, and in the state of Arizona, to conceal this. Libertarians consider dead nine year old girls a price worth paying for this "freedom".
Did the army say why they rejected Loughner? Or are you repeating someone else's assumptions of why the army rejected him? HE could have failed his Asvab test, pissed hot, said he was gay,too fat or a whole bunch of other reasons for getting rejected by the army. The last time I went a MEPS(Military Entrance Processing station) which was back in February 2000 they did not have shrinks examine you and they do actually check records to see if you have seen a shrink, have a criminal record and so on.
Other regard people who demonstrate unstable or threatening behaviour, such as this Arlington jerk, to be at least worth investigating and checking out before letting him loose in the land with a lethal weapon.
All the individual in Arlington did was plead with any future potential murderers to not shoot bystanders.
It's a question of judgement. Of course all of us who live in countries which have proper control over those who can carry guns are struggling under the yoke of tyranny. That's the clincher I suppose.
I suppose when your governments become tyrannical and protest against the government and military get considered to be hate speech and you people only have rocks and kitchen knives to defend yourselves, we Americans will be laughing our asses off at you. The government and criminals are the last two groups of people to be trusted with weapons around an unarmed populace and the government is the one entity who should not be allowed to say who can and can not have a weapon.