• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on assault weapons

TurtleDude said:
compromising means both sides give something. The anti gun side wants no guns, we want the blanket restriction on the governments imposed completely. what do we get by allowing some restrictions>
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Or at least, there's no reason to insist that both ends of any compromise fall in the arena of gun legislation; not when gun ownership rights are actually more robust than what the 2nd requires.

For example, measures aimed at the mentally ill are one of the areas SCOTUS explicitly noted might not infringe the 2nd. So if a new measure is implemented that aims at the mentally ill owning guns and the measure is entirely within that unprotected area, then gun owners aren't actually giving anything up. They aren't giving anything up for the simple reason that what is being impact wasn't protected by the 2nd in the first place. Legislatures can always grant greater protections than the constitution does and I'm sure people big on gun rights won't agree, but it looks to me like we're in that situation now; that in general, legislatures allow broader gun rights than the 2nd may or does grant on its own.

So, I don't think that non-gun-owners have to necessarily expand gun rights in order to get a restriction aimed at the mentally ill. Some general political compromise might be required, some other thing traded for the restriction on the mentally ill.

Or perhaps we could all engage in a little sanity here and realize that a restriction on the mentally ill is a good idea in general and maybe shouldn't even have to be traded for.

Another thing. As far as I've seen, the "both sides give something" thing is inevitably used in these discussions to shut down the discussion in practice. For example, in the last thread like this that I looked at had people demanding things like, I kid you not, that gun owners get universal concealed carry in exchange for a ban on bump stocks. Nobody is going to agree to that trade because it is a massive expansion of gun 'rights'. It's not a reasonable suggestion.




So round and round we go, but the question remains. Do you want to talk to them about reasonable legislation that doesn't actually infringe the 2nd because it affects something not protected by the 2nd - some current thing that legislation broader than the 2nd allows - or do you want to shoot down idea after idea, hoping to always have more people on your side?





TurtleDude said:
The anti gun side wants no guns,
Click to expand...

You know that's not true.

I'm not sure what more there is to say. By taking that stance, you're betting that your view will hold a strong majority under its sway. And you will indeed win as long as that's true.

But I feel the wind changing. And I can only caution you that the longer you make that bet, the greater the likelihood that the "anti gun" side will get fed up at the complete refusal of gun owners to give an inch, and really will take a mile.



There was a poll aimed at people on the left. All but one who voted said they did not want to ban all guns. Do you actually believe they were all lying?

Here's the thing: the longer you pretend that that is what they want, the more you insult them. The more you insult them, the less they will worry about trying to see things your way and respect your interests as the number of people like you declines. It may not decline. But it looks to me like it will over time. So maybe it's time to start thinking about whether you really want to resist reasonable efforts to do thing like stop mentally ill people from getting guns so easily.....

:shrug:
 
TurtleDude said:
compromising means both sides give something. The anti gun side wants no guns, we want the blanket restriction on the governments imposed completely. what do we get by allowing some restrictions>
Click to expand...

You get to know that your Second Amendment means more than the trash it is being turned into when we actively insist that the diagnosed mentally-ill's Right to "bear" defines us as a people.

But in the end, you don't want to compromise. You turn everything into an extreme and an excuse to play your political game of liberty and freedom.

- The extremist on the Left want your guns.
- The extremists on the Right want gun anarchy and the fantasies of a combat zone.

In the middle sit most of America who are getting more and more fed up with both of you.
 
MSgt said:
Stupid, is exaggerating a restriction on the mentally-ill into meaning a restriction on every citizen. Are you mentally-ill? Why would this hurt you?

Ding, ding, ding! An autistic, underdeveloped nineteen-year old, with a history of diagnosed depression and self-mutilation habits, legally purchased a semi-auto rifle and 10 round magazines. And we as a society see nothing wrong.

We see nothing wrong with the legal handling and legal purchasing powers of Lanza or Holmes, respectively. But when it comes to Cruz, we get to conveniently pretend that it's just a LEO failure. But what do all three have in common? All diagnosed fruit cakes and perfectly LEGAL.
Click to expand...

No, I am not mentally ill, in fact, I am the court assigned guardian of an incapacitated adult person. That is the legal status best assigned to Cruz - incapacitated and in need of a legal guardian. It could affect me if 15 round magazines were banned.

Can you show me the proposed (gun control?) law that purports to address the serious problem of dangerous and mentally ill folks being allowed to legally buy, own and carry guns? All that I see are calls to ban new sales of this or that type of gun and/or gun accessory - the usual "do something" nonsense to avoid discriminating against those like Cruz.
 
Renae said:
Define mentally ill.
Click to expand...

Again? I'll allow the DSM-5 and the actual experts to do it...

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.

Some examples of the dangers associated to allowing these people to handle and purchase firearms? Again...

1) Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook): Diagnosed with autism. Diagnosed with developmental challenges before the age of 3. Diagnosed with Asperger syndrome at age 13. Medicated as a teen. His father believed he was schizophrenic, but this was not diagnosed at the time.

2) James Holmes (Aurora theater): In psychiatric care and on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Declared his wish to murder people to two psychiatrists and a social worker. Multiple psychiatrists diagnosed him with some form of schizophrenia.

3) Nikolas Cruz (Parkland): Transferred between schools six times in three years because of his behavior issues. In 2014, he was transferred to a school for children with emotional or learning disabilities. He was a cutter, which is self-mutilation. He suffered from depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

All three known before they celebrated their Right to handle and purchase firearms. All three were preventable. Three in frequent consecutive orders is quite enough to recognize a trend and three is quite enough to do what we all know needs to happen. But we won't. Instead we will pretend that all of this escapes our knowledge and drown ourselves in self-righteous talk about out liberty and freedom against tyranny. Because if the schizophrenic who hears voices can't buy himself a civilianized version of a military weapon, what does that mean for me when I go crazy one day! Sorry dead toddlers and teens, only I matter.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
No, I am not mentally ill, in fact, I am the court assigned guardian of an incapacitated adult person. That is the legal status best assigned to Cruz - incapacitated and in need of a legal guardian. It could affect me if 15 round magazines were banned.

Can you show me the proposed (gun control?) law that purports to address the serious problem of dangerous and mentally ill folks being allowed to legally buy, own and carry guns? All that I see are calls to ban new sales of this or that type of gun and/or gun accessory - the usual "do something" nonsense to avoid discriminating against those like Cruz.
Click to expand...

Well, I know you are not mentally ill. I was making a point that people tend to see themselves as a victim when it comes to anything Second Amendment related. Thus the notion to restrict weapon's use from the diagnosed mentally-ill becomes an irrational defense to protect against "banning all Americans" from weapon's use.

If he is incapacitated and in need of a legal guardian, he has no business with a firearm. It's seems a simple thing to me. As his guardian, it should be law for you to restrict his access to your guns. If you do not, you should be subject to criminal charges if he commits a crime with one. For example: Lanza was diagnosed and his mother didn't care. She taught him all about guns on ranges and gave him access. You know the result. Were she not murdered by him, she should have faced manslaughter charges for all those dead kids. So yes, discriminate.

If we want to actually protect the Second Amendment, then we have to start treating it as if it is more than just a license for irresponsible gun anarchy.
 
MSgt said:
Gee.

If only we "responsible" gun owners ...

Self-fulfilling prophesy. We have ourselves to blame.
Click to expand...

When people do nothing to address a problem, then sometimes they find that they don't like what the people who wanted to do something finally get roused enough to do.

First they came for the bump-stocks
And I said nothing because I didn't have any bump-stocks.

Then they came for the high capacity magazines,
And I said nothing because I didn't have any high capacity magazines.

Then they came for the semi-automatic handguns,
And I said nothing because I didn't have any semi-automatic handguns.

Then ...

...

And when they had finally taken them all away I said "Well, I had intended to do something about the problem, but I never got around to it because it was more important to stop you taking away people's bump-stocks, high capacity magazines, semi-automatic hand guns, ... than it was to actually do anything about the problem so that you didn't feel that you had to take away people's bump-stocks, high capacity magazines, semi-automatic hand guns, ... .".​


[Abject apologies to Pastor Niemöller]
 
MSgt said:
Again? I'll allow the DSM-5 and the actual experts to do it...

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.

Some examples of the dangers associated to allowing these people to handle and purchase firearms? Again...

1) Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook): Diagnosed with autism. Diagnosed with developmental challenges before the age of 3. Diagnosed with Asperger syndrome at age 13. Medicated as a teen. His father believed he was schizophrenic, but this was not diagnosed at the time.

2) James Holmes (Aurora theater): In psychiatric care and on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Declared his wish to murder people to two psychiatrists and a social worker. Multiple psychiatrists diagnosed him with some form of schizophrenia.

3) Nikolas Cruz (Parkland): Transferred between schools six times in three years because of his behavior issues. In 2014, he was transferred to a school for children with emotional or learning disabilities. He was a cutter, which is self-mutilation. He suffered from depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

All three known before they celebrated their Right to handle and purchase firearms. All three were preventable. Three in frequent consecutive orders is quite enough to recognize a trend and three is quite enough to do what we all know needs to happen. But we won't. Instead we will pretend that all of this escapes our knowledge and drown ourselves in self-righteous talk about out liberty and freedom against tyranny. Because if the schizophrenic who hears voices can't buy himself a civilianized version of a military weapon, what does that mean for me when I go crazy one day! Sorry dead toddlers and teens, only I matter.
Click to expand...

Your experts left out the important legal step of getting a court (judge?) to place their names into the NICS BGC database.
 
Fletch said:
I think its gotten to the point where you can find a federal judge to back or block any law or measure you want backed or blocked. Objective legal standards no longer apply. Judges are now just another political position.
Click to expand...

Precisely why the SC overturns many of these types of cases.
 
Hari Seldon said:
True. Seat belts have been added and REQUIRED. Big to do about restricting ones rights, Still the law and has SAVED LIVES. Many lives. Rules and enforcement on drunk driving. Safer cars, air bags now mandatory. New safety features. No one is asking for perfection but progress is being made.
Click to expand...

none of that stuff prevents you from owning the kind of car you want. those are mainly use restrictions. I can own a car faster than anything civilian police use
 
NonoBadDog said:
I hope the SCOTUS takes this case in this cycle. Better to overrule it now than wait and overrule it later.
Click to expand...

Indeed, after almost 240 years it's time that the issue of "What are 'weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to bear arms'?" is finally settled.

I guarantee you that the decision will be disliked by a minimum of 40% of the American people who actually have any opinion on the matter.
 
Mr Person said:
Not necessarily. Or at least, there's no reason to insist that both ends of any compromise fall in the arena of gun legislation; not when gun ownership rights are actually more robust than what the 2nd requires.

For example, measures aimed at the mentally ill are one of the areas SCOTUS explicitly noted might not infringe the 2nd. So if a new measure is implemented that aims at the mentally ill owning guns and the measure is entirely within that unprotected area, then gun owners aren't actually giving anything up. They aren't giving anything up for the simple reason that what is being impact wasn't protected by the 2nd in the first place. Legislatures can always grant greater protections than the constitution does and I'm sure people big on gun rights won't agree, but it looks to me like we're in that situation now; that in general, legislatures allow broader gun rights than the 2nd may or does grant on its own.

So, I don't think that non-gun-owners have to necessarily expand gun rights in order to get a restriction aimed at the mentally ill. Some general political compromise might be required, some other thing traded for the restriction on the mentally ill.

Or perhaps we could all engage in a little sanity here and realize that a restriction on the mentally ill is a good idea in general and maybe shouldn't even have to be traded for.

Another thing. As far as I've seen, the "both sides give something" thing is inevitably used in these discussions to shut down the discussion in practice. For example, in the last thread like this that I looked at had people demanding things like, I kid you not, that gun owners get universal concealed carry in exchange for a ban on bump stocks. Nobody is going to agree to that trade because it is a massive expansion of gun 'rights'. It's not a reasonable suggestion.




So round and round we go, but the question remains. Do you want to talk to them about reasonable legislation that doesn't actually infringe the 2nd because it affects something not protected by the 2nd - some current thing that legislation broader than the 2nd allows - or do you want to shoot down idea after idea, hoping to always have more people on your side?







You know that's not true.

I'm not sure what more there is to say. By taking that stance, you're betting that your view will hold a strong majority under its sway. And you will indeed win as long as that's true.

But I feel the wind changing. And I can only caution you that the longer you make that bet, the greater the likelihood that the "anti gun" side will get fed up at the complete refusal of gun owners to give an inch, and really will take a mile.



There was a poll aimed at people on the left. All but one who voted said they did not want to ban all guns. Do you actually believe they were all lying?

Here's the thing: the longer you pretend that that is what they want, the more you insult them. The more you insult them, the less they will worry about trying to see things your way and respect your interests as the number of people like you declines. It may not decline. But it looks to me like it will over time. So maybe it's time to start thinking about whether you really want to resist reasonable efforts to do thing like stop mentally ill people from getting guns so easily.....

:shrug:
Click to expand...

there is a big difference between eliminating the rights of people who are a proven danger vs eliminating the rights of everyone to own a type of weapon that has been owned for decades
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Your experts left out the important legal step of getting a court (judge?) to place their names into the NICS BGC database.
Click to expand...

By law, they are not ordered to report at all. By law, they have to entertain doctor/patient privilege. See the problem with the law yet? Doctor's err on the side of opening the gun shop rather than report. Cops can't do a thing unless ordered by a judge. And there is no established mechanism that dictates the conduct between the three acting in unison. Thus declaring that LEO simply failed in Florida is a scapegoat that avoids the bigger widespread problem.
 
MSgt said:
You get to know that your Second Amendment means more than the trash it is being turned into when we actively insist that the diagnosed mentally-ill's Right to "bear" defines us as a people.

But in the end, you don't want to compromise. You turn everything into an extreme and an excuse to play your political game of liberty and freedom.

- The extremist on the Left want your guns.
- The extremists on the Right want gun anarchy and the fantasies of a combat zone.

In the middle sit most of America who are getting more and more fed up with both of you.
Click to expand...

wrong-we tire of being told we have to put up with idiotic restrictions to keep the gun banners from pushing for more idiotic restrictions

and you have never been able to understand the dangers of eliminating the constitutional rights of certain groups of people before they are adjudicated a danger to society or the chilling effect limiting the rights of those who would voluntarily seek mental heath care
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, after almost 240 years it's time that the issue of "What are 'weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to bear arms'?" is finally settled.

I guarantee you that the decision will be disliked by a minimum of 40% of the American people who actually have any opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

is there any real argument better than this=if civilian police have access to it then it meets the standards of in common use and not unusually dangerous
 
MSgt said:
If we want to actually protect the Second Amendment, then we have to start treating it as if it is more than just a license for irresponsible gun anarchy.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that if we are actually interested in protecting the Second amendment, we stop scapegoating responsible law abiding gun owners. It's clear to me that in most of these mass shootings, law enforcement dropped the ball.
 
MSgt said:
Well, I know you are not mentally ill. I was making a point that people tend to see themselves as a victim when it comes to anything Second Amendment related. Thus the notion to restrict weapon's use from the diagnosed mentally-ill becomes an irrational defense to protect against "banning all Americans" from weapon's use.

If he is incapacitated and in need of a legal guardian, he has no business with a firearm. It's seems a simple thing to me. As his guardian, it should be law for you to restrict his access to your guns. If you do not, you should be subject to criminal charges if he commits a crime with one. For example: Lanza was diagnosed and his mother didn't care. She taught him all about guns on ranges and gave him access. You know the result. Were she not murdered by him, she should have faced manslaughter charges for all those dead kids. So yes, discriminate.

If we want to actually protect the Second Amendment, then we have to start treating it as if it is more than just a license for irresponsible gun anarchy.
Click to expand...

We seem to be in agreement that the seriously mentally ill should not be omitted from the NICS BGC database and formally declared to be prohibited from possessing guns. Again, where is the bill to do that? Why are "experts" exempt from the legal responsibility to take these matters before a court (judge)?
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong-we tire of being told we have to put up with idiotic restrictions...
Click to expand...

Which are? Name them? Name the restrictions that so destroy your freedom and sense of self worth. Go ahead...

- Do you need that M16A2 to play military?

- Do you need that thirteen-year old buying firearms?

- Do you need to carry your pistol around on your hip everywhere you go to prove your manhood against blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims?

And do you know how we can easily deduce that this whole political game to protect the Second Amendment is crap? Let's look at Virginia...

- You have the Right to purchase firearms at age 18.
- But you do not have the Right to a carry permit until age 21.

But what of the NRA's fight to protect your Right to "keep and bear arms?" You can't "bear" until you are 21? Notice the NRA doesn't give a damn past your Right to purchase. This sort of crap is all over the nation. So when it comes to the diagnosed mentally-ill's Rights, it's only because they have wallets. THAT does not protect your Rights. It threatens them.
 
MSgt said:
By law, they are not ordered to report at all. By law, they have to entertain doctor/patient privilege. See the problem with the law yet? Doctor's err on the side of opening the gun shop rather than report. Cops can't do a thing unless ordered by a judge. And there is no established mechanism that dictates the conduct between the three acting in unison. Thus declaring that LEO simply failed in Florida is a scapegoat that avoids the bigger widespread problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, I clearly see the problem with that law. Police should have the ability to get a judge to order a mental health evaluation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, I clearly see the problem with that law. Police should have the ability to get a judge to order a mental health evaluation.
Click to expand...

This is all I have been arguing since last Fall, well before people got fed up a few months ago after the Parkland event and whipped the anti- crowd into a frenzied rage.

I see the same issue with the bump fire/stock. Another here on this thread stated that it is silly to do something after only 600 people were shot! This is not a warzone. Had breaking news reported that 600 troops were shot today in a Kabul battle, the American population would be angry and what the military is doing about it. But in Vegas? The absurd apathy astounds me.

With the established law of the land restricting assault weapons, I don't see how people don't see the legal contradiction in the legal intent. But one day, when thousands and thousands are killed over the course of a series of incidents, perhaps that person might look back when only 600 were shot in Vegas; and we might have should have done something in the Fall of 2017. Since this diagnosed mentally-ill Cruz kid wanted to commit mass murder and do some real damage in the school, I don't know why he didn't go ahead and legally buy himself a bump stock/fire too.

How many more diagnosed mentally-ll people are purchasing firearms as we type? Toss in a bump stock, which helps him to legally get around existing anti-assault weapons laws and we have a party. In the mean time, we do nothing but argue for his Right to handle and purchase (at somebody's personal and our ultimate expense).
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
There is always the next needed step in getting us ready for UTOPIA, we will never be good enough, so there is always another reason to take more of our freedom, until the shackles are firmly in place and then it does not matter what we think.

Trump is here because a lot of folks figured that 8 more years of Clinton Corp might well finish the job.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Freedom House's 2017 Freedom in the World 2017 report, lists Canada as the 4th freest country in the world (with a rating of 99 [out of 100] points). Do you know where the United States of America falls on that listing (and how many points it is rated at)?

The Cato Institute, Fraser Institute, and Liberales Institut 2017 The Human Freedom Index ranks Canada as the 11th "Most Free" country in the world. Do you know where the United States of America falls on that listing?

Do you know one CONSTITUTIONAL factor that Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Canada share that the United States of America does not share?
 
TurtleDude said:
there is a big difference between eliminating the rights of people who are a proven danger vs eliminating the rights of everyone to own a type of weapon that has been owned for decades
Click to expand...

I know the thread started on MA's assault weapon ban, but the discussion got a little more broad. I picked mental illness as an example because it's the kind of thing I think Mgst was aiming at, and same for myself, in saying that if the pro-gun crowd sticks to its current approach it is in danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can certainly understand gun owners faced with the prospect of having weapons they previously lawfully bought taken away wanting something significant in return. But, that's not really what I was aiming at.

The resistance to what strikes me as a perfectly reasonable measure aimed at something like preventing dangerously mentally ill people from owning weapons seems self-defeating in the long run. I see that and I think "really? We've got to fight about that?"
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Again? I'll allow the DSM-5 and the actual experts to do it...

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.

Some examples of the dangers associated to allowing these people to handle and purchase firearms? Again...

1) Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook): Diagnosed with autism. Diagnosed with developmental challenges before the age of 3. Diagnosed with Asperger syndrome at age 13. Medicated as a teen. His father believed he was schizophrenic, but this was not diagnosed at the time.

2) James Holmes (Aurora theater): In psychiatric care and on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Declared his wish to murder people to two psychiatrists and a social worker. Multiple psychiatrists diagnosed him with some form of schizophrenia.

3) Nikolas Cruz (Parkland): Transferred between schools six times in three years because of his behavior issues. In 2014, he was transferred to a school for children with emotional or learning disabilities. He was a cutter, which is self-mutilation. He suffered from depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

All three known before they celebrated their Right to handle and purchase firearms. All three were preventable. Three in frequent consecutive orders is quite enough to recognize a trend and three is quite enough to do what we all know needs to happen. But we won't. Instead we will pretend that all of this escapes our knowledge and drown ourselves in self-righteous talk about out liberty and freedom against tyranny. Because if the schizophrenic who hears voices can't buy himself a civilianized version of a military weapon, what does that mean for me when I go crazy one day! Sorry dead toddlers and teens, only I matter.
Click to expand...

Adam Lanza didn't buy his guns, he murder his mother and took family guns. So... are you saying if someone you know is mentally ill, you should be denied your rights as well?

2 and 3 show the SYSTEM failed, and instead of fixing the system you want to take my guns.

You lament they were preventable, but instead of demanding the system be fixed you want to take away rights and property.

Because government, that FAILED int eh first place, should be trusted to get it right by... taking away rights. Didn't really think that through did you?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We seem to be in agreement that the seriously mentally ill should not be omitted from the NICS BGC database and formally declared to be prohibited from possessing guns. Again, where is the bill to do that? Why are "experts" exempt from the legal responsibility to take these matters before a court (judge)?
Click to expand...

Sure, the DSM-V (IV?) is full of diagnoses. From this book, a much smaller list should be created that releases the burden of doctor/patient privilege from their hands.

Of course, then the extremist gun advocates turn to argue that such people wouldn't get help. This is obstructionism for the sake of obstruction. But this is not true. If their diagnoses would put them on said list, then some authority will have placed them in front of a psychiatrist. Many, if not most, are diagnosed as teenage dependents and cops frequently pick up mentally disturbed people.
 
Renae said:
Adam Lanza didn't buy his guns, he murder his mother and took family guns. So... are you saying if someone you know is mentally ill, you should be denied your rights as well?
Click to expand...

I have been extremely clear with what I have stated. I will state it again...and again...and again...and again...

Lanza was diagnosed as a mentally-ill kid and teenager. His mother ignored this and taught him all about her guns on ranges. She gave him free access to her guns. Were she not murdered by Lanza, she should have to face criminal manslaughter charges on each one of the kids he killed. She was irresponsible and your Rights should not hinge on her whimsical idea of the Second Amendment and her pathetic notion of gun responsibility. But it is argued by gun advocate extremists as doing just that.

Renae said:
2 and 3 show the SYSTEM failed, and instead of fixing the system you want to take my guns.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't realize that I was talking to a diagnosed mentally-ill schizophrenic. I don't care about your guns. I care about the crap system that declares that Lanza, Holmes, and Cruz have a legal Right to handle and purchase firearms, despite being diagnosed.

Renae said:
You lament they were preventable, but instead of demanding the system be fixed you want to take away rights and property.
Click to expand...

Do you see how easily you embrace extremism? As much as you wish to stand upon your sad little soap box to defend liberty and freedom, it's not about your property or Rights. Unless you are a diagnosed mentally-ill person, your Rights have nothing to do with anything. These were and are preventable. When we diagnose a person with a severe mental disability or something as simple as autism, barring his ability to handle and purchase firearms is common sense. You would see this if you were not so intent on defining your Rights through them and dancing about on a political soap box.

Renae said:
Because government, that FAILED int eh first place, should be trusted to get it right by... taking away rights. Didn't really think that through did you?
Click to expand...

After reviewing your answers and responses, I have to consider whether you are thinking at all. Again, it is not about your Rights.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom