This woman is actually arguing that the mentally ill should be able to own firearms. Forget about all the other catch all right wing nonsense like taxation is stealing ..... but pretending that the mentally ill should own firearms...... WOW!!!!!!
What more needs to be said?
people who have not been adjudicated (committed) don't lose their rights. Do you have a problem with that?
This woman is actually arguing that the mentally ill should be able to own firearms. Forget about all the other catch all right wing nonsense like taxation is stealing ..... but pretending that the mentally ill should own firearms...... WOW!!!!!!
What more needs to be said?
There are countless disabilities that prevent a person from operating a (dangerous) motor vehicle.
Yes, obviously, there are countless disabilities that necessitate restricting their access to firearms.
It's as obvious as dirt.
There are countless disabilities that prevent a person from operating a (dangerous) motor vehicle.
Yes, obviously, there are countless disabilities that necessitate restricting their access to firearms.
It's as obvious as dirt.
There are countless disabilities that prevent a person from operating a (dangerous) motor vehicle.
Yes, obviously, there are countless disabilities that necessitate restricting their access to firearms.
It's as obvious as dirt.
Obvious if one does not care about the difference between privilege and right.
well then get Congress to change the law, Constitutional rights require a rather high standard to abrogate even if its a right lefties don't want people to have
Irrelevant. Most gun advocates always immediately fall back to "but the 2nd", kind of like "but her emails".
The supreme court has said explicitly that guns can be regulated, that the 2nd is not unlimited (Scalia of all people in Heller vs.), and passed on numerous opportunities to overturn all of the state firearms bans that the NRA has been trying frantically to overturn (most recently, CT, Maryland, NY on certain weapons..including AR-15s I believe).
Nor did I claim they all were. Nor did either of us claim to know what all would pass or be blocked, or later be overturned, etc. They like to leave us guessing.Yet Heller didn't say all restrictions are Constitutional.
I see no reason to believe that. AR-15s were banned and SCOTUS refused the opportunity to strike it down, so they believe the states can enact such gun control and not violate the 2nd. Didn't we go through this in that other thread?If a firearm determined to be "in common use for lawful purposes" fails to be protected by Heller, or a firearm "with a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia" fails to be protected by Miller, then no 2A protections exist at all.
Do you believe that all mentally ill people are dangerous? Are they only dangerous with guns?
We're not congress, we're supposed to be discussing what is reasonable. Do you not find that argument reasonable? You have to find good reasons FIRST, then decide on what policy to back. Or were you doing it the other way around all this time?
I am not a psychiatrist.
That's what I mean by not willing to have a reasonable discussion.Heck, some liberals consider anyone who wants to own a gun for self defense or who voted for Trump to have a mental illness .
That's what I mean by not willing to have a reasonable discussion.
That's what I mean by not willing to have a reasonable discussion.
I'm for a background check system that is free and accessible by all.
I'm for making CC permits require a target proficiency equal to security guard standards.
I'm ok with raising the AR age to 21 while keeping most other long guns at 18.
I'm ok to ban bumpstocks.
I would like to see CC permits recognised in all 50 states and expect it as part of a deal implimintig the above.
I oppose are banning certain semi auto rifles and handguns
I oppose any registration or licensing requirement to own or purchase a firearm.
I oppose any "turn in your gun upon death" requirement.
Any deal containing the above I could not, would not support.
Do you consider those to be reasonable positions or classify me as someone not open up to gun control ideas?
Yet you posted an opinion:
"This woman is actually arguing that the mentally ill should be able to own firearms. Forget about all the other catch all right wing nonsense like taxation is stealing ..... but pretending that the mentally ill should own firearms...... WOW!!!!!!
What more needs to be said?"
The clear implication is that all mentally ill people are too dangerous to own guns.
Irrelevant. Most gun advocates always immediately fall back to "but the 2nd", kind of like "but her emails".
The supreme court has said explicitly that guns can be regulated, that the 2nd is not unlimited (Scalia of all people in Heller vs.), and passed on numerous opportunities to overturn all of the state firearms bans that the NRA has been trying frantically to overturn (most recently, CT, Maryland, NY on certain weapons..including AR-15s I believe).
The 2nd cannot stop gun control. Without an amendment, the second will likely guarantee that at the very least, mentally fit, trained individuals of appropriate age, if they follow the legal process, can own most handguns, stun guns, shotguns, and some rifles. That's up to the states apparently to limit appropriately, but tracking should be coordinated nationally else it's irrelevant.
So all of that has been done to one degree or another, and has not been ruled to violate the 2nd. So rights is irrelevant in the reasonable gun control provisions that get brought up. Complete confiscation violates the 2nd, won't happen without an amendment. Si the slippery slope nonsense is just scare tactics and unreasonable arguments the NRA drums up to continue to lobby government.
Actually the clear implication is that carrying and using a gun is something which requires ones faculties to be intact so that good judgment can be exercised.
Yet you're not a psychiatrist so, this is just your unsupported opinion.