Show me where Bill of Rights that the Bill doesn’t apply to people taking anxiety pills, seeing a psychiatrist or are clinically unbalanced.
only applies to people that have the mental capacity to sign a contract.
People seeing a psychiatrist, taking depression or anxiety pills, ADD, OCD etc can sign a contract without a problem. I can go through an entire list of chemical and mental imbalances that are treated with pills that don’t stop you from signing a contract.
Are you fine with them owning weapons and making whatever chemical weapon they want? Keep in mind that these ARE the most likely be people to be doing the crazy things we see on the news. Oklahoma City, School shooting, Aurora, etc
sure they can but in a court of law will it hold up? if I was on antidepressants I was not in my normal state of mind when I signed that contract therefore I was not contractually capable
I cant stop you from making something on your own it’s impossible no matter how much legislation I sign into law. You also can’t stop crazy through legislation, you will only limit those who already follow laws and odds are those arent the people we should be worrying about
Court of law is a little too late once you have a theater full of people and a guy with flaming red hair who booby trapped his entire apartment.
There were no legal basis to stop him from doing what he did.
Are you saying you’re fine with the events happening, them owning weapons and these people appearing in court after the mass shooting takes place? Or you think these people should be limited first?
Edit:
So what you’re saying is you’re fine with mentally unbalanced people owning guns? Through 2A Correct?
we can’t let that possibility take away our freedoms. damn straight there was no legal basis to stop him and if he couldnt get guns whats stopping him from driving a dually through the side of the school into a classroom? absolutely nothing, the point is you can’t fucking stop crazy so we need to stop trying. we should try to stop psychological problems before they start in the school system. everyone knew the colombine kids were prob gonna kill people and nobody did shit, it should have never gotten to that point.
That seems to be two different view points now.
Youre making the same mistake as every other liberal, you think i pray for courage, cling to a bible and a rifle because im scared, have a plan because im paranoid, you look at my stance on the second ammendment and call me an extremist, but what you dont realize is my rifle allows me to protect much more than my own life, the way of life known by 300 million americans is protected by the 2nd amendment, we all pray for peace and a good life, and that we will have the strength to do whatever t takes if we are called upon, and we prepare not for doomsday but for the day who people who take everything for granted have no way to provide for themselves look to the people fighting for them for more than just security. Those are a result of anything but fear, the kneejerk antigun attitude, and the sudden push for confiscation and disarming of the people is purely out of fear, fear of losing control.
Let me stop you at where you called me a liberal.
You don’t know a damn thing about me, and if you think having a mature discussion on the matter entitles you to name calling, I will change your forum name to “Dedicated liberal” and forever refer to you as such, without knowing a damn thing about you. I likely own more guns than you do.
Edit: The rest of your paragraph is entirely other discussion altogether. If you want to have trolling points, go elsewhere
vlad I was being sarcastic when I said god forbid we have to make a sacrifice to keep our freedom. and if you think that sacrifice was giving up our guns you have missed my points by a mile. and 99.9% of gun owners hope they never have to use it on another person, nobody wants to kill people it’s against human nature.
the sacrifice is knowing that there is a possibility that some crazy might use our freedoms against us. we can not allow the fear of that situation take our freedoms away just as we can’t let a crazy shooter take our freedoms away
No I didn’t think it was giving up your guns. From your paragraph you made it clear that having a psych test is an ok restriction to have on firearm ownership as mentally unbalanced people shouldn’t have guns and it would make sense to weed them out.
That’s where I was coming from.
Like I said I am not opposed to some mental health screening, I’m sure it’s fairly obvious if that person is crazy. there would obviously need to be standardized testing and it would take a committee of psychologists to even come up with the test I’m sure. the problem is that is still reactive not proactive
if we want to cut down on the amount of mental illness I believe we need to start with the education system and re work it because it obviously isnt working for us between the globally low scores and the high percentage of people on anti-depressants.
Ok i dont mean to offend anyone, but you dont seem to be playing devils advocate, you are using the same arguments that an uneducated lib would use, if you are a gun owner good for you, but dont sit thete and spew the same ignorance as the media, (calling all responsible gun owners extremists), we need more support for 2a rights and more productive discussions with people who dont know about firearms/2a rights) we dont need more arguments based on ridiculous ideas to scare away support for 2a rights. And owning a number of guns doesnt make you a 2a advocate, that way of thinking is right on par with cuomos bs of acting like he supports 2a rights because he owns a shotgun, once again if your offended by my comments i dont mean to sit here and stir up shit but the argument youve been making paints a different picture of you than a pro 2A gun owner.
Alright so lets start at square one.
Is this going to be a mandatory mental health screening or optional? Federal ruling?
People who fail this wouldn’t be allowed to own guns, correct?
Have you actually read any recent comments in this thread? I take it as a no…
Lets try the same thing with you. Are you OK with mentally unbalanced people owning guns? How about any limitations on what kind of weapons an average person is allowed to own. Chemical/biological/explosives or it it all fair game under 2A?
Reason these questions are asked is because on the surface 2A is always screamed as absolute but when gotten into details people are OK with some limitations. Then comes the question of what exactly the limitations should be.
I have and i know you arent against 2a rights but some of your devils advocate posts are a little extreme, that was my only observation, comparing the 2nd to bio-chemical weapons was a little over the top so i expressed my opinion, that is the point of the off topic section correct?
How do you think laws are made? Most of the time they are made due to the extreme possibilities. Look at just about every law on the books and ask if the majority of population will go as far as breaking it? Answer will be no. More often than not laws attempt to weed out and prevent the extremes.
In those discussions “what if” determines the language of what gets written on the books.
Edit: point is, these “extremes” are covered under 2A unless you agree that it’s not absolute and some limits should be enforced. Once that happens your proverbial slippery slope occurs and people start determining how far it will be limited.
If you’re OK with the extremes than I absolutely see your point of protecting 2A unconditionally, however most people gun owners are not are not OK with the extremes especially when it could be happening right next to you. Just as well as most people arent OK with mentally unstable people owning guns and being at a shooting range right next to you. Or in public next to you with your wife and kids.
I am not okay with someone who is mentally incompetent owning or having access to a gun, but that doesnt mean there need to be psych evaluations for gun ownership, im typing on a phone so im not gunna write another book lol but in post 94 i covered what the 2nd amendment provides for, a militia is a defensive force not offensive so there would obviously be no need for NBC weapons which are offensive, i dont believe civilians have a need for explosives and i dont see them as a defensive weapon either so again no
Defensive VS offensive weapons is an interesting point.
One might consider the old mantra of what the “the best offense is…”
I don’t want to get into a deep discussion on this as many of those weapons, can and have been used as defense. Most basic examples of explosives is mines/IED’s. If the government was coming to take over your house, mines would make a great defense against vehicles and personnel. Arguably one of the most effective ones.
I’m curious on your point where you aren’t OK with them owning guns, yet you aren’t OK with actually going through and weeding them out.
But the 2A is about security so defensive weapons would be covered not offensive ill get more involved in this conversation tommorow my phone s on fire lmao, but mental stability shouldnt be declared by the government that would be a loophole for them to take away rights, if some douche paid by uncle sam gave you an evaluation he could just say you arent fit to own a gun and then that would open the door to confiscation, so i am in agreement that mentally unstable people should not habe guns, i do not believe the government should be able to say whether or not you or I are or arent crazy, it would be sort of like mccarthyism, ( one a sshole points his finger and says lunatic and that person is fucked)
yes vlad I do think that there should be mental health screening for anyone who’s committed certain misdemeaners and all felonies, and also anyone undergoing therapy for depression ect. Would be at the civilians expense, any other law abiding citizen should be able to have whatever gun they want.