Should mentally disturbed people be able to buy guns?

Pray tell how does the NRA profit from the sale of firearms? Where is the financial connection that proves they receive anything for each firearm bought and sold?

 

Can you point to where any such claim was actually made? Or are you simply resorting to hyperbole?

If someone is in a mental asylum, then they have been properly adjudicated as a mental defective through due process, in accordance with the law.

Statistically more annual deaths are the result of motor vehicles than firearms.

Privately owned motor vehicles are not essential to life, they are merely convenient. There is quite literally no need for any private individual to own a motor vehicle, as whatever requirements they have for one could easily be met through available public transportation, owned and maintained by various cities.

 

The united states supreme court has rejected this argument time and time again, when it comes to interpretation of the constitution with regard to modern technological developments. It is for this reason that electronic devices, such as your cellphone, are protected by the first and fourth amendments.

The second amendment had nothing to do with states having the ability to form and maintain militias.

According to the FBI, as much as eighty percent of all firearm-related deaths are committed by individuals who cannot legally possess firearms under any circumstances. These are individuals with clearly established disqualifying records, but they are left free in society where they can do the most harm.

 

No, the are denying people without due process or being deemed mentally unfit based on a bureaucrats whim.

 

1: You cannot make a sound argument to that effect
2: Regardless, until amended, the 2nd is still there; you don't get to ignore it.

- - - Updated - - -

For any home defense situation where a shotgun can be of use, an AR15 is a better choice.

 

Anyone would be free to challenge the decision in court....due process is then served

 

You going to pay for it?

 

No.

No way.

 

Nope. That's not how due process works. I think no lawyer would even be required

 

After reading this forum with Americans screaming at dead Russian Diplomats like Muslims cheering 911.

You should ban guns with most of your people. Americans are angry, hostile. Soon war with the world won't be enough. They will turn on each other. If not happened already.

Guns + American delusions, will get you all killed.

 

As we have been witnessing in the aftermath of the last election, supporters of Donald Trump have been randomly assaulted for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

The riots in the wake of the election have been incredibly violent, and have included not simply mere property damage, but aggravated assault, obstruction of traffic, and even arson committed with molotov cocktails. These are all actions that fit the legal definition of terrorism, and should be treated as such.

 

And yet, despite such anger, hostility, and being armed, the united states continues to exist, with large sections of the country experiencing almost no homicides. Statistically the majority of violence within the country is limited to specific urban areas with high population densities.

Beyond such, the Czech Republic has stated that firearms belong in the hands of its citizens in the event of a terrorist attack, because such serves as the best deterrent. They are literally stating that the united states approach is the best course of action.

 

Yeah whatever.

You want to test that theory out. Make everyone on this forum a mod and see who shoots first.

 

Privately owned motor vehicles are not essential to life, they are merely convenient. There is quite literally no need for any private individual to own a motor vehicle, as whatever requirements they have for one could easily be met through available public transportation, owned and maintained by various cities.

I suggest you tell that to the 257.9 million car owners of America to see whether they agree with you.

 

It's not up to you or anyone else to determine why someone needs or wants a gun.

 

There is a question on the firearms purchase application asking if you have mental issues, which is of course of little use without a way to verify it. A background check doesn't show those with mental issues because of medical privacy laws; a shrink can't report it without violating patient confidence. There does need to be some corrections, and that seems like the point where it needs to happen.

 

Well said. I agree completely

 

If that were true it would pretty much bar liberals from buying guns.

 

Just because some has delusions that people are out to kill him does not mean he should not have a fully auto uzi. Merica!

 

Pray tell what are you even talking about?

 

Sheeesh! Libs still haven't figured out that laws don't stop anyone from killing people yet. That doesn't mean mentally ill people should have guns. It means laws only restrict, but DO NOT STOP murder. The government is not the solution.

Steve

 

Let's restrict guns from the mentally ill a little more

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but it sounds like there is possibly a plan to use the APA to clamp down on the 2nd amendment. Am I getting warm?

 

We let mentally disturbed people run for & get elected president of the country, so why not?

 

First and foremost, the lack of proper quoting has been noted.

Secondly:

None of the above is in any way related to the post you are addressing. The post in question was addressing the misconception that patients in mental asylums, whose mental illness is well documented, would be armed as a result of the changes made to rules pertaining to social security recipients. No mention of the NRA, or donations from the firearms industry, was ever made.

Yet again, no such claim was ever made. Hyperbole is of no use to you here in this discussion.

Two thirds of all firearm-related deaths are the result of suicides, not homicides. And of the remaining amount, eighty percent are the fault of individuals with extensive, well established criminal records and affiliations, who are devoid of a legal or legitimate reason to not be confined in prisons, and thus are legally prohibited from possessing a firearm under any circumstances.

It does not matter whether they agree with the assessment of facts or not. It does not change the fact that it is the truth. Privately owned motor vehicles are not essential to life, they are merely convenient. There is simply no legitimate need for someone to possess a motor vehicle, simply because they want one. If they wish for convenient travel, they are free to use public transportation.