+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 167

Thread: Should mentally disturbed people be able to buy guns?

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    A claim that ultimately means nothing. Politicians seeking to further restrict firearms ownership claim to own firearms as well, in an effort to suggest that they are not the enemy.



    First and foremost, the AR-15 is in no way a so-called assault rifle. It is nothing more than a semi-automatic firearm, largely no different from any other semi-automatic that has been freely available for the last one hundred years. Semi-automatic rifles were marketed towards hunters and sportsmen first, long before any military regarded them as a viable option.



    In the city of Nice, in the nation of France, one person operating a motor vehicle managed to kill eighty six individuals, and injure another four hundred and thirty four individuals in a span of less than five minutes. No firearms were involved, only one motor vehicle. That is a significantly higher number of victims than any mass shooting in the united states, where firearms are indeed involved. This would suggest motor vehicles are far more dangerous than any firearm ever could be, since it would name multiple mass shootings to equal the same number of dead and injured.

    - - - Updated - - -



    At the time of the ratification of the second amendment, the mentally disturbed were locked up in asylums, never to be released into society again, or otherwise outright killed.
    So what are you suggesting, to let them out of the asylum and hand them a gun?
    I don’t think that the law that is under discussion doesn’t include the inmates of mental asylums.

    Oh and spare us that old NRA mantra, i.e. cars can kill so why don’t we ban cars?
    Because cars are essential to civilian life and guns are most decidedly not.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    The NRA owns them and tells them what to do.....the real question should be why does the NRA think it's a good idea?
    That’s easy friend, the profit motive, it dominates every piece of propaganda they hand out. Their answers to the deaths of small children at Sandy Hook was to buy more guns which perfectly illustrates that their not concerned with the carnage, injury and death caused by their products.
    Last edited by Scampi; Feb 17 2017 at 07:39 AM.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scampi View Post
    So what are you suggesting, to let them out of the asylum and hand them a gun?
    I don’t think that the law that is under discussion doesn’t include the inmates of mental asylums.

    Oh and spare us that old NRA mantra, i.e. cars can kill so why don’t we ban cars?
    Because cars are essential to civilian life and guns are most decidedly not.
    Nobody is suggesting giving people that come out of an asylum a gun. Stop the hyperbole, it does nothing to advance your argument. It's just a strawman, and that's a weak form of argument.

    I'm 100% for not letting people that have been committed to mental hospitals get guns. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we allow the decision to ban people from having guns (or other rights) to be made by Social Security bureaucrats without due process (i.e. a court hearing that allows the person that is about to lose rights, the chance to have a say with a lawyer, etc.). If you want to take any right away from somebody, it has to be done by due process. Review the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


    Amendment XIV
    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. ” C.S. Lewis

  4. Default

    I guess it's unconstitutional to stop democrats from buying guns.

  5. Likes usfan liked this post
  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scampi View Post
    That’s easy friend, the profit motive, it dominates every piece of propaganda they hand out. Their answers to the deaths of small children at Sandy Hook was to buy more guns which perfectly illustrates that their not concerned with the carnage, injury and death caused by their products.
    First, the NRA as an organization didn't buy guns.
    Second, it was people, i.e. fellow citizens, who bought guns, and it was because of a fear that gun restrictions would be put in place. It's a natural human reaction to a perceived future loss of resources.
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. ” C.S. Lewis

  7. Likes usfan liked this post
  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scampi View Post
    That’s easy friend, the profit motive, it dominates every piece of propaganda they hand out. Their answers to the deaths of small children at Sandy Hook was to buy more guns which perfectly illustrates that their not concerned with the carnage, injury and death caused by their products.
    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?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling, and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scampi View Post
    So what are you suggesting, to let them out of the asylum and hand them a gun?
    Can you point to where any such claim was actually made? Or are you simply resorting to hyperbole?

    I don’t think that the law that is under discussion doesn’t include the inmates of mental asylums.
    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.

    Oh and spare us that old NRA mantra, i.e. cars can kill so why don’t we ban cars?
    Statistically more annual deaths are the result of motor vehicles than firearms.

    Because cars are essential to civilian life and guns are most decidedly not.
    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.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling, and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scampi View Post
    Whether they wrote the laws down on a particular piece of paper or not isn’t the point, you simply can’t drag one right from the past when conditions were far different than those that exist today.
    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.

    At the least armed militias made some sense then considering that the continental army was disbanded in 1783 but the borders of the colonies were still under threat.
    In short, the 2nd amendment was made to engage with the events for that time and to argue that they are as true today is ludicrous. Comparing the weapons then with those that are available today is akin to comparing a horse and cart to a F1 Grand Pre car.
    The second amendment had nothing to do with states having the ability to form and maintain militias.

    If you are prepared to live with the consequences of living with more than three deaths each hour and every hour as a price of arming civilians including the mentally impaired, then you’re the ones that have to live with that decision.
    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.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling, and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    Actually they used social security as the means of tracking Mentally Ill individuals in order to prevent them from obtaining guns. You are attempting to do the same thing he did because you cannot defend it either.

    How's this:

    Do you think its a good idea to give a gun to a crazy person?
    No, the are denying people without due process or being deemed mentally unfit based on a bureaucrats whim.
    MSNBC BRZEZINSKI: ‘OUR JOB’ IS TO CONTROL ‘EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE THINK’

    The Democrat Party, its Media serfs, and Social Justice Incorporated are all outraged because we uppity normals are again presuming to rule ourselves, and their agony is delightful.

  12. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scampi View Post
    Civil liberties matter to all of us, no one can argue with that, but many of the Rights or laws which were relevant over 220 years ago have no significance today including the ‘Right’ for civilians to bear arms.
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by polski View Post
    So I have to ask..what exactly are you protecting with an AR-15? It is a very nice weapon but are you expecting a home invasion
    or a panzer division?
    For any home defense situation where a shotgun can be of use, an AR15 is a better choice.
    Last edited by TOG 6; Feb 20 2017 at 12:01 PM.
    If the anti-gun side could not argue with fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly, they'd be silent.

    Freedom, according to the left:
    Health care: the right you have no choice but to exercise in whatever way the federal government tells you it will accept. Resistance is taxable.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: Dec 15 2015, 01:23 AM
  2. Replies: 40
    Last Post: Nov 17 2014, 04:06 AM
  3. Should marijuana users be able to buy guns?
    By Hairball in forum Opinion POLLS
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: May 28 2013, 08:35 PM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: Nov 07 2012, 05:22 AM
  5. AQ: American Muslims Should Buy Guns, Start Shooting People
    By DonGlock26 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Jun 28 2012, 01:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks