NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights

[oreo]

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

9 out of 10 gun owners in this country want extended back ground checks, including mental health.
Poll: 9 Out of 10 Gun Owners Support Background Checks

House Republicans are arguing that if someone is put on a terrorist watch list, the Government will have 24 hours to PROVE they're a terrorist. If not then they'll be able to load up on the 25 hour--LOL That's how bad it is.

In Denver recently, a guy was on a terrorist watch list. He was actually reported by several MUSLIMS that attended his Mosque, as planning an attack. FBI goes out and interviews him, he goes in and buys a gun and the next day shoots and kills an RTD officer. Reich wingers on the Denver post board still defended him being able to purchase this gun even though he was on a TERRORIST watch list.
First-degree murder charge filed against man accused of killing RTD security officer – The Denver Post

The Mental health issue after Sandy Hook is even more astounding that they would argue over some bat shit crazy dude being able to buy a gun.

WHAT THEY NEVER UNDERSTAND IS THAT THEIR POSITION (GUNS FOR EVERYONE) MAKES IT MORE LIKELY that someday serious bans will come into effect that will really effect their 2nd amendment rights.

A staunch Reich winger, unwilling to bend on gun restrictions for people that are put on a terrorist watch list or for crazy people are in reality are the biggest THREAT to legal gun ownership in this country.

Every time some wacadoodle or terrorist gets a gun in this country and kills people, some politician is going to call for gun restrictions. Someday it's going to happen. To limit that risk, the only option is to make certain that guns do not get in the hands of these type people, but you'll never convince a Reich winger of that until it's too late.

sandy hook had nothing to do with background checks or a crazy guy buying a gun. the fact is, bannerrhoid assholes want to ban guns and they will use any incremental means of doing so including lessening the standards needed to bar someone of their constitutional rights. Such as merely being on a watch list or having some bureaucrat call you a suspected terrorist. Ted Kennedy was on that watch list once

Yeah, but ted should have been barred from owning a gun, and a car, what he should not have been barred from was leaving the country

That's a good point you brought up a car. If you compare car regulations to gun regulations in this country, a 10 year old would be able to get behind the wheel as long as they could touch the pedal, no drivers license would be required, no insurance would be required and there would be no speed limit, and we wouldn't even have DUI laws.

And the reason a 10 year old does not have that right to drive is because driving is a privilege not a right...and I'm glad you pointed this out, it proves that the left wants to do way with our right to own guns by granting them privilege status just like they would with a car...rights are universal, privilege is not.

Buying a gun to kill innocent people with is NOT A RIGHT.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

9 out of 10 gun owners in this country want extended back ground checks, including mental health.


Republicans are arguing is that if someone is put on a terrorist watch list, the Government will have 24 hours to PROVE their a terrorist. If not then they'll be able to load up on the 25 hour--LOL
Poll: 9 Out of 10 Gun Owners Support Background Checks

The Mental health issue after Sandy Hook is even more astounding that they would argue over some bat shit crazy dud being able to buy a gun.

WHAT THEY NEVER UNDERSTAND IS THAT THEIR POSITION (GUNS FOR EVERYONE) MAKES IT MORE LIKELY that someday that serious bans will come into effect that will really effect the 2nd amendment.

A staunch Reich winger, unwilling to bend on gun restrictions for people that are put on a terrorist watch list or for crazy people are in reality are the biggest THREAT to legal gun ownership in this country.

Every time some wacadoodle or terrorist gets a gun in this country and kills people, some politician is going to call for gun restrictions. Someday it's going to happen. To limit that risk, the only option is to make certain that guns do not get in the hands of these type people, but you'll never convince a Reich winger of that until it's too late.

I think I see where you are coming from but you may be biting off too much at once, lets start with saving the first amendment first, by curtailing the media coverage and how it is allowed to make its own rules, then remove protesters from our public streets because that is obviously backfiring on them and may very well cost us our first amendment right of free speech and assembly.

do you have a cartoon that shows how using politically incorrect language is harmful to our nation but being allowed to print the "Pentagon Papers" for the world to read is not?

We're talking about guns and the 2nd amendment, if you want to start a 1st amendment thread feel free to do it.

This may come as somewhat of a shock to you but both are part of the same document, with the same guarantees and protections and in fact if it ever became necessary to defend the first amendment the second amendment would be its best defense, yours is just a feeble attempt to protect an amendment you agree with by barring it from discussion here because you are busy attacking an amendment you disagree with...you are not free to cherry pick the constitution, you agree with it or you don't, no in betweens here, my post was an example of how flawed the argument for saving the second amendment by curtailing it was by using curtailment of the first amendment to save the first amendment in the same manner.

Well I can't even figure out what in the Fuck you're talking about. Are you against the 1st amendment or for it?

I'm for it, I'm a constitutionalist, making an argument against any right is the same as making an argument against all rights, I was giving an example of that.

 

[oreo]

9 out of 10 gun owners in this country want extended back ground checks, including mental health.


Republicans are arguing is that if someone is put on a terrorist watch list, the Government will have 24 hours to PROVE their a terrorist. If not then they'll be able to load up on the 25 hour--LOL
Poll: 9 Out of 10 Gun Owners Support Background Checks

The Mental health issue after Sandy Hook is even more astounding that they would argue over some bat shit crazy dud being able to buy a gun.

WHAT THEY NEVER UNDERSTAND IS THAT THEIR POSITION (GUNS FOR EVERYONE) MAKES IT MORE LIKELY that someday that serious bans will come into effect that will really effect the 2nd amendment.

A staunch Reich winger, unwilling to bend on gun restrictions for people that are put on a terrorist watch list or for crazy people are in reality are the biggest THREAT to legal gun ownership in this country.

Every time some wacadoodle or terrorist gets a gun in this country and kills people, some politician is going to call for gun restrictions. Someday it's going to happen. To limit that risk, the only option is to make certain that guns do not get in the hands of these type people, but you'll never convince a Reich winger of that until it's too late.

I think I see where you are coming from but you may be biting off too much at once, lets start with saving the first amendment first, by curtailing the media coverage and how it is allowed to make its own rules, then remove protesters from our public streets because that is obviously backfiring on them and may very well cost us our first amendment right of free speech and assembly.

do you have a cartoon that shows how using politically incorrect language is harmful to our nation but being allowed to print the "Pentagon Papers" for the world to read is not?

We're talking about guns and the 2nd amendment, if you want to start a 1st amendment thread feel free to do it.

This may come as somewhat of a shock to you but both are part of the same document, with the same guarantees and protections and in fact if it ever became necessary to defend the first amendment the second amendment would be its best defense, yours is just a feeble attempt to protect an amendment you agree with by barring it from discussion here because you are busy attacking an amendment you disagree with...you are not free to cherry pick the constitution, you agree with it or you don't, no in betweens here, my post was an example of how flawed the argument for saving the second amendment by curtailing it was by using curtailment of the first amendment to save the first amendment in the same manner.

Well I can't even figure out what in the Fuck you're talking about. Are you against the 1st amendment or for it?

I'm for it, I'm a constitutionalist, making an argument against any right is the same as making an argument against all rights, I was giving an example of that.

I am NOT making an argument against your 2nd amendment right to own a gun. I making the argument that nutcases and people who are terrorists watch lists should not have the SAME Constitutional rights to own a gun as you do.

Why is that so fucking hard for you to understand? You are the BIGGEST threat to legal gun ownership in this country, not me.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

9 out of 10 gun owners in this country want extended back ground checks, including mental health.
Poll: 9 Out of 10 Gun Owners Support Background Checks

House Republicans are arguing that if someone is put on a terrorist watch list, the Government will have 24 hours to PROVE they're a terrorist. If not then they'll be able to load up on the 25 hour--LOL That's how bad it is.

In Denver recently, a guy was on a terrorist watch list. He was actually reported by several MUSLIMS that attended his Mosque, as planning an attack. FBI goes out and interviews him, he goes in and buys a gun and the next day shoots and kills an RTD officer. Reich wingers on the Denver post board still defended him being able to purchase this gun even though he was on a TERRORIST watch list.
First-degree murder charge filed against man accused of killing RTD security officer – The Denver Post

The Mental health issue after Sandy Hook is even more astounding that they would argue over some bat shit crazy dude being able to buy a gun.

WHAT THEY NEVER UNDERSTAND IS THAT THEIR POSITION (GUNS FOR EVERYONE) MAKES IT MORE LIKELY that someday serious bans will come into effect that will really effect their 2nd amendment rights.

A staunch Reich winger, unwilling to bend on gun restrictions for people that are put on a terrorist watch list or for crazy people are in reality are the biggest THREAT to legal gun ownership in this country.

Every time some wacadoodle or terrorist gets a gun in this country and kills people, some politician is going to call for gun restrictions. Someday it's going to happen. To limit that risk, the only option is to make certain that guns do not get in the hands of these type people, but you'll never convince a Reich winger of that until it's too late.

sandy hook had nothing to do with background checks or a crazy guy buying a gun. the fact is, bannerrhoid assholes want to ban guns and they will use any incremental means of doing so including lessening the standards needed to bar someone of their constitutional rights. Such as merely being on a watch list or having some bureaucrat call you a suspected terrorist. Ted Kennedy was on that watch list once

Yeah, but ted should have been barred from owning a gun, and a car, what he should not have been barred from was leaving the country

That's a good point you brought up a car. If you compare car regulations to gun regulations in this country, a 10 year old would be able to get behind the wheel as long as they could touch the pedal, no drivers license would be required, no insurance would be required and there would be no speed limit, and we wouldn't even have DUI laws.

And the reason a 10 year old does not have that right to drive is because driving is a privilege not a right...and I'm glad you pointed this out, it proves that the left wants to do way with our right to own guns by granting them privilege status just like they would with a car...rights are universal, privilege is not.

Buying a gun to kill innocent people with is NOT A RIGHT.

That's probably why you're the only one to mention it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

9 out of 10 gun owners in this country want extended back ground checks, including mental health.
Poll: 9 Out of 10 Gun Owners Support Background Checks

House Republicans are arguing that if someone is put on a terrorist watch list, the Government will have 24 hours to PROVE they're a terrorist. If not then they'll be able to load up on the 25 hour--LOL That's how bad it is.

In Denver recently, a guy was on a terrorist watch list. He was actually reported by several MUSLIMS that attended his Mosque, as planning an attack. FBI goes out and interviews him, he goes in and buys a gun and the next day shoots and kills an RTD officer. Reich wingers on the Denver post board still defended him being able to purchase this gun even though he was on a TERRORIST watch list.
First-degree murder charge filed against man accused of killing RTD security officer – The Denver Post

The Mental health issue after Sandy Hook is even more astounding that they would argue over some bat shit crazy dude being able to buy a gun.

WHAT THEY NEVER UNDERSTAND IS THAT THEIR POSITION (GUNS FOR EVERYONE) MAKES IT MORE LIKELY that someday serious bans will come into effect that will really effect their 2nd amendment rights.

A staunch Reich winger, unwilling to bend on gun restrictions for people that are put on a terrorist watch list or for crazy people are in reality are the biggest THREAT to legal gun ownership in this country.

Every time some wacadoodle or terrorist gets a gun in this country and kills people, some politician is going to call for gun restrictions. Someday it's going to happen. To limit that risk, the only option is to make certain that guns do not get in the hands of these type people, but you'll never convince a Reich winger of that until it's too late.

sandy hook had nothing to do with background checks or a crazy guy buying a gun. the fact is, bannerrhoid assholes want to ban guns and they will use any incremental means of doing so including lessening the standards needed to bar someone of their constitutional rights. Such as merely being on a watch list or having some bureaucrat call you a suspected terrorist. Ted Kennedy was on that watch list once

Yeah, but ted should have been barred from owning a gun, and a car, what he should not have been barred from was leaving the country

That's a good point you brought up a car. If you compare car regulations to gun regulations in this country, a 10 year old would be able to get behind the wheel as long as they could touch the pedal, no drivers license would be required, no insurance would be required and there would be no speed limit, and we wouldn't even have DUI laws.

And the reason a 10 year old does not have that right to drive is because driving is a privilege not a right...and I'm glad you pointed this out, it proves that the left wants to do way with our right to own guns by granting them privilege status just like they would with a car...rights are universal, privilege is not.

Buying a gun to kill innocent people with is NOT A RIGHT.

Could you repeat that

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I think I see where you are coming from but you may be biting off too much at once, lets start with saving the first amendment first, by curtailing the media coverage and how it is allowed to make its own rules, then remove protesters from our public streets because that is obviously backfiring on them and may very well cost us our first amendment right of free speech and assembly.

do you have a cartoon that shows how using politically incorrect language is harmful to our nation but being allowed to print the "Pentagon Papers" for the world to read is not?

We're talking about guns and the 2nd amendment, if you want to start a 1st amendment thread feel free to do it.

This may come as somewhat of a shock to you but both are part of the same document, with the same guarantees and protections and in fact if it ever became necessary to defend the first amendment the second amendment would be its best defense, yours is just a feeble attempt to protect an amendment you agree with by barring it from discussion here because you are busy attacking an amendment you disagree with...you are not free to cherry pick the constitution, you agree with it or you don't, no in betweens here, my post was an example of how flawed the argument for saving the second amendment by curtailing it was by using curtailment of the first amendment to save the first amendment in the same manner.

Well I can't even figure out what in the Fuck you're talking about. Are you against the 1st amendment or for it?

I'm for it, I'm a constitutionalist, making an argument against any right is the same as making an argument against all rights, I was giving an example of that.

I am NOT making an argument against your 2nd amendment right to own a gun. I making the argument that nutcases and people who are terrorists watch lists should not have the SAME Constitutional rights to own a gun as you do.

Why is that so fucking hard for you to understand? You are the BIGGEST threat to legal gun ownership in this country, not me.

So your trying to protect the second amendment and my right to own a gun?...and stop pounding on the keyboard

 

[pwjohn]

After the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress did manage to pass a modest measure that was designed to provide money to states to improve the federal background check system. But the N.R.A. secured a broad concession in the legislation, which pushed states to allow people with histories of mental illness to petition to have their gun rights restored.

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons.

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

This is disgusting. These dirtbags whine about gun laws treading on their liberty all while they insist on regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms. Me thinks it's time for a really change.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

After the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress did manage to pass a modest measure that was designed to provide money to states to improve the federal background check system. But the N.R.A. secured a broad concession in the legislation, which pushed states to allow people with histories of mental illness to petition to have their gun rights restored.

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons.

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

This is disgusting. These dirtbags whine about gun laws treading on their liberty all while they insist on regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms. Me thinks it's time for a really change.

The problem for them is that its liberals killing liberals...the bulk of the guns in this country are owned by folks in red states/areas/cities and the bulk of gun crimes are in liberal states/areas/cities...they're killing each other and then pointing the finger at the folks who respect the law.

 

[pwjohn]

After the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress did manage to pass a modest measure that was designed to provide money to states to improve the federal background check system. But the N.R.A. secured a broad concession in the legislation, which pushed states to allow people with histories of mental illness to petition to have their gun rights restored.

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons.

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

This is disgusting. These dirtbags whine about gun laws treading on their liberty all while they insist on regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms. Me thinks it's time for a really change.

The problem for them is that its liberals killing liberals...the bulk of the guns in this country are owned by folks in red states/areas/cities and the bulk of gun crimes are in liberal states/areas/cities...they're killing each other and then pointing the finger at the folks who respect the law.

And so what does any of that have to do with regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms?

 

[Muhammed]

NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights

Can you name a few NRA members who want that? Or are you simply full of shit, as usual?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

After the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress did manage to pass a modest measure that was designed to provide money to states to improve the federal background check system. But the N.R.A. secured a broad concession in the legislation, which pushed states to allow people with histories of mental illness to petition to have their gun rights restored.

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons.

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

This is disgusting. These dirtbags whine about gun laws treading on their liberty all while they insist on regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms. Me thinks it's time for a really change.

The problem for them is that its liberals killing liberals...the bulk of the guns in this country are owned by folks in red states/areas/cities and the bulk of gun crimes are in liberal states/areas/cities...they're killing each other and then pointing the finger at the folks who respect the law.

And so what does any of that have to do with regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms?

I quoted the wrong post...and on that note, isn't both sides trying to regulate what your talking about...we've had two bathrooms forever, nothing wrong with that, they have always been "mens" and "womens" anything wrong with that? should we leave it like that or should the government step in? as for marriage, should we have left it alone and told the government to mind it's own business? as for vaginas that is a womans responsibility not a mans or the governments, what she does or does not do with it is entirely her business and responsibility in fact most feminists will tell you that women are the ones responsible for their bodies, so men and government should have no role in a woman's responsibility ...but then again none of these things are directly addressed in the constitution.

 

[pwjohn]

NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights

Can you name a few NRA members who want that? Or are you simply full of shit, as usual?

Well you're full of it up to your ears, but that goes without saying.

 

[pwjohn]

After the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress did manage to pass a modest measure that was designed to provide money to states to improve the federal background check system. But the N.R.A. secured a broad concession in the legislation, which pushed states to allow people with histories of mental illness to petition to have their gun rights restored.

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons.

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

This is disgusting. These dirtbags whine about gun laws treading on their liberty all while they insist on regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms. Me thinks it's time for a really change.

The problem for them is that its liberals killing liberals...the bulk of the guns in this country are owned by folks in red states/areas/cities and the bulk of gun crimes are in liberal states/areas/cities...they're killing each other and then pointing the finger at the folks who respect the law.

And so what does any of that have to do with regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms?

I quoted the wrong post...and on that note, isn't both sides trying to regulate what your talking about...we've had two bathrooms forever, nothing wrong with that, they have always been "mens" and "womens" anything wrong with that? should we leave it like that or should the government step in? as for marriage, should we have left it alone and told the government to mind it's own business? as for vaginas that is a womans responsibility not a mans or the governments, what she does or does not do with it is entirely her business and responsibility in fact most feminists will tell you that women are the ones responsible for their bodies, so men and government should have no role in a woman's responsibility ...but then again none of these things are directly addressed in the constitution.

You're stepping in it all over the place dude. You're all in on regulating marriage, vaginas and bathrooms just as it's always been while advocating grenade launchers be issued to every child born on earth.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

More: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power - The New York Times

More: Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back - The New York Times

This is disgusting. These dirtbags whine about gun laws treading on their liberty all while they insist on regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms. Me thinks it's time for a really change.

The problem for them is that its liberals killing liberals...the bulk of the guns in this country are owned by folks in red states/areas/cities and the bulk of gun crimes are in liberal states/areas/cities...they're killing each other and then pointing the finger at the folks who respect the law.

And so what does any of that have to do with regulating marriage, vaginas, and bathrooms?

I quoted the wrong post...and on that note, isn't both sides trying to regulate what your talking about...we've had two bathrooms forever, nothing wrong with that, they have always been "mens" and "womens" anything wrong with that? should we leave it like that or should the government step in? as for marriage, should we have left it alone and told the government to mind it's own business? as for vaginas that is a womans responsibility not a mans or the governments, what she does or does not do with it is entirely her business and responsibility in fact most feminists will tell you that women are the ones responsible for their bodies, so men and government should have no role in a woman's responsibility ...but then again none of these things are directly addressed in the constitution.

You're stepping in it all over the place dude. You're all in on regulating marriage, vaginas and bathrooms just as it's always been while advocating grenade launchers be issued to every child born on earth.

Does that about sum it up?

Perhaps my post ran together and didn't read the way it was intended, but the government should stay out of all of those things from guns to bathrooms and everything in between,...that sum it up?...that said, it does look like ya took the liberal approach here by implying and answering a question/position you wish were posted as opposed to the one actually posted in order to make your position fit the subject...particularly this part:

advocating grenade launchers be issued to every child born on earth.

That isn't even a position you can find anywhere in this or any other thread, but it is how you try to jam a square pegged object into a round hole

 

[turtledude]

I am NOT making an argument against your 2nd amendment right to own a gun. I making the argument that nutcases and people who are terrorists watch lists should not have the SAME Constitutional rights to own a gun as you do.

Why is that so fucking hard for you to understand? You are the BIGGEST threat to legal gun ownership in this country, not me.

what are the requirements to get on a terrorist watch list? HINT-its not even PROBABLE CAUSE. why do you support the abrogation of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS without due process? I have a great idea-if you are placed on the watch list and you are denied the ability to purchase a gun and it turns out you shouldn't be on it, the individual who placed you on the list will be strictly and personally liable to you for one million dollars and said individual will be permanently disbarred from firearms ownership

works for me, that means government officials better have strong reasons for putting people on such lists and denying them their rights.

 

[Little-Acorn]

NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights


Yep, normal Americans want everybody to have gun rights. Even liberals.

 

[Lakhota]

Nuts shouldn't have gun rights! Period.

House Passes Bill To Help Vets With Mental Illness Buy Guns

20 Veterans A Day Kill Themselves, Mostly With Guns

 

[Little-Acorn]

Nuts shouldn't have gun rights! Period.

So when are you and the other liberals giving yours up?

 

[Lakhota]

Shame on the NRA.

 

[Rustic]

Mental Illness:

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

(Medicine / Pathology) any of various disorders in which a person's thoughts, emotions, or behavior are so abnormal as to cause suffering to himself, herself, or other people.

mental illness - definition of mental illness by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The federal government is not fit to tell who can and cannot own firearms… Fact