Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well that's a lie. Those who have been convicted of felonies or certified by a court as mentally defective lost their rights through due process. All rights, even the right to life itself may be lost through due process.The states have been infringing on the 2A since before the ink dried.
The 2A doesn't say anything about ex cons on parole, felons not being able to buy a gun. So their rights have been infringed. The 2A doesn't give states the authority to force permits on gun owners. But they do.
The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.
The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.
So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.
I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.
Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.
So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.
1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.
One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.
Let's dance.
Except that it's un-Constitutional.
Would we suggest mental health tests to exercise any other Constitutionally guaranteed right?
Talking and voting have resulted in the deaths of millions. That's how you motivate a nation to do unspeakable things.Talking & voting never killed anyone. Neither did peaceful protests (actually peaceful)
P.S. One problem at a time. BTW, if voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it.
Talking and voting have resulted in the deaths of millions. That's how you motivate a nation to do unspeakable things.
Had Hitler not been a great orator he could have never steered Germany down the path of Nazism.
With the end result being that millions of people who own guns or would like to in the future would be afraid to seek counseling when they do have problems.See….now you gave away the real goal……yes, yes, just like the socialists in Russia used mental health against resistors and political opposition they would love to use mental health as a weapon
Only to the mentally deficient.That's like saying spoons and forks cause obesity.
That'd be an infringement
/ Thread
Alright, so we do nothing on either end. We don't require psych evaluations for gun purchases because it's unconstitutional, and we don't harden the schools because we're too afraid of subjecting the kids to a prison-like environment.Except that it's un-Constitutional.
Would we suggest mental health tests to exercise any other Constitutionally guaranteed right?
And in the end that requirement not only strips every American of their most basic rights, it would have exactly the opposite result you claim you want.So it killing 19 children and two teachers. A medical/psychological exam would really infringe on anything other than a few hours out of my day. And maybe a few bucks.
The end result, 18yr olds would have to buy guns illegally. They'd take the risk of buying them from an under cover cop and getting arrest. They'd have to pay a lot more for them because of the black market that would be created. As well as some of the other safeguards that society itself has in place, that don't require laws. Just decent people ratting out bad guys.
Just fully enforce existing law and most of these issues could be solved.Alright, so we do nothing on either end. We don't require psych evaluations for gun purchases because it's unconstitutional, and we don't harden the schools because we're too afraid of subjecting the kids to a prison-like environment.
There WILL be more shootings like this until someone let's go of their pride and actually puts the kids at the forefront of their decision making process.
I am thoroughly convinced neither party wishes to do that.
With the end result being that millions of people who own guns or would like to in the future would be afraid to seek counseling when they do have problems.
Get back to us after you require a Psych exam for politicians.The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.
The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.
So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.
I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.
Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.
So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.
1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.
One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.
Let's dance.
So it killing 19 children and two teachers. A medical/psychological exam would really infringe on anything other than a few hours out of my day. And maybe a few bucks.
The end result, 18yr olds would have to buy guns illegally. They'd take the risk of buying them from an under cover cop and getting arrest. They'd have to pay a lot more for them because of the black market that would be created. As well as some of the other safeguards that society itself has in place, that don't require laws. Just decent people ratting out bad guys.
Why are you LYING?The left probably wants a license for free speech.
And in the end that requirement not only strips every American of their most basic rights, it would have exactly the opposite result you claim you want.
Millions of those who need help would avoid ever getting it for fear of losing their right to keep and bear.
What happens when nobody wants to? Because that's where we are.Just fully enforce existing law and most of these issues could be solved.
So it killing 19 children and two teachers. A medical/psychological exam would really infringe on anything other than a few hours out of my day. And maybe a few bucks.
The end result, 18yr olds would have to buy guns illegally. They'd take the risk of buying them from an under cover cop and getting arrest. They'd have to pay a lot more for them because of the black market that would be created. As well as some of the other safeguards that society itself has in place, that don't require laws. Just decent people ratting out bad guys.
Scared of what? Getting help? Getting treatment and getting through what ever is troubling them, so they can get their minds clear and put their troubles behind them?
I wished my dad would've gotten that kind of help before he shot my brother. He's still be alive.
Yeah, for you….but the democrats already showed their hand when their shrinks tried to bar soldiers from owning guns because they had cases of insomnia…….
