CDZ Should firearm training be free for the poor, or at least have a government program for free trainin

[Skull Pilot]

no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill

what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?

as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?

If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.

So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

I never said that all it was

but the legislation was bad because it was too vague and it should have been rescinded.

 

[Divine Wind]

So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

Nice job backpedaling, but then you stepped in it again. The fact remains the anti-gun mob of the LW are like you; seeking to ban guns from common people, if not completely, then for the slightest of reasons. OTOH, you staunchly support your right to advocating depriving rights from others because you have "free speech".

No back pedaling at all. I stand firmly by everything I have said. If a person has been declared incompetent, for any reason, he should not have a gun without proving to the court that he has a valid reason. On the other hand, if they are merely denying gun ownership to those that make the occasional mistake in their checkbook, as you claim, I'll need some proof that is the case.

You've seen the evidence. You've seen how the anti-gun mob keeps reaching and reaching. It used to be "we just need sensible gun laws" and many Americans agreed, but when the anti-gun mob took a mile for every inch given, a bond of trust was broken. Now we see the anti-gunners want to deny forever anyone who has ever had a mental medical issue.

 

[jasonnfree]

no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill

what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?

as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?

If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.

So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

Some police departments like LAPD will reject police candidates on the basis of their poor credit rating.

 

[Picaro]

If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.

So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

Some police departments like LAPD will reject police candidates on the basis of their poor credit rating.

Indeed; most of them do, at least in the big cities.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is a constitutional right to vote

No, there isn't.

 

[Picaro]

The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide who could own firearms, what form their militias took, etc., and many colonies and states did restrict ownership rights, so citing the Constitution or cherry-picking assorted 'Founders' opinions isn't going to help; they were all over the place, and their public opinions changed with the political winds of the moment, no different than politicians of any other era. There is no absolute Federal right to bear arms re original intent, regardless of what ideologues like to think. Just because one state or other allowed some prominent citizen or other to keep artillery in his barn doesn't mean every state did, or even allowed just anybody to in the state that did allow some people to.

 

[Divine Wind]

So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

Some police departments like LAPD will reject police candidates on the basis of their poor credit rating.

Indeed; most of them do, at least in the big cities.

The military has (had?) a similar rule for clearing people for Secret or higher clearances.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide who could own firearms, what form their militias took, etc., and many colonies and states did restrict ownership rights, so citing the Constitution or cherry-picking assorted 'Founders' opinions isn't going to help; they were all over the place, and their public opinions changed with the political winds of the moment, no different than politicians of any other era. There is no absolute Federal right to bear arms re original intent, regardless of what ideologues like to think. Just because one state or other allowed some prominent citizen or other to keep artillery in his barn doesn't mean every state did, or even allowed just anybody to in the state that did allow some people to.

Does the Constitution grant you your rights or do you already have them? What is the purpose of the Constitution?

 

[Picaro]

The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide who could own firearms, what form their militias took, etc., and many colonies and states did restrict ownership rights, so citing the Constitution or cherry-picking assorted 'Founders' opinions isn't going to help; they were all over the place, and their public opinions changed with the political winds of the moment, no different than politicians of any other era. There is no absolute Federal right to bear arms re original intent, regardless of what ideologues like to think. Just because one state or other allowed some prominent citizen or other to keep artillery in his barn doesn't mean every state did, or even allowed just anybody to in the state that did allow some people to.

Does the Constitution grant you your rights or do you already have them? What is the purpose of the Constitution?

As originally intended it was designed to restrict Federal powers, while still granting it enough powers to function as a national entity and leaving the original local aristocratic privileges most of the Founders wanted in their own states; many of the 'anti-Federalists' boycotted the Convention, though, so the remaining delegates gave the Feds various commercial powers and powers over state militias. Later on, various Court rulings modified the original intent of many of the clauses, which is why we have the confusion these days. The 'Anti-Federalists' later elected Thomas Jefferson, for instance. The depressed economy brought much of it to a head, on both 'sides', since the Articles were a failure and going nowhere fast. Some wanted the 'Bill of Rights' included in the body of the Constitution, others didn't, so Madison organized compromises agreeing to make them separate Amendments, the only way to reach a consensus on them, and many other clauses elsewhere. Go through many state's histories and you finds all kinds of laws and cases restricting firearms rights, and of course another example is the many states who kept their state approved religious sects intact.

Anybody who wants a good book on the reasons for much of what was responsible for many of the clauses that went into the Constitution can get a copy of this one:

The Forging of the Union, 1781-1789 by Richard B. Morris

It follows the historical timelines and the like in detail, like the MT. Vernon Conference between Virginia and Maryland, for example, and the political fallout of the above mentioned Shay's Rebellion and the private army that had to be hired to put it down, even though it attacked the Federal Springfield Armory, and the Federal troops backed off. It gives a great insight into the existential political realities, economics, and mental states of many of those calling for and attending the 1787 Convention.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide who could own firearms, what form their militias took, etc., and many colonies and states did restrict ownership rights, so citing the Constitution or cherry-picking assorted 'Founders' opinions isn't going to help; they were all over the place, and their public opinions changed with the political winds of the moment, no different than politicians of any other era. There is no absolute Federal right to bear arms re original intent, regardless of what ideologues like to think. Just because one state or other allowed some prominent citizen or other to keep artillery in his barn doesn't mean every state did, or even allowed just anybody to in the state that did allow some people to.

Does the Constitution grant you your rights or do you already have them? What is the purpose of the Constitution?

As originally intended it was designed to restrict Federal powers, while still granting it enough powers to function as a national entity and leaving the original local aristocratic privileges most of the Founders wanted in their own states; many of the 'anti-Federalists' boycotted the Convention, though, so the remaining delegates gave the Feds various commercial powers and powers over state militias. Later on, various Court rulings modified the original intent of many of the clauses, which is why we have the confusion these days. The 'Anti-Federalists' later elected Thomas Jefferson, for instance. The depressed economy brought much of it to a head, on both 'sides', since the Articles were a failure and going nowhere fast. Some wanted the 'Bill of Rights' included in the body of the Constitution, others didn't, so Madison organized compromises agreeing to make them separate Amendments, the only way to reach a consensus on them, and many other clauses elsewhere. Go through many state's histories and you finds all kinds of laws and cases restricting firearms rights, and of course another example is the many states who kept their state approved religious sects intact.

Anybody who wants a good book on the reasons for much of what was responsible for many of the clauses that went into the Constitution can get a copy of this one:

The Forging of the Union, 1781-1789 by Richard B. Morris

It follows the historical timelines and the like in detail, like the MT. Vernon Conference between Virginia and Maryland, for example, and the political fallout of the above mentioned Shay's Rebellion and the private army that had to be hired to put it down, even though it attacked the Federal Springfield Armory, and the Federal troops backed off. It gives a great insight into the existential political realities, economics, and mental states of many of those calling for and attending the 1787 Convention.

The point being is that "We, the People" empower the Federal government with certain powers, but those powers don't include taking away our own rights. At worst, it empowers the government to resolve disputes between two or more people's rights. The whole "right to swing one's fist" idea.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.

So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

I never said that all it was

but the legislation was bad because it was too vague and it should have been rescinded.

That's exactly what you said it was.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

Nice job backpedaling, but then you stepped in it again. The fact remains the anti-gun mob of the LW are like you; seeking to ban guns from common people, if not completely, then for the slightest of reasons. OTOH, you staunchly support your right to advocating depriving rights from others because you have "free speech".

No back pedaling at all. I stand firmly by everything I have said. If a person has been declared incompetent, for any reason, he should not have a gun without proving to the court that he has a valid reason. On the other hand, if they are merely denying gun ownership to those that make the occasional mistake in their checkbook, as you claim, I'll need some proof that is the case.

You've seen the evidence. You've seen how the anti-gun mob keeps reaching and reaching. It used to be "we just need sensible gun laws" and many Americans agreed, but when the anti-gun mob took a mile for every inch given, a bond of trust was broken. Now we see the anti-gunners want to deny forever anyone who has ever had a mental medical issue.

No. I don't care what the NRA has brainwashed you to believe, but NO. I thought Obama was going to take all your guns. Isn't that what was claimed? If they keep you stirred up, they sell more guns. That's all it amounts to.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

Some police departments like LAPD will reject police candidates on the basis of their poor credit rating.

Indeed; most of them do, at least in the big cities.

The military has (had?) a similar rule for clearing people for Secret or higher clearances.

What does that have to do with incompetent people having guns?

 

[Picaro]

The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide who could own firearms, what form their militias took, etc., and many colonies and states did restrict ownership rights, so citing the Constitution or cherry-picking assorted 'Founders' opinions isn't going to help; they were all over the place, and their public opinions changed with the political winds of the moment, no different than politicians of any other era. There is no absolute Federal right to bear arms re original intent, regardless of what ideologues like to think. Just because one state or other allowed some prominent citizen or other to keep artillery in his barn doesn't mean every state did, or even allowed just anybody to in the state that did allow some people to.

Does the Constitution grant you your rights or do you already have them? What is the purpose of the Constitution?

As originally intended it was designed to restrict Federal powers, while still granting it enough powers to function as a national entity and leaving the original local aristocratic privileges most of the Founders wanted in their own states; many of the 'anti-Federalists' boycotted the Convention, though, so the remaining delegates gave the Feds various commercial powers and powers over state militias. Later on, various Court rulings modified the original intent of many of the clauses, which is why we have the confusion these days. The 'Anti-Federalists' later elected Thomas Jefferson, for instance. The depressed economy brought much of it to a head, on both 'sides', since the Articles were a failure and going nowhere fast. Some wanted the 'Bill of Rights' included in the body of the Constitution, others didn't, so Madison organized compromises agreeing to make them separate Amendments, the only way to reach a consensus on them, and many other clauses elsewhere. Go through many state's histories and you finds all kinds of laws and cases restricting firearms rights, and of course another example is the many states who kept their state approved religious sects intact.

Anybody who wants a good book on the reasons for much of what was responsible for many of the clauses that went into the Constitution can get a copy of this one:

The Forging of the Union, 1781-1789 by Richard B. Morris

It follows the historical timelines and the like in detail, like the MT. Vernon Conference between Virginia and Maryland, for example, and the political fallout of the above mentioned Shay's Rebellion and the private army that had to be hired to put it down, even though it attacked the Federal Springfield Armory, and the Federal troops backed off. It gives a great insight into the existential political realities, economics, and mental states of many of those calling for and attending the 1787 Convention.

The point being is that "We, the People" empower the Federal government with certain powers, but those powers don't include taking away our own rights. At worst, it empowers the government to resolve disputes between two or more people's rights. The whole "right to swing one's fist" idea.

But for most of our history it was the state legs that determined who 'We The People' who could vote, or bear arms for that matter, were. No way to hand wave that away, wonderful slogans or no.

 

[Divine Wind]

No. I don't care what the NRA has brainwashed you to believe, but NO. I thought Obama was going to take all your guns. Isn't that what was claimed? If they keep you stirred up, they sell more guns. That's all it amounts to.

LOL. Uh, no. No brainwashing. No, Obama wasn't going to take our guns, he was just going to reinstitute Clinton's gun ban and a few other restrictions. It would take another Democrat President and Congress a few years down the line to ban all guns from private ownership since the only way they can make this happen is in steps due to the Second Amendment.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide who could own firearms, what form their militias took, etc., and many colonies and states did restrict ownership rights, so citing the Constitution or cherry-picking assorted 'Founders' opinions isn't going to help; they were all over the place, and their public opinions changed with the political winds of the moment, no different than politicians of any other era. There is no absolute Federal right to bear arms re original intent, regardless of what ideologues like to think. Just because one state or other allowed some prominent citizen or other to keep artillery in his barn doesn't mean every state did, or even allowed just anybody to in the state that did allow some people to.

Does the Constitution grant you your rights or do you already have them? What is the purpose of the Constitution?

As originally intended it was designed to restrict Federal powers, while still granting it enough powers to function as a national entity and leaving the original local aristocratic privileges most of the Founders wanted in their own states; many of the 'anti-Federalists' boycotted the Convention, though, so the remaining delegates gave the Feds various commercial powers and powers over state militias. Later on, various Court rulings modified the original intent of many of the clauses, which is why we have the confusion these days. The 'Anti-Federalists' later elected Thomas Jefferson, for instance. The depressed economy brought much of it to a head, on both 'sides', since the Articles were a failure and going nowhere fast. Some wanted the 'Bill of Rights' included in the body of the Constitution, others didn't, so Madison organized compromises agreeing to make them separate Amendments, the only way to reach a consensus on them, and many other clauses elsewhere. Go through many state's histories and you finds all kinds of laws and cases restricting firearms rights, and of course another example is the many states who kept their state approved religious sects intact.

Anybody who wants a good book on the reasons for much of what was responsible for many of the clauses that went into the Constitution can get a copy of this one:

The Forging of the Union, 1781-1789 by Richard B. Morris

It follows the historical timelines and the like in detail, like the MT. Vernon Conference between Virginia and Maryland, for example, and the political fallout of the above mentioned Shay's Rebellion and the private army that had to be hired to put it down, even though it attacked the Federal Springfield Armory, and the Federal troops backed off. It gives a great insight into the existential political realities, economics, and mental states of many of those calling for and attending the 1787 Convention.

The point being is that "We, the People" empower the Federal government with certain powers, but those powers don't include taking away our own rights. At worst, it empowers the government to resolve disputes between two or more people's rights. The whole "right to swing one's fist" idea.

But for most of our history it was the state legs that determined who 'We The People' who could vote, or bear arms for that matter, were. No way to hand wave that away, wonderful slogans or no.

Agreed on voting, but guns were a slightly different matter. Yes, some cities prevented people from walking around armed, but I don't recall any which banned people from having them in their houses.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. I don't care what the NRA has brainwashed you to believe, but NO. I thought Obama was going to take all your guns. Isn't that what was claimed? If they keep you stirred up, they sell more guns. That's all it amounts to.

LOL. Uh, no. No brainwashing. No, Obama wasn't going to take our guns, he was just going to reinstitute Clinton's gun ban and a few other restrictions. It would take another Democrat President and Congress a few years down the line to ban all guns from private ownership since the only way they can make this happen is in steps due to the Second Amendment.

Bullshit. Go to youtube and type in "Obama to take guns" there are literally hundreds of videos of RWNJs making that claim at least as far back as his first election. It's a gun nut staple.

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide who could own firearms, what form their militias took, etc., and many colonies and states did restrict ownership rights, so citing the Constitution or cherry-picking assorted 'Founders' opinions isn't going to help; they were all over the place, and their public opinions changed with the political winds of the moment, no different than politicians of any other era. There is no absolute Federal right to bear arms re original intent, regardless of what ideologues like to think. Just because one state or other allowed some prominent citizen or other to keep artillery in his barn doesn't mean every state did, or even allowed just anybody to in the state that did allow some people to.

Wrong....Heller defined the 2nd as applying to the states as well.....

The Right to bear arms existed long before the Constitution....it is an inalienable Right that no politician or judge can take away......they can use force to keep us from exercising that Right...but they have no legitimate authority to deny us that Right...

 

[2aguy]

No. I don't care what the NRA has brainwashed you to believe, but NO. I thought Obama was going to take all your guns. Isn't that what was claimed? If they keep you stirred up, they sell more guns. That's all it amounts to.

LOL. Uh, no. No brainwashing. No, Obama wasn't going to take our guns, he was just going to reinstitute Clinton's gun ban and a few other restrictions. It would take another Democrat President and Congress a few years down the line to ban all guns from private ownership since the only way they can make this happen is in steps due to the Second Amendment.

Bullshit. Go to youtube and type in "Obama to take guns" there are literally hundreds of videos of RWNJs making that claim at least as far back as his first election. It's a gun nut staple.

....he did, he is doing it with judges......he appointed the lower court federal judges who are making guns illegal...the 4th Circuit court of appeals just declared that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect military weapons......in direct contradiction of rulings from the Supreme Court...and it did this with obama appointed judges....

He knew that he needed democrats in congress to pass obamacare, and he didn't want to jeopordize losing votes over gun control votes....the way bill clinton did during his Presidency....so he took the back door route, and the harder one to fight....he packed the federal bench with anti gun judges....that is why you have so many anti gun rulings at the appeals court level, despite rulings from the Supreme Court that say they can't do what they are doing....Heller, Macdonald, Miller, Caetano.......and they still do it....because he didn't appoint judges, he appointed left wing activists......

 

[2aguy]

the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbook

Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.

Nice job backpedaling, but then you stepped in it again. The fact remains the anti-gun mob of the LW are like you; seeking to ban guns from common people, if not completely, then for the slightest of reasons. OTOH, you staunchly support your right to advocating depriving rights from others because you have "free speech".

No back pedaling at all. I stand firmly by everything I have said. If a person has been declared incompetent, for any reason, he should not have a gun without proving to the court that he has a valid reason. On the other hand, if they are merely denying gun ownership to those that make the occasional mistake in their checkbook, as you claim, I'll need some proof that is the case.

You've seen the evidence. You've seen how the anti-gun mob keeps reaching and reaching. It used to be "we just need sensible gun laws" and many Americans agreed, but when the anti-gun mob took a mile for every inch given, a bond of trust was broken. Now we see the anti-gunners want to deny forever anyone who has ever had a mental medical issue.

No. I don't care what the NRA has brainwashed you to believe, but NO. I thought Obama was going to take all your guns. Isn't that what was claimed? If they keep you stirred up, they sell more guns. That's all it amounts to.

Did you see the rulings from the 9th circuit...from the 4th circuit.......with obama appointed anti gun judges......the 4th just ruled that military guns are not protected by the second amendment...and guess what...every single type of gun was at one point a military gun....bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns, lever action rifles, semi auto pistols, and even 6 shot revolvers....in complete contradiction to the findings in the Supreme Court cases of Heller, Macdonald, Miller and Caetano....so obama is attacking gun rights even after leaving office...because of the anti gun judges he used to fill the federal bench......