The downside of carrying a firearm...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is being contested is your incorrect position that simply because someone has been diagnosed with a particular mental illness, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

Not diagnosed with a particular illness.

Taking particular drugs.

What is being contested, then, is your incorrect position that simply because someone is taking particular drugs, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can do things which forfeit your rights.

You can use controlled substances = no gun per GCA.

Add these drugs to controlled substances.

Done,

All of those things require a judge to rule that the state made its case. You want to take that away from the judges and reserve it for yourself.

It just requires a check mark on 4473 ?

This 4473? The one that asks if you have ever been adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution? And then defines both of those as having been determined by a court? And then further states that, if that determination was set aside that you can still own a firearm? Is that what you are talking about in an attempt to prove I don't know what I am talking about?

 

[OODA_Loop]

LEt me think.

She was awarded the house because she managed to prove that her husband emotionally abused her, and her children, for years. She filed numerous complaints that he wasn't paying child support, or anything else, so she had financial problems on top of the emotional ones that come about after years of torture. The government, despite the beliefs of idiots that it can fix everything, was powerless to enforce even the most basic orders that they handed down.

You are right, it has to be the gun, nothing else could possibly be at fault.

1000's of nasty divorces don't end with killing children.

The change of brain chemistry make thoughts and rationale to do so seem justified.

First, you have no evidence she was taking any drugs. Second, unless you can prove that every other nasty divorce that ended like this involved involved drugs, which would require a time machine so that the drugs could be sent back through time to the people that did this before these drugs existed, all you are doing is making my point for me.

If she was taking drugs, and the indications fit, under my plan she wouldn't have the gun to kill her kids or you or your kids.

Win.

 

[OODA_Loop]

All of those things require a judge to rule that the state made its case. You want to take that away from the judges and reserve it for yourself.

It just requires a check mark on 4473 ?

This 4473? The one that asks if you have ever been adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution? And then defines both of those as having been determined by a court? And then further states that, if that determination was set aside that you can still own a firearm? Is that what you are talking about in an attempt to prove I don't know what I am talking about?

With drug use and check mark = no gun.

No adjudication required = my point.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What is being contested is your incorrect position that simply because someone has been diagnosed with a particular mental illness, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

Not diagnosed with a particular illness.

Taking particular drugs.

What is being contested, then, is your incorrect position that simply because someone is taking particular drugs, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

Why not ? Other drug use will do that ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1000's of nasty divorces don't end with killing children.

The change of brain chemistry make thoughts and rationale to do so seem justified.

First, you have no evidence she was taking any drugs. Second, unless you can prove that every other nasty divorce that ended like this involved involved drugs, which would require a time machine so that the drugs could be sent back through time to the people that did this before these drugs existed, all you are doing is making my point for me.

If she was taking drugs, and the indications fit, under my plan she wouldn't have the gun to kill her kids or you or your kids.

Win.

She would, however, still have a car, and knives, and an entire house full of dangerous chemicals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It just requires a check mark on 4473 ?

This 4473? The one that asks if you have ever been adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution? And then defines both of those as having been determined by a court? And then further states that, if that determination was set aside that you can still own a firearm? Is that what you are talking about in an attempt to prove I don't know what I am talking about?

With drug use and check mark = no gun.

No adjudication required = my point.

Actually, that is my point, you want to take away people rights based on your inability to prove that the drugs are dangerous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not diagnosed with a particular illness.

Taking particular drugs.

What is being contested, then, is your incorrect position that simply because someone is taking particular drugs, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

Why not ? Other drug use will do that ?

No it will not. In order to be denied a gun you have to be convicted of a felony, and even that doesn't automatically strip you of the right to own a gun.

 

[OODA_Loop]

First, you have no evidence she was taking any drugs. Second, unless you can prove that every other nasty divorce that ended like this involved involved drugs, which would require a time machine so that the drugs could be sent back through time to the people that did this before these drugs existed, all you are doing is making my point for me.

If she was taking drugs, and the indications fit, under my plan she wouldn't have the gun to kill her kids or you or your kids.

Win.

She would, however, still have a car, and knives, and an entire house full of dangerous chemicals.

Can't stop everything.

I'll take my chance against her with dangerous chemicals.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ownership and the effective use of a firearm in defense of your life or the life of another in your immediate presence is an alienable right of every individual.

Even the Europeans... despite their having turned from their natural rights.

That someone is sick and 'shouldn't have a gun' is between them and the individual who is threatened by such. No matter how ya cut this, whoever the individual is, their interests would be well served where they have taken seriously their responsibility to arm themselves and to become proficient in the use of that (those) firearm(s).

It amuses me to no end, to watch people cry about how dangerous people are so willing to harm others because those people are an inconvenience to them, even as they demand that we disarm ourselves, to our own detriment, to make them feel better about themselves. (See any traits that look familiar in that advocacy?)

 

[OODA_Loop]

What is being contested, then, is your incorrect position that simply because someone is taking particular drugs, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

Why not ? Other drug use will do that ?

No it will not.

Sure it will.

Check you are user of certain drugs on the 4473 and come home empty handed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It just requires a check mark on 4473 ?

This 4473? The one that asks if you have ever been adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution? And then defines both of those as having been determined by a court? And then further states that, if that determination was set aside that you can still own a firearm? Is that what you are talking about in an attempt to prove I don't know what I am talking about?

With drug use and check mark = no gun.

No adjudication required = my point.

Incorrect.

You’re still not understanding.

It doesn’t make any difference whether one answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to question 11 f on the 4473.

When the FFL runs the background check through the database, that the buyer was adjudicated mentally ill or incompetent will show up in the search, and the FFL will be told the buyer isn’t eligible to purchase a firearm.

The record of mental illness may be placed in the database only after due process has been exhausted.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What is being contested, then, is your incorrect position that simply because someone is taking particular drugs, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

Why not ? Other drug use will do that ?

No it will not. In order to be denied a gun you have to be convicted of a felony, and even that doesn't automatically strip you of the right to own a gun.

- Or dishonorably discharged from military
- User of certain drugs
- Restraining order
- Misdemeanor of domestic violence
- Renounced Citizenship

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If she was taking drugs, and the indications fit, under my plan she wouldn't have the gun to kill her kids or you or your kids.

Win.

She would, however, still have a car, and knives, and an entire house full of dangerous chemicals.

Can't stop everything.

I'll take my chance against her with dangerous chemicals.

Yes, because chlorine and hydrazine are so much less dangerous than guns.

 

[OODA_Loop]

This 4473? The one that asks if you have ever been adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution? And then defines both of those as having been determined by a court? And then further states that, if that determination was set aside that you can still own a firearm? Is that what you are talking about in an attempt to prove I don't know what I am talking about?

With drug use and check mark = no gun.

No adjudication required = my point.

Incorrect.

You’re still not understanding.

It doesn’t make any difference whether one answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to question 11 f on the 4473.

When the FFL runs the background check through the database, that the buyer was adjudicated mentally ill or incompetent will show up in the search, and the FFL will be told the buyer isn’t eligible to purchase a firearm.

The record of mental illness may be placed in the database only after due process has been exhausted.

You have the wrong question.

11e

 

[OODA_Loop]

She would, however, still have a car, and knives, and an entire house full of dangerous chemicals.

Can't stop everything.

I'll take my chance against her with dangerous chemicals.

Yes, because chlorine and hydrazine are so much less dangerous than guns.

When chlorine and hydrazine become and issue we can tighten those up to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why not ? Other drug use will do that ?

No it will not.

Sure it will.

Check you are user of certain drugs on the 4473 and come home empty handed.

The one that asks about stimulants and depressants?

Problem solved.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No it will not.

Sure it will.

Check you are user of certain drugs on the 4473 and come home empty handed.

The one that asks about stimulants and depressants?

Problem solved.

Yep add the reuptake inhibitors to that list.

Solve-o el problemo

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can't stop everything.

I'll take my chance against her with dangerous chemicals.

Yes, because chlorine and hydrazine are so much less dangerous than guns.

When chlorine and hydrazine become and issue we can tighten those up to.

The only issue right now is your pathetic attempt to use fake science to justify your crusade against people who seek help.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes, because chlorine and hydrazine are so much less dangerous than guns.

When chlorine and hydrazine become and issue we can tighten those up to.

The only issue right now is your pathetic attempt to use fake science to justify your crusade against people who seek help.

People who need help.

Don't need guns.