There is no catastrophe so ghastly that we will reform our gun laws

[rightwinger]

IMO it's not my business if someone wants to commit suicide.



True but you don't suspend a person's license because someone else drives drunk.
You don't suspend someone's license if they were in rehab.




We disagree on this point but let's focus on the restriction of the rights of others because a third party commits suicide or a crime.

If a loved one is suicidal, it is none of your business?

In the strictest sense no it is not. It certainly is none of my business if someone I don't know wants to commit suicide.

Nobody is suggesting that your gun rights be suspended if you are not under psychiatric care, taking certain medications or suffering from depression
Those that are have no reason to be anywhere near a gun

And just how pray tell do you determine who is suicidal or taking meds or under psychiatric care?

And what about people who are depressed and not under psychiatric care

The whole argument here is that because some people are nuts that other people have to comply to restrictions and some of you sheep are calling for the ban of guns for these reasons.

That is the general idea

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

 

[hunarcy]

That is the general idea

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

Shouldn't the "general idea" be to identify the people who are "nuts" and get them into a medical setting so they can get the help they need? Pretty heartless to just abandon them to their mental illness.

 

[martybegan]

If a loved one is suicidal, it is none of your business?

In the strictest sense no it is not. It certainly is none of my business if someone I don't know wants to commit suicide.

Nobody is suggesting that your gun rights be suspended if you are not under psychiatric care, taking certain medications or suffering from depression
Those that are have no reason to be anywhere near a gun

And just how pray tell do you determine who is suicidal or taking meds or under psychiatric care?

And what about people who are depressed and not under psychiatric care

The whole argument here is that because some people are nuts that other people have to comply to restrictions and some of you sheep are calling for the ban of guns for these reasons.

That is the general idea

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

But the laws that people propose and the laws enforced in places like NYC do nothing of the sort. They make a handgun license $340 to prevent anyone from getting one, not just mentally unfit people. They propose waiting periods to prevent anyone from getting a gun when they want one, not just mentally unfit people. They propose mag restrictions, firearm type restrictions, and other bullshit on EVERYONE, not just mentally unfit people.

We are too used to gun controllers lying and cheating to trust them to simply go after the mentally unfit and leave the rest alone. Start by repealing all the bullshit laws first, and then maybe we will trust you to add new ones.

 

[RKMBrown]

If a loved one is suicidal, it is none of your business?

In the strictest sense no it is not. It certainly is none of my business if someone I don't know wants to commit suicide.

Nobody is suggesting that your gun rights be suspended if you are not under psychiatric care, taking certain medications or suffering from depression
Those that are have no reason to be anywhere near a gun

And just how pray tell do you determine who is suicidal or taking meds or under psychiatric care?

And what about people who are depressed and not under psychiatric care

The whole argument here is that because some people are nuts that other people have to comply to restrictions and some of you sheep are calling for the ban of guns for these reasons.

That is the general idea

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

I've got no problem with making it illegal to own or posses a firearm for certain citizens that have been identified as a risk to society based on being a convicted violent felon. I don't see a problem with temporary limits such as when someone is drunk or on medications that may cause the citizen to loose their faculties, or if it is determined that the person is a serious risk to others, such as being mentally handicapped or significantly mentally impaired.

Course to me all libs are mentally handicapped so that might not work so well.

 

[Mephisto]

You can't drive a car off the lot unless it's registered or has a dealer plate which carries it's own insurance. You can buy the car before you have insurance for it you cannot drive the car [/B]unless it is registered and you cannot register a car without insurance.

Thanks for proving me right...insurance is a restriction on owning a car.

Not for OWNING a car for DRIVING a car

There is a difference.

I can walk down to the dealer pay for a car in cash on the spot. I now own the car even if it's not insured. I could then tow that car to my home put in in my garage and never insure or register it but I still own it.

good, then let's use your logic. You can OWN a firearm, but not SHOOT it until you have teh proper paper work

 

[kaz]

Depends

People who are in treatment and are deemed unstable should not have access to guns. Those on certain medications should not have access. Those suffering from depression or PTSD should not have access

If that applies to you ....then yes, your rights should be further restricted

Nice equivocation.

BTW none of those things apply to me and I would venture they don't apply to most people.

Then you have no reason to complain if we try to restrict gun access to those who are suicidal or mentally unstable

It's the typical liberals solution, deal with the symptom not the disease. Why is someone that mentally ill on the street? Why would someone be well enough to be on the street but too sick to be eligible for their Constitutional rights?

 

[martybegan]

[/B]

Thanks for proving me right...insurance is a restriction on owning a car.

Not for OWNING a car for DRIVING a car

There is a difference.

I can walk down to the dealer pay for a car in cash on the spot. I now own the car even if it's not insured. I could then tow that car to my home put in in my garage and never insure or register it but I still own it.

good, then let's use your logic. You can OWN a firearm, but not SHOOT it until you have teh proper paper work

If you improperly fire the weapon you can be punished, just as you can be punished for improperly driving, however you are not prevented from owning the car JUST BECAUSE you MAY use the car the wrong way.

 

[rightwinger]

In the strictest sense no it is not. It certainly is none of my business if someone I don't know wants to commit suicide.



And just how pray tell do you determine who is suicidal or taking meds or under psychiatric care?

And what about people who are depressed and not under psychiatric care

The whole argument here is that because some people are nuts that other people have to comply to restrictions and some of you sheep are calling for the ban of guns for these reasons.

That is the general idea

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

I've got no problem with making it illegal to own or posses a firearm for certain citizens that have been identified as a risk to society based on being a convicted violent felon. I don't see a problem with temporary limits such as when someone is drunk or on medications that may cause the citizen to loose their faculties, or if it is determined that the person is a serious risk to others, such as being mentally handicapped or significantly mentally impaired.

Course to me all libs are mentally handicapped so that might not work so well.

I worked with two people that committed suicide. One was completely out of the blue and the other guy we knew had problems.

I don't know the details of his condition, but I know he was on some type of psychotic medication. Because of his meds he was not allowed to drive and rode a bike everywhere. For the most part, he was a good worker and very bright. Some days he would be a little off his meds and would act strangely.
One day he stopped showing up for work and a few weeks later we heard he had shot himself. He was not allowed to drive a car but nothing stopped him from owning a gun

 

[kaz]

I've got no problem with making it illegal to own or posses a firearm for certain citizens that have been identified as a risk to society based on being a convicted violent felon

Yes, your Contitutional rights can be restricted with ... due process of law. A convicted felon had their rights removed by definition with due process. The problem with this is that a convicted felon trying to buy a gun should have their asses thrown back in jail. But the liberals don't want to do that either. That isn't really their concern, it's about doing everything they can to limit all sales.

I don't see a problem with temporary limits such as when someone is drunk or on medications that may cause the citizen to loose their faculties, or if it is determined that the person is a serious risk to others, such as being mentally handicapped or significantly mentally impaired.

Well, that should come back to personal responsibility and due process. Drinking should not be a defense for shooting someone, but I'm not sure how you say their right to a gun is removed when they are drinking. As for mentally handicapped or impaired, again it needs to come back to due process. It needs to be restricted in court, not by the legislature.

Course to me all libs are mentally handicapped so that might not work so well.

Apparently they are also obsessed with shooting people. At least that's what they keep telling us.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

So many fibs, so little time.

California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns | Crime | FresnoBee.com

Gun Confiscation Underway in New York - Katie Pavlich!

 

[Skull Pilot]

[/B]

Thanks for proving me right...insurance is a restriction on owning a car.

Not for OWNING a car for DRIVING a car

There is a difference.

I can walk down to the dealer pay for a car in cash on the spot. I now own the car even if it's not insured. I could then tow that car to my home put in in my garage and never insure or register it but I still own it.

good, then let's use your logic. You can OWN a firearm, but not SHOOT it until you have teh proper paper work

What you don't seem to understand is that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to shoot a firearm only to keep and bear a firearm.

My Concealed carry permit allows me to carry a weapon but not to shoot it. In fact I have to carry it in such a fashion that it is undetectable and if someone sees the firearm I am carrying I can lose my permit.

Every time a weapon is fired the person who discharged that weapon has to justify his actions.

If I drew my weapon and fired at a guy who was kicking the shit out of you and I missed I could lose my permit. If I fired and accidentally shot you or another bystander I could be brought up on charges lose my permit and serve time.

So you see I will never draw and fire my weapon in defense of someone else other than my wife.

If I see you getting the shit kicked out of you I'll call the cops for you

 

[rightwinger]

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

So many fibs, so little time.

California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns | Crime | FresnoBee.com

Gun Confiscation Underway in New York - Katie Pavlich!

Neither one of those has anything to do with the access of crazies to guns

 

[RKMBrown]

That is the general idea

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

I've got no problem with making it illegal to own or posses a firearm for certain citizens that have been identified as a risk to society based on being a convicted violent felon. I don't see a problem with temporary limits such as when someone is drunk or on medications that may cause the citizen to loose their faculties, or if it is determined that the person is a serious risk to others, such as being mentally handicapped or significantly mentally impaired.

Course to me all libs are mentally handicapped so that might not work so well.

I worked with two people that committed suicide. One was completely out of the blue and the other guy we knew had problems.

I don't know the details of his condition, but I know he was on some type of psychotic medication. Because of his meds he was not allowed to drive and rode a bike everywhere. For the most part, he was a good worker and very bright. Some days he would be a little off his meds and would act strangely.
One day he stopped showing up for work and a few weeks later we heard he had shot himself. He was not allowed to drive a car but nothing stopped him from owning a gun

Yeah. Even though I don't think there is even a remote possibility you could stop that guy from getting a gun and killing himself. I do get why it would make everyone feel better if we at least made it illegal for people on suicide watch to have access to a gun, sort of like pretending we are stopping him from driving by taking his license away. Course he could still just pick up some keys and drive, the law can't stop people from doing bad things, it can only make it illegal.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've got no problem with making it illegal to own or posses a firearm for certain citizens that have been identified as a risk to society based on being a convicted violent felon

Yes, your Contitutional rights can be restricted with ... due process of law. A convicted felon had their rights removed by definition with due process. The problem with this is that a convicted felon trying to buy a gun should have their asses thrown back in jail. But the liberals don't want to do that either. That isn't really their concern, it's about doing everything they can to limit all sales.

I don't see a problem with temporary limits such as when someone is drunk or on medications that may cause the citizen to loose their faculties, or if it is determined that the person is a serious risk to others, such as being mentally handicapped or significantly mentally impaired.

Well, that should come back to personal responsibility and due process. Drinking should not be a defense for shooting someone, but I'm not sure how you say their right to a gun is removed when they are drinking. As for mentally handicapped or impaired, again it needs to come back to due process. It needs to be restricted in court, not by the legislature.

Course to me all libs are mentally handicapped so that might not work so well.

Apparently they are also obsessed with shooting people. At least that's what they keep telling us.

Well it's illegal to drive on public road when drunk right? I've got no problem with coming up with laws that make the left feel like they are doing something. Why not a law against using / carrying / owning a gun when you are seriously mentally incapacitated, certifiably insane etc.? Isn't that why mentally unstable people are put in straight jackets? We put these people on the street and let them own guns? I see no reason to defend the right of the certifiably insane to carry weapons.

 

[Nosmo King]

But no one can deny that speed limits save lives, food inspections make our food supply safer and limiting emissions made our air measurably cleaner.

No one can deny that outlawing controlled substances has nearly eliminated drug abuse in our land.

At least that's something we all agree upon. Right?

I wonder why you seem to be able to write, but cannot read. If you had cut and pasted the entire post rather. Than cherry pick one sentence, your ham handed response would appear silly rather than worthy of thanks from your fellow dullards.

 

[kaz]

I've got no problem with making it illegal to own or posses a firearm for certain citizens that have been identified as a risk to society based on being a convicted violent felon

Yes, your Contitutional rights can be restricted with ... due process of law. A convicted felon had their rights removed by definition with due process. The problem with this is that a convicted felon trying to buy a gun should have their asses thrown back in jail. But the liberals don't want to do that either. That isn't really their concern, it's about doing everything they can to limit all sales.


Well, that should come back to personal responsibility and due process. Drinking should not be a defense for shooting someone, but I'm not sure how you say their right to a gun is removed when they are drinking. As for mentally handicapped or impaired, again it needs to come back to due process. It needs to be restricted in court, not by the legislature.

Course to me all libs are mentally handicapped so that might not work so well.

Apparently they are also obsessed with shooting people. At least that's what they keep telling us.

Well it's illegal to drive on public road when drunk right? I've got no problem with coming up with laws that make the left feel like they are doing something. Why not a law against using / carrying / owning a gun when you are seriously mentally incapacitated, certifiably insane etc.? Isn't that why mentally unstable people are put in straight jackets? We put these people on the street and let them own guns? I see no reason to defend the right of the certifiably insane to carry weapons.

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not. You're using legally ambiguous terms like "certifiably insane." I'm saying rights can be removed only with due process of law. So I would say rights can be restricted when you are "certified" insane, not certifiable. Are you saying different? I'm not clear.

Automobiles are a privilege, we ceded the right to create roads to the government, with that goes regulating their use. Safety, licenses, all go with that. Guns are a "right." Can free speech be limited because you're gassed?

I am also saying that you have a gun, you have a drink, you made the choice to drink, you are responsible for what you do, drinking is not a defense.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you lefties seem to think that events that show the world is more and more unsafe is going to make people more likely to abdicate their right to defend themselves to the government?

If anything the more these events happen the more it's going to demonstrate we can't rely on the government to keep us and safe and thus need to be able to defend ourselves.

 

[Contumacious]

If some people are nuts we have to keep them away from firearms. The rest, we leave alone

So many fibs, so little time.

California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns | Crime | FresnoBee.com

Gun Confiscation Underway in New York - Katie Pavlich!

Neither one of those has anything to do with the access of crazies to guns

I agree with you.

Gun Laws must be reformed, to wit

1- abolish ALL GUN FREE ZONES

2- Abolish all federal , state, county , municipal, tribal laws concerning gun ownership.

Yep, that's the ticket.

.

 

[kaz]

Why do you lefties seem to think that events that show the world is more and more unsafe is going to make people more likely to abdicate their right to defend themselves to the government?

If anything the more these events happen the more it's going to demonstrate we can't rely on the government to keep us and safe and thus need to be able to defend ourselves.

Yes, the OP is committing a logical fallacy called begging the question. He assumed the truth of his own position that gun laws reduce gun violence. We believe people should be able to defend themselves. The facts in the cases of all the massacres support that approach.

A better question for the OP is how many times do unarmed people need to be slaughtered before you will support allowing them to have a means to defend themselves?

 

[P@triot]

Guns are the answer to crime. Unfortunately, you libtards are too stupid to carry a gun and you keep fighting to create more victim zones in the U.S. Every single victim in the recent California shooting was unarmed. Every single one of them. That's why we are referring to them as "victims" today and in the past tense. This is so simple and obvious, even a 6-year old can figure it out. So why are you struggling?

And, as I already stated, you libtards won't put people in prison. So that's why that great solution isn't working. In fact, you fight to keep them out. Like when all you sick liberal fuck's were raping women at Occupy Wall Street and then demanding that the poor victims not report it to the police...

three of the victims were killed in their sleep. I'm not sure a gun would have done much good.

However, if you want to go there, in Tuscon, they have a "concealed carry" law, and not one person pulled out a gun to stop Loughner's rampage. One guy almost DID shoot one of the guys who wrestled Loughner to the ground, though.

FALSE (as is everything you say). It's true that Tucson does have concealed carry, but it was a largely liberal political rally (Gabby Giffords) and as such everyone there was unarmed (that is a fact). Those closest person who was armed heard the gun shots and came running but did not arrive until Loughner had already been taken to the ground (fact).

So you just proved yet again that more guns are the solution by citing a shooting in which nobody was armed except for the criminal. Thank you!