why mental health checks for guns can't pass muster....

[PaintMyHouse]

Kissing bugs and rats fleas are also a concern

Tell us, if you could ban deadly bugs, would you?

I am unable to tell you that, my heart does not bleed

It will when a bullet enters...

 

[OldLady]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

how does keeping his gun stop his impulsive behavior?

?

 

[Rustic]

No more deflections/?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No more deflections/?

There never were any by me, Mr. hairdryers kill people too...

 

[OldLady]

I think I have finally figured out what a troll is. I saw it here, clearly, for the first time.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

It seems almost impossible to have a half-way intelligent discussion of opinions on guns without having it shit all over by playground dimwits. Sad that 2AGuy is about the only coherent messenger you've got most of the time. You aren't as impressive as you think.

But carry on, young Trumpsters.

 

[jc456]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

how does keeping his gun stop his impulsive behavior?

?

?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

If the state does not return the firearms of someone legally able to own them, the state the violates the rights of that person.
How can you possibly disagree?

 

[OldLady]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

If the state does not return the firearms of someone legally able to own them, the state the violates the rights of that person.
How can you possibly disagree?

Right now, it is against the law for him to own firearms forever because of the DV charge. That is what is being challenged in the SC.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

The law is the only thing that matters. Opinions don't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So rather than speed up the mental health background checks.....you insist that we have none?

Same with criminal background checks I suppose?

And do you even bother with locks on your doors? Even bother to lock the doors on your car? Because you know those can be circumvented.

Criminals will be criminals that's why they are called criminals no Amount of new laws will change that.dumbass

So....why do you lock your doors?

Don't need to, I live in north western South Dakota. I don't even know if I have a key to my home doors haven't locked them in years...

That's great, S. Dakota residents don't need guns if what you say is true. Sadly, S. Dakota isn't NY or CA or any other state in our nation. Thus, let's toss out Heller and allow we the people in each state and each city / county to decide on who can and who cannot own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, how it must be stored and the type of firearm legally possessed.

How is gun control different than laws in general? Aren't all laws an effort to control behavior? Using Hitler in this manner is both dishonest and a deflection from the real argument for gun controls - the costs in terms of blood and treasure on our economy

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Criminals will be criminals that's why they are called criminals no Amount of new laws will change that.dumbass

So....why do you lock your doors?

Don't need to, I live in north western South Dakota. I don't even know if I have a key to my home doors haven't locked them in years...

That's great, S. Dakota residents don't need guns if what you say is true. Sadly, S. Dakota isn't NY or CA or any other state in our nation. Thus, let's toss out Heller and allow we the people in each state and each city / county to decide on who can and who cannot own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, how it must be stored and the type of firearm legally possessed.

How is gun control different than laws in general? Aren't all laws an effort to control behavior? Using Hitler in this manner is both dishonest and a deflection from the real argument for gun controls - the costs in terms of blood and treasure on our economy

Gun control laws are unconstitutional. Therein lie the defeat of your logic.

 

[2aguy]

Great, even more lies. Do you think the Founders were big fans of a heavily armed British Army?

no, they didn't, but they knew they needed at least as much firepower and smarts to win. And looky looky who won!!!! Wow, the underdog. The 75 pounder against the 300 pounder.

The trained officer versus the stupid criminal. No shock really.

which proves all the training in the world guarantees you nothing.

Which proves good training is a huge advantage but small women and big men will never be equal.

Except with guns. A well placed 9 mm or .45 will work wonders for the biggest man........and bad hits on a small woman will allow her to keep fighting....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Great, even more lies. Do you think the Founders were big fans of a heavily armed British Army?

no, they didn't, but they knew they needed at least as much firepower and smarts to win. And looky looky who won!!!! Wow, the underdog. The 75 pounder against the 300 pounder.

The trained officer versus the stupid criminal. No shock really.

which proves all the training in the world guarantees you nothing.

Which proves good training is a huge advantage but small women and big men will never be equal.

Except with guns. A well placed 9 mm or .45 will work wonders for the biggest man........and bad hits on a small woman will allow her to keep fighting....

Still never equal.

 

[2aguy]

Criminals will be criminals that's why they are called criminals no Amount of new laws will change that.dumbass

So....why do you lock your doors?

Don't need to, I live in north western South Dakota. I don't even know if I have a key to my home doors haven't locked them in years...

That's great, S. Dakota residents don't need guns if what you say is true. Sadly, S. Dakota isn't NY or CA or any other state in our nation. Thus, let's toss out Heller and allow we the people in each state and each city / county to decide on who can and who cannot own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, how it must be stored and the type of firearm legally possessed.

How is gun control different than laws in general? Aren't all laws an effort to control behavior? Using Hitler in this manner is both dishonest and a deflection from the real argument for gun controls - the costs in terms of blood and treasure on our economy

Yes....but what you guys fail to understand is that a law defines behavior you can do...and if you don't then you get punished.....licensing gun owners...and turning them into felons if they don't....and registering guns....which you can't make criminals do anyway according to Hayes v. United States, and then making it a felony...turns normal people who don't commit crimes into felons over a paper work problem......

And since criminals don't do paperwork those laws do not affect them....


You guys are either really stupid....or dishonest...likely both...

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

How do you determine that....what his soon to be ex wife says...? Or how about the ex husband accusing the wife of this? Who makes the decision to take away the right and what criteria are used....does a war Vet with insomnia need to have his guns taken away....? How about someone who is seeing a grief counselor...?

Should your General Practitioner be allowed to make that call? Or only trained psychiatric professionals? and do you need more than one opinion before you strip someone of their right?

 

[OldLady]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

The law is the only thing that matters. Opinions don't.

Your answer is bullshit. You have plenty of opinions about laws in this country, including those that limit the rights of gun owners.

 

[2aguy]

Criminals will be criminals that's why they are called criminals no Amount of new laws will change that.dumbass

So....why do you lock your doors?

Don't need to, I live in north western South Dakota. I don't even know if I have a key to my home doors haven't locked them in years...

That's great, S. Dakota residents don't need guns if what you say is true. Sadly, S. Dakota isn't NY or CA or any other state in our nation. Thus, let's toss out Heller and allow we the people in each state and each city / county to decide on who can and who cannot own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, how it must be stored and the type of firearm legally possessed.

How is gun control different than laws in general? Aren't all laws an effort to control behavior? Using Hitler in this manner is both dishonest and a deflection from the real argument for gun controls - the costs in terms of blood and treasure on our economy

Wrong...hitler is one reason that we have the Right to keep arms and carry them.........the Germans gave up that right to the Weimar Government...they registered their guns because they "didn't need them," and the police "would protect them." 20 years later the nazis used the registration lists to disarm their enemies and the Jews...and marched them and other unarmed Europeans into gas chambers...so no...it is completely relevant....

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

The law is the only thing that matters. Opinions don't.

Your answer is bullshit. You have plenty of opinions about laws in this country, including those that limit the rights of gun owners.

In my opion Hillary Clinton committed dozens of felonies...should she be arrested and charged, now?

 

[OldLady]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

How do you determine that....what his soon to be ex wife says...? Or how about the ex husband accusing the wife of this? Who makes the decision to take away the right and what criteria are used....does a war Vet with insomnia need to have his guns taken away....? How about someone who is seeing a grief counselor...?

Should your General Practitioner be allowed to make that call? Or only trained psychiatric professionals? and do you need more than one opinion before you strip someone of their right?

(1) The courts determined he was guilty of domestic violence (misdemeanor not felony) and the law took away his right to own firearms forever. From the puzzled reaction from some of you, I'm wondering if it is a state law rather than a federal law that people with a DV conviction are forbidden to own guns. I know it's automatic in my state.
(2) Your other questions are very relevant--it shows the very messy and subjective gray area we enter when trying to determine a gun buyer's mental health. I don't know the answer.
Do YOU think this guy should get his guns back? It will be interesting to see what the SC decides.

 

[OldLady]

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of two men denied ownership of guns because of domestic violence misdemeanors. One of the men, who was convicted over 10 years ago for the DV, has gone on to be arrested for various things, including probation violations, DUI, and illegally possessing five guns. Their argument is that a misdemeanor isn't serious enough to take away a person's 2nd amendment rights.
Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?

What does the law say?
Since I know you don't know, I'll give you plenty of time to look it up.

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?
I didn't ask what the law says. I asked what YOUR opinion is.

The law is the only thing that matters. Opinions don't.

Your answer is bullshit. You have plenty of opinions about laws in this country, including those that limit the rights of gun owners.

In my opion Hillary Clinton committed dozens of felonies...should she be arrested and charged, now?

Do you agree that a man as obviously impulsive and willing to break the law should be given his guns back?