Only common sense gun confiscation.
Common sense gun control is every American in control of at least one gun.
Common sense gun control is every American in control of at least one gun.
There is no Common Sense Gun Control
- Thread starter SATRP
- Start date
- Status
Could such a law be designed to define you as having serious mental illness? Have you ever lost your temper? Maybe you shoudn't own guns if you're prone to losing your temper. f we can't trust you with a gun, why should we trust you with a 2 ton motor vehicle? Society would be more safe if you used public transportation.
But that wasn't the topic of my link, was it? So, benett, what's your agenda? Is it advocacy for incremental gun confiscation.
lmgunner13
Elite
The Bill of rights says "Shall not be infringed". Gun control is keeping your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
Wow now airsoft toys are considered firearms....
New York City is a real
y place!!!
When you see the officer's standing proudly over their bounty of kids toys I can't help but laugh....
When I was growing up in Massachusetts bb/pellet rifles & pistols were illegal for years without a gun license until the gun grabbers tried to ban paintball guns and it went to court to which the ruling was determined that paintball guns are not propelled by gun powder or any other explosive charge so they cannot be classified as firearms and the case was won by the paintballers with the added effect of lifting the restrictions on BB/Pellet guns.
New York City is a real
y place!!!When you see the officer's standing proudly over their bounty of kids toys I can't help but laugh....
When I was growing up in Massachusetts bb/pellet rifles & pistols were illegal for years without a gun license until the gun grabbers tried to ban paintball guns and it went to court to which the ruling was determined that paintball guns are not propelled by gun powder or any other explosive charge so they cannot be classified as firearms and the case was won by the paintballers with the added effect of lifting the restrictions on BB/Pellet guns.
Last edited:
Peglegjoe
Professional
What (or who) determines the definition of "mentally ill"? A medical doctor? A pissed off ex-spouse or a nosy neighbor (i.e. "red flag" laws)? Is the definition of "mentally ill" a "living" definition - i.e. one that can be changed at whim, to fit a situation that somebody doesn't like?
How about we focus on keeping guns away from CRIMINALS. That would be a spectacular starting point.
"Gun Control" is not preventative maintenance - someone could be extremely pissed off, but still not kill people with a gun. Anger does not equal homicide, and pre-emptively stealing law-abiding people's guns will not keep criminals from killing people.
Keep guns out of the hands of people who have used them to hurt or kill or rob other people already. Let's start there, and I bet that will fix just about all of this.
How about we focus on keeping guns away from CRIMINALS. That would be a spectacular starting point.
"Gun Control" is not preventative maintenance - someone could be extremely pissed off, but still not kill people with a gun. Anger does not equal homicide, and pre-emptively stealing law-abiding people's guns will not keep criminals from killing people.
Keep guns out of the hands of people who have used them to hurt or kill or rob other people already. Let's start there, and I bet that will fix just about all of this.
Merry Christmas Peglegjoe,
Thank you. You thoroughly comprehend the danger of legislating criteria necessary to retain natural rights.
Well, since my post posited a hypothetical law that was narrowly tailored to seriously mentally I'll people, let's say it accurately targets only them, and avoid bad faith rebuttals like "have you ever lost your temper". Would you support such a law? Can we agree someone like a bad case paranoid schizophrenic is likely to be dangerous with a gun if they're off their meds?
I'm asking because the point is commonly made that mass shootings and the like are mental health issues. Your post raised the question in my mind so I asked. It's not an "agenda."
I'm asking because the point is commonly made that mass shootings and the like are mental health issues. Your post raised the question in my mind so I asked. It's not an "agenda."
I choose that particular illness because a member of my extended family had it. He one day decided, in his crazy mind, his parents were plotting against him so he climbed onto their roof with a hunting rifle to kill them when they came outside. Thankfully some LEOs got him down safely. I'd say he should never be able to possess a gun of any kind. That seems pretty common sense to me.
Peglegjoe
Professional
No, we cannot agree on that.
There are countless cases of people 'going off their meds' and being 'angry'...and not killing a single person. Ever.
Again - "gun control" (or any sort of program like this) can NEVER be considered a preventative measure, because there's simply no way to tell what might happen. "What if", or "maybe", is no reason to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens at large.
For your case in point? That person, agreed, should not be allowed to possess a gun. But, not because they are "mentally ill", and not because they "might" do something dangerous. That individual should not be allowed to possess a gun because they DID do something dangerous.
Do you see the difference there?
Punishing an individual for an action that was taken, is one thing.
Punishing an entire population ("the mentally ill") on the potential that they could do something? Is another thing entirely.
We don't live in Minority Report - we don't punish people for crimes that have not been committed yet. (Hell, apparently nowadays we don't punish people for crimes they DO commit....).
Preventative maintenance is for your car...not for your legal system, or your rights as a citizen.
That is the an example of one of the absolute most horrendous logical fallacies posited in effort to expand gun confiscation. A population size of one with undisclosed facts presented as hearsay (unless you witnessed the incident, benstt, it's hearsay) as ruse to dupe the easily duped in to supporting a law lacking clearly defined boundaries.
benstt, I hope you're able to see how your proposed gun confiscation/Amendment II denial scheme could be used against you.
This subject is a tough one with no clear cut answer. On one hand I believe infringement of any kind is still infringement. On the other hand, are those that are deemed too dangerous/too mentally ill to own a firearm also a danger to society and in need of state supervision? Are denying 2A rights under these conditions a prohibition or punishment?
The person who said that Americans can be fooled in to shackling themselves was unfathomably intelligent and prescient.
benstt, how would you suppose the USA was transformed from the greatest country in the history of the world to a dandified Third World banana republic where elections are routinely rigged, coup d'état is commonly accepted, justice is bought and sold, and We the People are ruled as opposed to self-governed as was intended by our Founding Fathers?
benstt, how would you suppose the USA was transformed from the greatest country in the history of the world to a dandified Third World banana republic where elections are routinely rigged, coup d'état is commonly accepted, justice is bought and sold, and We the People are ruled as opposed to self-governed as was intended by our Founding Fathers?
You keep acting like this is some bill that's already been written, with your "lacking clearly defined boundaries comment." I've already told you, it's a hypothetical bill that has somehow been written to target only people like the one listed in my post above. It's. Not. Factual. My point in listing my family member was not the fallacy you think it is. It was my reason for picking a specific mental illness as an example for my hypothetical bill, not my reason for brigning up the hypothetical bill. Do you see the difference?
How would you see that "scheme" being used against me? Because limiting one specific set of mental illnesses is just a slippery slope to confiscating all guns? Now who's using a fallacious argument...
How about a person who has a documented history of psychotic breaks when he goes off his meds wherein he decides certain people are enemies and need to be killed. He hasn't taken any steps yet. Is that a person who should have a gun?
You overgeneralize with "the mentally ill." I said serious mental illnesses. Not to be confused with conditions like anxiety, depression, bipolar, etc.
I disagree with your assessment of the state of our nation so I'm not going to respond to your question.
Why are you thinking about a hypothetical bill that has potential for devastating infringements upon Amendment II?
TDS sufferers have imputed every DSM mental illness/behavioral disorder to President Trump.
To what extent do you want to expand the population of Americans who should be excluded from Amendment II rights.
90+ percent of all murders committed on Fri and Sat nights involve mostly alcohol and almost as much drugs. If you have a rap sheet for imbibing, should your Amendment II rights be denied to you? Do you have distilled spirits in your home? If so, you could be interpreted as a danger to society.. Therefore, governmental agents must confiscate your guns for the good of society.
Trusting politicians to legislate Amendment II rights (Per Article V of the US Constitution, no legislative body as constitutional authority to abridge any part of the US Constitution.) is like trusting Genrikh Yagoda with troikas.
Peglegjoe
Professional
So I ask again - who determines the definition of those terms? Who can change them? What process is required in order to change them? Who limits those changes? Who limits the overall scope of these restrictions and rules?
When and why is it OK to punish a citizen for a crime they have not committed?
Madonna says she wanted to blow up the White House - why isn't she in jail for that? That's the same thing, right? She hasn't committed the crime, but said she wanted to, so might as well punish her for it. That's the angle you're using here, saying "a(ny) seriously metally ill person should be restricted, whether they have actually hurt another person or not". Do you not see the problem there?
- Status