Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, we should strike a deal: psychological evaluations
That is the WORST idea EVER.
I'll tell you why.
1) The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution. You don't have to like it, but you can't argue the fact. If you want to try to debate that point, I suggest you examine the recent Supreme Court decision on DC v. Heller.
Now one can argue that "reasonable restrictions" can be placed on our Constitutional rights, and that's true. So it comes down to what's "reasonable." What you think is reasonable and what I think is reasonable are obviously two very different things. Which leads me to...
2) PSYCH EVALS ARE SUBJECTIVE. You can't take a blood sample to figure out whether someone will "snap" in the future. You can't test their knowledge and find out if they're qualified to become psychotic. You'd be putting YOUR Constitutional rights in the hands of doctors. Which leads me to...
3) Doctors are, generally speaking, very anti-gun. So what you want to do is put the fate of YOUR Constitutional right into the hands of a group of people that don't want you to have it, and give them the ability to deny it based purely on their own word about an evaluation that's purely subjective.
Um, no.
The litmus test for whether a restriction on a Constitutionally protected right is appropriate or not is to apply that same restriction to other Constitutionally protected rights. If you'd be ok with that same rule being applied to, say, your 1st or 4th Amendment rights, then it might be reasonable and further analysis might be warranted. If you wouldn't, then there's no need to give it any further consideration.
Someone can take an 1800s black powder single action revolver and kill 10+ people just as easily as an AR or any other semi-automatic firearm. The amount of ignorance on this thread is outstanding, but shouldn't surprise me that much. I find that these kinds of people usually have no knowledge of what they hate. The idea that the government can tell someone that they can only have 1 of something or none at all is frightening, and the fact that a large percentage of the population is okay with that is even more so. I seriously am afraid of the future that this country is going to have. We are screwed.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-02-2013 at 08:30 PM..
It's not as if anyone argues that guns get up by themselves and shoot people. Many of us just don't see a reason why so many people need to have the ability to kill people so easily and so MANY of them (as you can with a gun).
As most of us know, there was a recent attack in China on elementary school kids which left 22 wounded. If the guy had a gun, it would have been like Newton, CT. Sure, a knife can also kill (happened in China a few yrs ago), but in general, it takes longer and is harder (which would give others time to stop the attacker).
I really don't see why anyone, other than the cops and military, should have the ability to STOCK UP on guns and ammunition. Sure, I can see having a single gun if you live in a city/suburb if you're scared in your home and maybe a few if you live in a rural area....even in those scenarios, no one really needs to have a gun that can fire many times before re-loading. And only a tiny fraction of people need to be able to have like more than 10 bullets at any given time. I live in TX, a totally gun loving state, which was a bit of a culture shock. I see no reason why people I know should have multiple guns as a HOBBY.
Connecticut already has "assault weapons laws:
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d. The Newtown shooter was too young to legally purchase a handgun.
The school in Newtown CT was already a "gun-free" zone.
The shooter left his "assault rifle" in the car and used handguns, that were not his own, to shoot people. Technically he stole them from his mother (I am sure she did not grant him permission to use them for his intended purpose before he murdered her).
How many laws to you see broken here? Why would creating more laws make us any safer?
It's not as if anyone argues that guns get up by themselves and shoot people. Many of us just don't see a reason why so many people need to have the ability to kill people so easily and so MANY of them (as you can with a gun).
As most of us know, there was a recent attack in China on elementary school kids which left 22 wounded. If the guy had a gun, it would have been like Newton, CT. Sure, a knife can also kill (happened in China a few yrs ago), but in general, it takes longer and is harder (which would give others time to stop the attacker).
I really don't see why anyone, other than the cops and military, should have the ability to STOCK UP on guns and ammunition. Sure, I can see having a single gun if you live in a city/suburb if you're scared in your home and maybe a few if you live in a rural area....even in those scenarios, no one really needs to have a gun that can fire many times before re-loading. And only a tiny fraction of people need to be able to have like more than 10 bullets at any given time. I live in TX, a totally gun loving state, which was a bit of a culture shock. I see no reason why people I know should have multiple guns as a HOBBY.
Because it is a hobby. That's self evident. A warrior lifestyle is its own pursuit. Also:
Lol. Is that some sort of over compensation for certain...um...shortcomings? Like a red sportscar or a tricked up SUV?
Wouldn't expect anything less from a misanthropist. You hate everyone, so it comes as no surprise when you insult, attack and berate instead of debate honestly and logically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope
Whatever. Kiss your guns goodbye, Obama is indeed the man I hoped he was.
What he announced/ordered is meaningless fluff with virtually nothing that's actionable. It's a bunch of suggestions, and an ATF appointee. That's it. The President doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change laws in this country, and that's for a very good reason.
Of course, being that you're from Australia, I wouldn't actually expect you to know how our government works here, any more than you should expect me to know how the Australian government is set up. The difference between us is that I don't go around telling Australians what they should or shouldn't do, or that their government and their leaders are good or bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope
You should be proud of being American today.
I am, but not because of our current leadership. I'm proud IN SPITE OF our current leadership. In a few years, we'll be rid of this mistake and will finally be able to start repairing the damage that he's done to our great nation. We can only hope that he's kept from completely destroying the economy during that time.
You have been proved wrong. Gun bans do not work, and no ban will take affect in the USA. We stand up for what we believe in, and of all the polls i've seen, Americans believe in the 2nd amendment. We wont roll over like some other countries
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No high capacity magazines? No problem.
