Should concealed weapons be allowed on campus? (administration, guns, rifle)

[ParkTwain]

No PT - your suggestion is not only impractical but, unconstitutional as well IMO.

Check again about whether the Supreme Court has allowed the States to regulate the possession of guns. It's not cut and dried, is it? PROPAGANDA, again.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Check again about whether the Supreme Court has allowed the States to regulate guns. It's not cut and dried, is it?

"Regulate Guns"?

The Brady act is the controlling law PT.

You are spouting from emotion and not facts nor logic

For your agenda to be of any good - all 50 states would have to be in complete uniformity. I can GUARANTEE you, that will not happen

[ParkTwain]

Make up your mind what you want to talk about, the Constitution and the Supreme Court, or the Brady Act. I can't keep up with you. When you figure out your own argument, you let us all know.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Make up your mind what you want to talk about, the Constitution and the Supreme Court, or the Brady Act. I can't keep up with you. When you figure out your argument, you let us all know.

The 2nd Amendment - you try your mental health scheme, the courts would rule, IMO, it to be unconstitutional

Brady, requires background checks - the ONLY reason Brady has been allowed to stand according to the courts is its reasonableness to comply. Remember the old 3 day waiting period in the original Brady? Where did it go? Why?

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by Greatday

The 2nd Amendment - you try your mental health scheme, the courts would rule, IMO, it to be unconstitutional.

I suppose such a case would put on trial the legitimacy of those kinds of mental health diagnoses. Well, those diagnoses are sufficient to trigger other restrictions on the person (which school to attend, involuntary (short-term only) commitment to a mental health facility, who is allowed or required to be a minor's guardian, etc.). Putting a restriction on gun ownership on such a person is not totally without relevant precedent. In my uninformed layman's opinion.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

I suppose such a case would put on trial the legitimacy of mental health diagnoses. Well, those diagnoses are sufficient to trigger other restrictions on the person (which school to attend, who is allowed or required to a minor's guardian, etc.). Putting a restriction on gun ownership on such a person is not totally without relevant precedent. In my uninformed layman's opinion.

Well gee - now we have someone prevented from getting a gun because your scheme - that becomes public record

Now, they can't possibly get health insurance

They lose their job because they lose their clearance

Their car insurance goes up

Maybe they lose their drivers license

etc

Etc

Thanks a lot PT

Now the person really does have a reason to go postal

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Well gee - now we have someone prevented from getting a gun because your scheme - that becomes public record

Now, they can't possibly get health insurance

They lose their job because they lose their clearance

Their car insurance goes up

Maybe they lose their drivers license

etc

Etc

Thanks a lot PT

Now the person really does have a reason to go postal

Why does the person LOSE INSURANCE? No comprehende.

The manner in which a refusal is packaged and communicated to the applicant is whole 'nother issue. Let's not JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, please?

Your 'agenda' is showing again. You seem to think there are minimal or no RESPONSIBILITIES upon the gun owner that go along with the RIGHT to bear arms? Is a certain standard of MENTAL HEALTH one of those? Gimme a break, you are talking about a RECKLESS and LOW standard of behavior for gun owners.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Why does the person LOSE INSURANCE? No comprehende.

The manner in which a refusal is packaged and communicated to the applicant is whole 'nother issue. Let's not JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, please?

Your 'agenda' is showing again.

Actually - if some is denied the right to purchase a firearm, it become public record

And, didn't you know insurance companies now use credit reports and public records to rate your insurance?

The only way to "package" a refusal is to tell them NO and it goes on the national data base

[ParkTwain]

And you have no comment on the issue of DEFECTIVE FIREARMS? A defective weapon is an uncontrolled weapon -- that's just great for public safety and INNOCENT VICTIMS (which the Right Wing just loves to BLOVIATE about), isn't it?

Give ... me ... a ... break. What tripe is put out by these people on a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute, and second-by-second basis.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

You seem to think there are minimal or no RESPONSIBILITIES upon the gun owner that go along with the RIGHT to bear arms? Is a certain standard of MENTAL HEALTH one of those?

Under law - mental health checks are not one of the criteria. The only time it would be is if a person HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED MENTALLY INCAPACITATED - Adjudicated - do you know the meaning of that word?

The only other requirements are a criminal background check.

And, I never, at any time, said there are "no minimal requirements" or responsibilities. Are you in the habit of lying PT?