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.
How can you call yourself a constitutionalist if you want to deprive mentally ill citizens their right to bear arms? Isn't that gun regulation in itself?
We have always incarcerated people for breaking the law, and took away their liberty. How can you call yourself a constitutionalist if you want to deprive people of their freedom?
And no, i DO NOT think the founding fathers, as smart as they were, ever considered citizens owning automated weapons to the point of machine guns.
>>> And free speech means you can write what you want to say and print it on PAPER and post it publicly. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the internet, radio or television. Or you can say it on the street corner to any who will listen.
What the Founding Fathers DID consider was that citizens would be allowed weapons comparable to military arms of the day. Soldiers had muskets, citizens had muskets. If citizens are allowed only muskets, then I guess the military is constrained to only having them, too. Isis and the Taleban will love you for that.
How can you call yourself a constitutionalist if you want to deprive mentally ill citizens their right to bear arms? Isn't that gun regulation in itself?
Trying to drum up 'logic' to change the 2nd ammendment are you?
And no, i DO NOT think the founding fathers, as smart as they were, ever considered citizens owning automated weapons to the point of machine guns.
Unless you pay through the nose and go through a serious background check you cannot own a machine gun, automatic guns come in all types not just those evil looking modular automatic rifles. FYI the Vast Majority of gun crimes are committed using handguns, not AR's. What is with people thinking banning AR's will somehow make them safer, there was a total ban on AR's when the shooters at Columbine murdered their fellow students and even law enforcement agencies across the Nation favored lifting te ban because it made little to no difference on crime. I would also add that when the President said tough gun controls make us safer and it is proven he was speaking out of ignorance and emotions, places such as Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws and it is a murder zone there. Criminals do not care about laws, gun laws or criminal laws. When is America going to learn that lesson and start using some common sense, put armed security in our schools and businesses and the killings will slow or stop completely, putting out a sign say a place is gun free is just putting out an invitation to any nutjob out there that wants to murder as many humans as they can.
I consider myself pro 2nd amendment. But I don't think we would be gutting the constitution by making it harder for people with a history of mental illness to buy a firearm.
that can be difficult with some guns, like a derriginger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small
I consider myself pro 2nd amendment. But I don't think we would be gutting the constitution by making it harder for people with a history of mental illness to buy a firearm.
the keys words here being "with a history of". there again though we need to be careful not to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Not without due process to determine that they are a danger to themselves or others. If someone is so dangerous to fit in this category then they are not safe to be part of society anyways.
I agree. If someone is so violently mentally ill that they are a threat and should be restricted from legally purchasing a firearm, they are too much of a danger to have access to car keys, gasoline and matches, knives or baseball bats. The problem isn't the tool, it's the nutcase. What needs to be done is:
1) Identifying the truly violent
2) Defining a legal process that determines who qualifies as "violently mentally ill" and a legal process for involuntary institutionalization.
3) Re-opening facilities to house/treat them.
I agree. If someone is so violently mentally ill that they are a threat and should be restricted from legally purchasing a firearm, they are too much of a danger to have access to car keys, gasoline and matches, knives or baseball bats. The problem isn't the tool, it's the nutcase. What needs to be done is:
1) Identifying the truly violent
2) Defining a legal process that determines who qualifies as "violently mentally ill" and a legal process for involuntary institutionalization.
3) Re-opening facilities to house/treat them.
Here's some fun facts for Chicago. I hear they have tough gun laws.
Final September Totals
Shot & Killed: 58
Shot & Wounded: 303
Total Shot: 361
Total Homicides: 61
Keep in mind... that is just September.
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.
