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.
But you can continue putting your head in the sand.
The Obama-era regulation, which was enacted after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The measure would have affected about 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs.
There's this thing. It's called. Due process. You must adjudicate someone mentally defective to deny their rights to keep and bear arms. In court. Not use the Social Security Administration... you need to bring every single one of those 75k to court, and with a shrink stating this person is mentally unfit and through due process revoke their civil liberty to keep and bear arms.
Parkland shooter would not have been deterred. This didn't apply to him.
Neither would the Jacksonville shooter. This didn't apply to him.
Parkland was protected by liberal good feels promise program initiated by Sheriff Isreal and school Superintendent Runcie.
Jacksonville was a kid that couldn't cope with losing and emoted out.
At a minimum, we shouldn't expect immigration laws to prevent every murder caused by an illegal, just as every seat belt won't prevent all deaths in auto accidents. That does NOT mean we shouldn't build the wall and strictly enforce our immigration laws.
Bravo. Democrats hold illegal aliens in high esteem but not American's 2nd amendment rights.
It seems they are not concerned with illegals and immigrants stabbing lots of citizens like we see where ever open borders are. While ostensibly they're worried about shootings. They blame and want to punish all gun owners but not any of the illegals.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 3 hours ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,791 posts, read 3,598,050 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks
Guns are NOT a bulwark against tyranny. The rule of law is.
I don't know who you voted for in 2016. But this overall argument has lost ALL credibility since the bulk of the pro-gun crowd are actually supporting someone who admires tyrants/dictators and has tried erode the power of the legislative and judicial branches.
More than even you (likely) realize, Astral. Check out this link.
Takeaways:
*Militias were largely ineffective in our own Revolutionary War.
*Militias in the modern era have overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty.
*Liberty and the degree of gun ownership in a society are uncorrelated.
*Even if they were positively correlated, the idea that gun control leads to tyranny is a post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore that") fallacy.(Explanation Here)
*Even if this thought process wasn’t fallacy ridden, the historical examples gun advocates supply don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
*Even if the historical cases displayed what gun advocates contend they do, the argument would still fail as applying the lessons from the examples to the US overlooks massive cultural and socio-economic differences.
Quote:
Conclusion
Even if the gun advocates’ deeply flawed reading of history was accurate, applying the lessons from these countries to the US is foolish. None of the above countries had well established democratic traditions at the time. Most of these nations were suffering from battlefield defeats or economic catastrophe. In no way do these scenarios bear any resemblance to the US. Even if gun control was the gateway to genocide in these countries (which was definitively not the case), such analysis overlooks the vast host of causal socio-economic and political factors that led to these tragic events. Extrapolating these flawed conclusions to domestic gun policy, in the words of James Madison, “must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.”
The Obama-era regulation, which was enacted after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The measure would have affected about 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs.
There's this thing. It's called. Due process. You must adjudicate someone mentally defective to deny their rights to keep and bear arms. In court. Not use the Social Security Administration... you need to bring every single one of those 75k to court, and with a shrink stating this person is mentally unfit and through due process revoke their civil liberty to keep and bear arms.
Parkland shooter would not have been deterred. This didn't apply to him.
Neither would the Jacksonville shooter. This didn't apply to him.
Parkland was protected by liberal good feels promise program initiated by Sheriff Isreal and school Superintendent Runcie.
Jacksonville was a kid that couldn't cope with losing and emoted out.
Interesting you mention due process. Liberals are always big on due process in deporting illegals, but not always so much for 2nd amendment rights.
The guy was from Maryland which has very restrictive gun laws. I doubt he bought the gun in Florida and would still have had a background check. We'll find out where he got the gun how he got it in there and if he flew with it or if he drove. Lots of unanswered questions but we'll have to prod the MSM to release the facts or we'll have to rely on online investigators to get the truth out.
LOL
Let me know when a piece of paper or a sign on a wall protects you and defends you.
What has every tyrant ever done coming to power?
They rounded up the guns.
Followed by those they deemed subhuman or "an enemy of the state".
Like hell guns are not a bulwark against tyranny.
I agree, but they have learned lessons from the past, its much easier to just 'condition' the population into believing tough new gun laws, or a total ban altogether (except law enforcement and military of course), is in everyones best interest...'see, all these mass shootings, some people should not have guns...'
Its literally changing public opinion on something so public opinion lines up with what a tyrannical govt wants.
This way, there is little risk of a public uprising or revolution, its a very clever tactic.
They are using the same tactic with the drug war...'see all these people overdosing on prescription meds, we must have law against these meds now, its in our best interest'....pathetic!!
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.
