I would only approve of it in certain cases, like people with misdemeanor domestic violence charges or war veterans (I know that seems paradoxical. But PTSD isn't a joke, and I don't like the idea of PTSD sufferers having access to firearms for my sake or their own).
Also, I think you (or any rational person would agree). If a schizophrenic came to you, gave you money, and asked you to buy a gun for him or loan him a gun, I doubt you would. "Well, I wouldn't because if he did something bad, gun would be traced to me." Let's assume gun can't be traced. You still wouldn't loan a schizo a gun because you know it's an idiotic idea. Nor would you probably loan a gun to a vet with severe PTSD.
Ok. And?
Why are you equating rights with laws? I didn't say it was legal. I said it was a right.i mean yeah everything is legal until there is a law that makes it illegal
If a schizophrenic came to me and wanted to use the airwaves to broadcast nonsense, knowing they are schizophrenic I would deny them if I was in control of it. That doesn't mean everyone who wants to use the airwaves needs a psychological evaluation.
I'm cool with vets buying guns, and I think backround checks are sufficient if they list mental disorders.
I wouldn't let anyone borrow my gun, but that's a non sequitur.
The "makes sense" isn't a poll result taken by Gallup. the Supreme Court is the deciding body. The strawman of surface to air missiles is well worn, but you should have said nuclear bombs.
You are still more likely be killed by a black dude then the rare white guy shooting. They commit 50% of homicides. Your white flight solution is illogical. Move away from blacks because they are dangerous but your position is that whites are the bigger threat. Try again with your narrative. It needs work.
As usual, Nathan89 overreads the numbers (61% of murders aren't solved, murders by race only count incidents were one person shot and killed one other person).
His characterization of "white guy shootings " as rare doesn't bear momentary scrutiny. By no reasonable interpretation is ~20% of murders by race rare.
Numbers below are from 2015.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usn...%3fcontext=amp
Note also the small absolute numbers of incidents characterized as white on black (229) or black on white (504) compared to the total number of homicides (15,696).
The numbers do tell a story, but it's one so far from complete that it may be misleading.
Sure let's take money from the DOD to fix the crisis of illegal border crossings at a 50 year low:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...idUSKCN1Q4275?
He used the ham radio example for licensing thus competence with the equipment. You then tie this to the distribution of mechanical devices to people who are divorced from reality.... mechanical devices that use explosions to hurl projectiles at very high speeds. Fear the deadly radio wave. I find you guilty of habitual use of quantum Leap arguments.
Yet again a seriously awful argument. Waiting for any possible extension of first amendment rights to individual ownership of nuclear weapons.
saying it’s easier to avoid black homicide than white because black cide is concentrated in poor areas. White men aren’t picky they’ll shoot up that about anywhere
It's a thought experiment. Not to be taken literally. But I'll rephrase it. You're a gun shop owner and a friend of yours you know suffers from paranoid schizophrenia comes in to buy a gun. He's having a "good day" showing no signs of the symptoms. But you know the severity of his symptoms waxes and wanes day to day, week to week, etc. Do you sell him a shotgun? Unless you have a very loose moral compass, you probably don't. However, if the gun shop owner didn't know him, he'd believe the man to be mentally stable and sell him the shotgun without question.
Now is it fair to deny a schizophrenic his 2nd amendment rights if he has no previous history of violent behavior? I don't know. I would think that's a situation you evaluate on a case-by-case basis via a psychological evaluation. If the sufferer is deemed to be a non-violent threat by a professional, then maybe. Ultimately, I'm not comfortable with schizophrenics or PTSD sufferers having firearms.
And Supreme Courts can't be biased, lobbied, or manipulated into making decisions that seem to defy common sense? If your argument is, "Well, that's the way our system works. Just have to deal with it and respect it." Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't impart infallibility to the Supreme Court.
I don't think referencing weapons other than small arms to explore arbitrary interpretations and applications of the 2nd amendment is a strawman. Going by the words at face value, you should be permitted to own a nuclear weapon. Like I said, the framers didn't futureproof it nor make a distinction between muskets and cannons. We don't allow citizens to own bombs because it makes sense. Ultimate point though is that the well regulated militia phrase does exist and seems to be willfully ignored or at the very least loosely interpreted.
At some point making sense has to become important in the present. We can do this out of a concern for basic humanity instead of silly pseudo intellectual gotcha arguments. Basic human rights did not necessarily come out of some intellectual truth.- Isn’t derived out of some sort of physical constant concerning the universe.
And I think there are some huge impractical barriers to taking up firearms in the United States.
Some might call this common sense based on peliminary data concerning the widespread use of firearms for many different purposes. In the US of course.
I don't think any reasonable person who leans left wants wholesale gun grabbing, just a few more provisions in place to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, like the mentally ill and former felons. I also want my fellow American gun owners to be competent users, which is why I advocate for mandatory training courses before you can get a license to purchase a firearm. Basically, make it like the licensing procedure to drive a car. 21 year old age limit too. 18 year olds are not adults. That was a number picked out of a hat.
the army wasted lots of money hiring some company
The company should pay to fix the issues not the army
But Trump promised Mezico would pay.
Why is he stealing appropriated funds from the US taxpayers to do it?
That's not what I call keeping a promise, that's what I call Trump ripping us off because his mouth wrote a check his butt couldn't cash.
Sure it exists but it doesn't exist as a caveat. It doesn't say that a well regulated militia has to exist prior to someone having the right to keep and bear arms. The ability to form a well regulated militia is paramount according to Madison in The Federalist Papers. How can that happen if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms?
Then the Supreme Court rule that a well regulated militia isn't the only reason to keep and bear arms, that's self-defense is a reason as well.
If you're going to throw out the Supreme Court decisions with interpretation to the Bill of Rights then you have a long hard road ahead of you. The 2nd Amendment has been around since the original writing of the Bill of Rights and and the couple hundred years since its existence for some reason it's still there. so although technology has changed and certainly our forefathers couldn't have imagined some of the things we have today with regards to firearms, this issue has been Revisited Time and Again by our Supreme Court since it was originally penned. Please don't act like we rely solely on the original text. However the original text does clearly State shall not be infringed upon. Everything you're trying to do includes infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Whether I agree or disagree with some of your suggestions is beside the point.
If you had a good friend you knew was a raging alcoholic and who drove intoxicated on a regular basis, and you owned a car dealership and your friend wanted to buy a vehicle from you, would you sell it to them?
If you say you would then aren't you just contributing to the eventual death of a family by this drunk driver? If you say you would not, does that mean that everyone who wants to buy a vehicle should have to go through alcohol screening to make sure they're not an alcoholic? Do they have to be observed by a doctor and have blood work taken?
Last edited by DMC; 02-16-2019 at 06:11 PM.
Would you be okay with the wall if Mexico paid for it?
He was talking about the 2nd Amendment I was talking about the first. Wasn't talking about ham radio at all. The rest of your is gibberish have no idea what you're talkin about.
Bull .
And of course you don’t.
You think wind speed is measured by finger and read in braille.
*benghazi!!!!*
New trade deal Mexico is paying for it
If Mexico had walls to keep illegall coming in
USA would not need to
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote