"Felons, mentally ill, etc. should not have guns"

[SimonJester308]

This is an awesome thread - it contains a higher percentage of moronic opinions than anything posted here in recent memory.

Mentally ill citizens, many of whom are of such diminished capacity that they cannot separate right from wrong, have no business owning or carrying firearms. Nor should they be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Nor should they be allowed to vote.

Quit pretending that ownership and/or the carrying of firearms is an unrestricted right in this country. Class III firearms are regulated. Purchases of all modern firearms are regulated. Carrying is regulated ...... for instance carrying on airplanes and in federal buildings is prohibited .....along with schools and a lot of other places.

Some of the foregoing restrictions are debatable insofar as their being appropriate. But allowing the mentally ill to own or carry a firearm is way down at the bottom of my list of priorities concerning desired changes in firearm statutes and regulations.

I don't want some schizo walking around the mall carrying a firearm. I don't want any paranoid or delusional manic-depressives who "forget" to take their meds walking around the parking lot of Home Depot packing a firearm (concealed or openly carried).

I don't care how "normal" you think your uncle or cousin or fishing buddy or tattoo artist may be. If he's been lawfully judged as mentally ill or mentally incompetent, take it up with the physician or judge that issued the diagnosed/ ruling. If he's found to be competent,fine. Give him a gun. But the rest of the psychos don't need one.

The bleeding heart liberals around here need to grow up. You're so far out in left field, you're making the dimwits look smart.

So you believe the second amendment is a "privilege"?

 

[sylvest]

"Shall not be Infringed"...........its pretty black and white people

 

[JadeRaven]

Thing is, the schizo you fear could walk into a mall with a katana instead of a pistol. Or he's liable to simply come at you tooth and nail. Folks of that level of instability are most likely already in prison/ a mental institution already, much less do they have the ability or the means to go out and buy a firearm.

How many homeless folks can go drop a couple hundred on a gun? Even fifty bucks would be hard to come up with for one of these folks.

 

[dawg23]

So you believe the second amendment is a "privilege"?

Did I say that anywhere in my post ??

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Yes Dawg you did.

BTW, as to driving and the cars having to be registered and taking a test for your liscense etc., isn't that all on the same level as that we all bitch about attempts to have required registration of firearms. (Having to register is an infringement...having to take a training course before you can buy a gun is an infringement...)

LC, I'm with ya.

If you cannot trust them with a gun, cannot trust them to vote, then they SHOULD NOT BE BACK OUT IN PUBLIC

On the mentally ill, HOW CAN YOU even THINK of taking away someone's, ANYONE'S, rights because of what they MIGHT do?

We each MIGHT have a bad day, come home, the old lady is sleeping with your best friend, you get fired from your job, find out your mom has cancer, and then WE go on a rampage. Oh, that'll never happen to me!!! Never mind the fact that it IS possible for someone to just SNAP. So, it is possible for YOU to go on a rampage, YOU have the capability, so lets take away everyone's guns!!!

Guys, the things we are discussing here is not that far from the very things we are fighting against!! Wake the F up!

 

[dawg23]

Yes Dawg you did.


Where did I say that ?

Reading comprehension is your friend. Maybe the time you spent campaigning for open carry would have been better spent in the classroom or in study hall.




BTW, as to driving and the cars having to be registered and taking a test for your liscense etc., isn't that all on the same level as that we all bitch about attempts to have required registration of firearms. (Having to register is an infringement...having to take a training course before you can buy a gun is an infringement...)

I guess you could always move to a better country. Or just keep bitching. The laws are there and anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that your whining won't change it a bit.

Most of us are working to keep additional restrictive laws from being passed. Which is exactly what will happen if a few more kooks commit a few more murders in schools..


LC, I'm with ya.

If you cannot trust them with a gun, cannot trust them to vote, then they SHOULD NOT BE BACK OUT IN PUBLIC.
No argument here. They need adult supervision.



On the mentally ill, HOW CAN YOU even THINK of taking away someone's, ANYONE'S, rights because of what they MIGHT do?

We each MIGHT have a bad day, come home, the old lady is sleeping with your best friend, you get fired from your job, find out your mom has cancer, and then WE go on a rampage. Oh, that'll never happen to me!!! Never mind the fact that it IS possible for someone to just SNAP. So, it is possible for YOU to go on a rampage, YOU have the capability, so lets take away everyone's guns!!!

Guys, the things we are discussing here is not that far from the very things we are fighting against!! Wake the F up!

After you grow out of your teens, you will hopefully have a larger body of experience from which to draw. Or, you may remain an emotional adolescent. Varies from case to case.

I'm not sure what "we" are fighting against. I am striving to keep my family, my friends and myself safe. In today's world we have plenty of potential threats that are apparently ready and willing to serve as impediments to my efforts. I don't need to see their ranks increased by allowing schizos or other mentally unpaired people to walk around armed in public.

If I gave you the impression I was limiting this to firearms, I apologize. I am including all forms of lethal force.

While we're at it, and while you are so wound up with your little hissy fit of righteous indignation, I'll add that I am also still in favor of not having you or anyone else who has not undergone some formal training, which includes a demonstration of competency, to be allowed to walk around in public with a firearm.

.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

God I love how condensending he is. :P

Dawg, if you support registration, and regulation, then you do not view it as a right. Rights are not regulated, they are registered. You stated that you support class III restrictions and regulations, therefore, you do not view the ownership of those arms as a right. Which means that you are ignoring the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part of the amendment. So we may as well toss the whole damn thing out of the window right?

Ya know, since we all apparantly HAVE TO HAVE formal training in firearms, lets also mandate formal training in free speech, and say, make it so that you can only use it in certain places and with content deemed satisfactory to the governing body.

How about you grow up, and look at the larger picture. YOU need to put your foot down, and stop allowing the slow erosion of our rights. If you do compormise, which you are doing EXACTLY that, you are giving in while receiving nothing. I say that you receive nothing, because it was all yours to begin with. But now your giving them ground. Once they have some ground, they will only try and get more. And your willing to give them that. The only course of action is this: Push them completely off the G.D. cliff. Because that is exactly what they are trying to do to us. Are you so blind as to realize that serialization, registration, training, and regulation is not the ultimate goal? The goal is to completely remove firearms from the hands of the public, and why is this? Oh my bad, I forgot, to protect the public from itself. ********. And ya damn well know it.

 

[Garra]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.....


Well how about children then? After all alot of mental people have the same capacity, or in some cases, less than children. There was no clarification about age in the DoI either, but it is assumed that children are not being spoken of.

This thread has gotten a bit nasty, and I'm not trying to be ugly, Im just joining in on the conversation, but I got to say I have no problems what so ever with people who have mental problems not being able to have weapons.
I have no problem at all with people who have done violent crimes losing their rights. I mean after all, everyone knows the penalties of killing, raping and such, it sort of seems like part of the bargain if you ask me. Your agreeing to give those rights up once you decide to do the crime.

When you hear on the news about some whacko going off and killing someone or doing some other horrible thing, and than later you find out he had a long history of such things, doesnt it make you wonder how this person was ever allowed to have been in the situation to have done what they did(whether it was murder, molestation, rape).

I do believe that owning and baring arms is our God given right. However, there are things you can do to lose your rights. I also believe that being allowed to do so is a responsibility of citizens in a civilized society, and if you prove to be otherwise unresponsible, than you should not be allowed that right.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Garra, but the things in that history, perhaps he should have long since been incarcerated? Perhaps if the system worked as it should, he would not have been free to commit further crimes?

 

[LACamper]

I'll go along with the felon issue. IF they are a danger to society then they should be in jail. If they've served their time, they should be considered rehabilitated. Maybe an adjustment period (while on probation or being monitored by a parole officer?) firearms ownership could be restricted. I could live with that.

Mental illness is another story. When I was in high school there was a family 2 doors down that had a mentally impaired son. He was in his mid 30's at the time. When he was 21 he was at his bachelor's party and someone put LSD in his drink and he was found the next morning passed out on his lawn. He's still, to this day, tripping.
When he was on his meds he was bearable. He would approach anyone coming to my house to inform them that he didn't want to be buried when he died, he just wanted to lay around in his car. He also said his dad was the strongest man in the world because he could hold up 6' of mud. Annoying, a bit creepy to our guests, but tolerable.
When he would get off his meds was when it was dangerous. Once he found a hand saw and cut down a telephone post. Once he found his brother's .25 auto, set up some targets and did some target shooting. Unfortunately he used the traffic on Chef Hwy as a backstop. That no one seriously injured was a miracle. The worst was he filled a galvanized garbage can with wet mud. He then carried it (he was a big strong guy) to the middle of Chef highway and left it in the left lane. Fortunately we were able to get a police car out there before anyone hit the can.
He managed to get a drivers license. He drove around the neighborhood in whatever piece of junk car he could afford (he never transferred the titles or bought insurance) while staring at the ceiling. He would total the car usually (4 come to mind and one was a 69 camaro) and walk away. Sometimes they would put him in an institution for a few weeks and he'd come back better. He'd get out, start drinking while on the meds then do something else stupid. LIke digging up the fire hydrant, or putting his head through the plate glass window while shadowboxing, or....
NOW, do you really want to let this guy legally own a gun? If you say yes, we'll go for a ride and I'll introduce you...

 

[sylvest]

I'll go along with the felon issue. IF they are a danger to society then they should be in jail. If they've served their time, they should be considered rehabilitated. Maybe an adjustment period (while on probation or being monitored by a parole officer?) firearms ownership could be restricted. I could live with that.

Mental illness is another story. When I was in high school there was a family 2 doors down that had a mentally impaired son. He was in his mid 30's at the time. When he was 21 he was at his bachelor's party and someone put LSD in his drink and he was found the next morning passed out on his lawn. He's still, to this day, tripping.
When he was on his meds he was bearable. He would approach anyone coming to my house to inform them that he didn't want to be buried when he died, he just wanted to lay around in his car. He also said his dad was the strongest man in the world because he could hold up 6' of mud. Annoying, a bit creepy to our guests, but tolerable.
When he would get off his meds was when it was dangerous. Once he found a hand saw and cut down a telephone post. Once he found his brother's .25 auto, set up some targets and did some target shooting. Unfortunately he used the traffic on Chef Hwy as a backstop. That no one seriously injured was a miracle. The worst was he filled a galvanized garbage can with wet mud. He then carried it (he was a big strong guy) to the middle of Chef highway and left it in the left lane. Fortunately we were able to get a police car out there before anyone hit the can.
He managed to get a drivers license. He drove around the neighborhood in whatever piece of junk car he could afford (he never transferred the titles or bought insurance) while staring at the ceiling. He would total the car usually (4 come to mind and one was a 69 camaro) and walk away. Sometimes they would put him in an institution for a few weeks and he'd come back better. He'd get out, start drinking while on the meds then do something else stupid. LIke digging up the fire hydrant, or putting his head through the plate glass window while shadowboxing, or....
NOW, do you really want to let this guy legally own a gun? If you say yes, we'll go for a ride and I'll introduce you...

if he is as bad as you say he should be put in an institution somewhere

 

[Garra]

Garra, but the things in that history, perhaps he should have long since been incarcerated? Perhaps if the system worked as it should, he would not have been free to commit further crimes?

But thats sort of the point.

That is the sytem working as it should.

Someone commits a crime. They get caught, they pay the time. Unless they get sentenced for life, they eventually get released.

They are out and free as they should be allowed, according to the law, because he paid the punishment due to the crime.

Now common sense tells me that if this person had been put into prison for molesting children, he should not be allowed to work or be around children.

I can not really understand if anyone would disagree with that. Its pretty much accepted practice.

It doesnt mean that this person will ever do anything bad against children again, not by a long shot. However, he has shown a willingness to do it in the past, so there for you dont assume he wont do it again, he has lost that right.

Well guns are more broad, you go to prison for a felony, you have shown a tendancy to not be a responsible citizen. You have now lost your born given right to own a gun. Doesnt mean you will ever do any crime ever again, but it doesnt make sense to take a chance and allow someone who has a history of wrong doing to be allowed to now have a fire arm.

And look, I realize that the system is not a perfect system for every situation. Alot of people do really dumb sheet as a "kid" 18 to early 20's and then are without their rights for t he rest of their lives. I'm not saying that it is the perfect punishment for every situation. But our law system is not set up to be able to afford us the luxury of shaping laws to meet each and every single special situation. We more or less live by a blanket law system which tries to cover as many situations as possible, as best as possible. Granted it has alot of problems and issues, but they are the laws we go by.

And when it comes to things such as were talking about, personally, I like them.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Criminals who have done something bad enough to never be trusted with a gun again have done something bad enough to be hanged.

The justice system is the problem and all our politically correct BS.

Abridging the 2A is not the correct response, it does not even address the problem.

As to truly ill people- those people should be supervised or instiutionalized or othewise managed, preferably by a loving family member.

If someone is not doing the job of keeping them from hurting themselves or others, then the response to their dangerous ACTIONS should be to take appropriate measures. The government should not have the authority to be proactive about abridging people's rights based on speculation, is my point.

What is so bad about big government? My indictment of big government is that it is bad because it attacks liberty, prosperity, progress, harmony, and morality. Thanks to big government, we have significantly less of all of those good things than we would if we had been able to keep government right-sized. Big government is cancerous. Like a cancer, it hurts the body and tends to spread, doing more and more harm as it grows. It is time for some radical surgery. – George C. Leef

 

[dawg23]

God I love how condensending he is. :P

Dawg, if you support registration, and regulation, then you do not view it as a right. Rights are not regulated, they are registered. You stated that you support class III restrictions and regulations, therefore, you do not view the ownership of those arms as a right. Which means that you are ignoring the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part of the amendment. So we may as well toss the whole damn thing out of the window right?

Ya know, since we all apparantly HAVE TO HAVE formal training in firearms, lets also mandate formal training in free speech, and say, make it so that you can only use it in certain places and with content deemed satisfactory to the governing body.

How about you grow up, and look at the larger picture. YOU need to put your foot down, and stop allowing the slow erosion of our rights. If you do compormise, which you are doing EXACTLY that, you are giving in while receiving nothing. I say that you receive nothing, because it was all yours to begin with. But now your giving them ground. Once they have some ground, they will only try and get more. And your willing to give them that. The only course of action is this: Push them completely off the G.D. cliff. Because that is exactly what they are trying to do to us. Are you so blind as to realize that serialization, registration, training, and regulation is not the ultimate goal? The goal is to completely remove firearms from the hands of the public, and why is this? Oh my bad, I forgot, to protect the public from itself. ********. And ya damn well know it.

Dear Mr. Dean:

I am impressed with your knowledge of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our legal system. It rivals that of most third graders.

Anyone who has even taken (and passed) a middle school civics class knows that our "rights", initially adopted as 10 amendments to our Constitution that comprise our "Bill of Rights," are restricted and regulated. To claim otherwise makes you either incredibly obtuse, or impressively misinformed ..... but in either case I'm sure your posts are an embarrassment to your college professors (English Composition and Political Science).

Start with the first amendment. Freedom of speech is restricted by rulings of the US Supreme Court (try yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater) and so is freedom of religion (try offering a prayer at a football game). What do you think "prohibiting the free exercise thereof " means ??

Look at the 4th Amendment - unreasonable search and seizure. We have a vast array of statutes that define and restrict and regulate the process whereby law enforcement officers conduct searches.

I'm sure you also have your own take on the 8th Amendment - whereby excessive bail, excessive fines and "cruel and unusual punishments" are prohibited. How many laws and court rulings have we seen regulating these issues ?

Your persistent insistence that rights are absolute and cannot be restricted is completely at variance with our legal and legislative systems. You are not only displaying a noticeable absence of the level of maturity that is commonly associated with adulthood, you clearly are woefully uneducated - or simply being disingenuous. But I am willing to give you credit for one thing ..... you don't allow this to stop you from giving us the benefit of your "wisdom."

You might consider saving your righteous indignation for the dorm room bull sessions ....... they are probably a far better forum for your illogical, inane, dissertations.

Oh ......... your Junior High School English teacher asked me to tell you it's "condescending" and "apparently."

Tell me again .......Where did you receive your college "education?"

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Garra, not letting a child molestor work around children is not taking away his right to life, or his right to defend his life either.

Taking away a released criminals right to own is. You are taking away his right to defend his life, and the life of his loved ones via the most effective means. Just because he was once a criminal does not mean that he will never be a victim.

 

[dawg23]

Garra, not letting a child molestor work around children is not taking away his right to life, or his right to defend his life either.

Taking away a released criminals right to own is. You are taking away his right to defend his life, and the life of his loved ones via the most effective means. Just because he was once a criminal does not mean that he will never be a victim.

Dear Mr. Dean:

In another current thread you say, " you want to watch porn, thats fine, but keep the black covers over the majority of the magazine in the gas station, don't have porn up on a billboard..."

I thought you were for unrestricted rights. Haven't you read the First Amendment - Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression ???

Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

 

[LACamper]

Sylvest, that guy has been in and then out again of more institutions than I can count. When he takes his meds he can be cared for by his family. When he either gets off them or adds alcohol to the mix he's uncontrollable. His father was an NOPD officer that was killed on duty many years ago. That gives the family some clout in this crooked city. That's how he got and kept a drivers license.

If the laws on the books weren't there and he walked into a gunshop and you were working the counter, would you sell him a gun? When he kills someone who is responsible? Not him, he's been judged insane. It would be like the bartender's law... you let him have too much. But in this case it wouldn't because the 2nd ammendment demands you sell him a gun.
We need SOME regulation, not much for sure, but some. I agree we the laws we have now are too restrictive, but you can't remove them all.

 

[sylvest]

Sylvest, that guy has been in and then out again of more institutions than I can count. When he takes his meds he can be cared for by his family. When he either gets off them or adds alcohol to the mix he's uncontrollable. His father was an NOPD officer that was killed on duty many years ago. That gives the family some clout in this crooked city. That's how he got and kept a drivers license.

If the laws on the books weren't there and he walked into a gunshop and you were working the counter, would you sell him a gun? When he kills someone who is responsible? Not him, he's been judged insane. It would be like the bartender's law... you let him have too much. But in this case it wouldn't because the 2nd ammendment demands you sell him a gun.
We need SOME regulation, not much for sure, but some. I agree we the laws we have now are too restrictive, but you can't remove them all.

in his case he should be permanently institutionalized. just like life in prison.....life in restrictive care. he should not be free because he is a threat to society

 

[dawg23]

If the people on this board who argue in favor of totally unrestricted rights were correct, then we should be willing to allow any psychopath who had not yet been convicted of a crime (or who had served his prison sentence for a felony and been released) to board any commercial aircraft armed with a sub-machine gun and all the drums of ammo he could carry.

To do otherwise would be abridging his rights.......or so we are told.

All of these ludicrous opinions seem to flow from folks who have never read, or don't respect, our Declaration of Independence. What about my inalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ??"

Our courts have long held that your rights end where my rights begin. If you want to possess or drive a pickup truck or an 18-wheeler on your own property, and allow people to drive it with no training and no license, and do so while drunk or stoned, I'm fine with that. But don't tell me we should allow them out on public highways where I, my family or my friends will be placed in peril due to their incompetence or their impairment.

Same for firearms. If you want to possess or carry a firearm on your own property or in your residence, have at it. But when you step into the public arena where the rest of us live, work, shop or travel, you need to meet certain standards to ensure that you aren't trampling my inalienable rights, and my family's inalienable rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[owen502]

Same for firearms. If you want to possess or carry a firearm on your own property or in your residence, have at it. But when you step into the public arena where the rest of us live, work, shop or travel, you need to meet certain standards to ensure that you aren't trampling my inalienable rights, and my family's inalienable rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But if you have your way (the way it is now) then you are preventing people from possession of a tool for their protection on their own property.

Its not the tool that would cause someone to trample on your rights. It is their use of the tool. Remember, guns do not cause crime. They are incapable of trampling on your rights without someone wielding them.