CDZ Do You Support Gun Control?

[Dan Daly]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

Current law already makes it illegal for a convicted felon or someone who has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent to possess a firearm...so what, specificially, "more" would you like to do?

Have you ever seen a shrink for any reason? If so, you have a history of mental health issues and should not be allowed to possess a firearm, right? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit, rolled through a stop sign or disobeyed any law? If so you have a criminal background and should not be allowed to possess a firearm, right?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[kaz]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

Current law already makes it illegal for a convicted felon or someone who has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent to possess a firearm...so what, specificially, "more" would you like to do?

Have you ever seen a shrink for any reason? If so, you have a history of mental health issues and should not be allowed to possess a firearm, right? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit, rolled through a stop sign or disobeyed any law? If so you have a criminal background and should not be allowed to possess a firearm, right?

If you truly want to reduce violent crime in this country, you need to use your brain to think logically, rather than jumping on the Idiocrat bandwagon.

Not being able to buy a gun because you've "seen a shrink" is not due process

 

[JimBowie1958]

So if the government legally passed a law that confiscated guns, then you are all OK with that?

Why would I be? That directly contradicts what I said.

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

You don't know what due process of law mean

It means whatever the law says it means, dude.

You're too lazy to google it, aren't you? Congress passing a law is not due process

If Congress changes the law's due process, then the due process changes along with that law, obviously.

By changing the law to restrict gun use and ownership through bureaucratic malice, it becomes the new due process. Just look at DC and how it keeps passing laws to harass gun owners into not bringing guns into the district, or how New Jersey has a zerop tolerance policy on gun control violations and you can wind up in prison for simply carrying your airport luggage to your hotel room for an overnight wait for a connecting flight.

 

[kaz]

Why would I be? That directly contradicts what I said.

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

You don't know what due process of law mean

It means whatever the law says it means, dude.

You're too lazy to google it, aren't you? Congress passing a law is not due process

You really are a fucking idiot.

If Congress changes the law's due process, then the due process changes along with that law, obviously.

By changing the law to restrict gun use and ownership through bureaucratic malice, it becomes the new due process. Just look at DC and how it keeps passing laws to harass gun owners into not bringing guns into the district, or how New Jersey has a zerop tolerance policy on gun control violations and you can wind up in prison for simply carrying your airport luggage to your hotel room for an overnight wait for a connecting flight.

You are a fucking retard, and I am not going to waste my time tryuing to explain how due process is a changing concept, dickhead.

Ironically for all your butt hurt, we agree on the content. You just don't know what due process means. Getting upset and calling names doesn't change that. Obviously since you are on google and don't look it up yourself you don't care

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

Your mistake, of course, is in thinking that government is the master, and that it is we, the people, who are obligated to submit to the will of our government, rather than the other way around. That is an attitude that has already done great damage to this nation, and which stands to do much more harm.

In any event, no matter how much latitude you think you can wedge into “due process of law”, the Second Amendment remains clear about the right that it affirms, to whom this right belongs, and in forbidding government from even touching the edge of that right.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

Your mistake, of course, is in thinking that government is the master, and that it is we, the people, who are obligated to submit to the will of our government, rather than the other way around. That is an attitude that has already done great damage to this nation, and which stands to do much more harm.

In any event, no matter how much latitude you think you can wedge into “due process of law”, the Second Amendment remains clear about the right that it affirms, to whom this right belongs, and in forbidding government from even touching the edge of that right.

I do not think that the government is the master of the American people, but I do know that those who make up the government, by and large, most certainly do think that they 'rule' over us. And they twist and overload meanings of words all the time to get what they want and just dare the nu nut Republicans to try and stop them.

That is why I am opposed to any further additional gun control laws or regs, since we have too many already and the ones we do have are rarely enforced on criminals. Usually it is the innocent and unaware person that gets nailed in these things and that is all. New regs and laws only give the gun grabbing PC Nazis more opportunities to abuse the laws on unsuspecting gun owners.

 

[Twisted]

Sure, lets put even more sanctions on guns, have more gun free zones, or even make them illegal, then nobody will get shot anymore. After all, that's how we stopped everyone from doing drugs.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

Wouldn't agree a mental health history or diagnosis necessarily disqualifies one from owning a firearm. Pleanty of mental illnesses that wouldn't make having a weapon more risky. Especially considering the plethora of supposedly perfectly sane people who exhibit things I normally associate with mental illness as with excessive ypotheticals which is akin to paranoia.

If you have a diagnosed delusional or psychotic diagnosis sure, no gun for you. Or a violent criminal conviction too, but not just any ol criminal conviction. Again, not every crime is person on person or violent.

And absent any mental health or criminal factor, no restrictions whatsoever should exist. It's not the people jumping through legal hoops we should be worrying about.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

You don't know what due process of law mean

It means whatever the law says it means, dude.

You're too lazy to google it, aren't you? Congress passing a law is not due process

If Congress changes the law's due process, then the due process changes along with that law, obviously.

By changing the law to restrict gun use and ownership through bureaucratic malice, it becomes the new due process. Just look at DC and how it keeps passing laws to harass gun owners into not bringing guns into the district, or how New Jersey has a zerop tolerance policy on gun control violations and you can wind up in prison for simply carrying your airport luggage to your hotel room for an overnight wait for a connecting flight.

You have no clue what due process is. Come back and try again after you at least make the effort to become better educated than a chimp.

If you knew it was different than what I am saying it is then you would have explained it instead of carrying on a bluff.

Due process changes by executive order, new laws and changes in case law. It isn't some magical ephemeral eternal object independent of government control and/or definition. For example prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage, same sex marriage was not due process in most states. After the SCOTUS ruling it became part of due process in all states.
Capice now, dude? 'Due process' changes every year.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sure, lets put even more sanctions on guns, have more gun free zones, or even make them illegal, then nobody will get shot anymore. After all, that's how we stopped everyone from doing drugs.

 

[Freiheit]

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Mr Mencken was a most astute observer of the American political scene. The proof of Mr. Menckens' observation is in the fact one political party has used a problem that affects .0028 per cent of the population to usurp and override discussion and solution of far more
pressing problems. Consider that the Feds have been carrying on a war on poverty for about 50 years and there are more poor today than there were 50 years ago. Where is the discussion and why isn't a solution to poverty an important issue among so many more vitally important issues.

"No one in this world, so far as I know - and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people".
H. L. Mencken

 

[kaz]

You don't know what due process of law mean

It means whatever the law says it means, dude.

You're too lazy to google it, aren't you? Congress passing a law is not due process

If Congress changes the law's due process, then the due process changes along with that law, obviously.

By changing the law to restrict gun use and ownership through bureaucratic malice, it becomes the new due process. Just look at DC and how it keeps passing laws to harass gun owners into not bringing guns into the district, or how New Jersey has a zerop tolerance policy on gun control violations and you can wind up in prison for simply carrying your airport luggage to your hotel room for an overnight wait for a connecting flight.

You have no clue what due process is. Come back and try again after you at least make the effort to become better educated than a chimp.

If you knew it was different than what I am saying it is then you would have explained it instead of carrying on a bluff.

Due process changes by executive order, new laws and changes in case law. It isn't some magical ephemeral eternal object independent of government control and/or definition. For example prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage, same sex marriage was not due process in most states. After the SCOTUS ruling it became part of due process in all states.
Capice now, dude? 'Due process' changes every year.

What do "executive orders" have to do with due process? You still haven't googled it, have you?

 

[Gracie]

No crazies
No convicts
Must be 21 years old
No machine guns, uzi's, etc. Period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No crazies
No convicts

These laws are already in place.

Must be 21 years old

If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to exercise the right to arms..

No machine guns, uzi's, etc. Period.

Why? When was the last a time a crime was committed with a legal machine gun?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It means whatever the law says it means, dude.

You're too lazy to google it, aren't you? Congress passing a law is not due process

If Congress changes the law's due process, then the due process changes along with that law, obviously.

By changing the law to restrict gun use and ownership through bureaucratic malice, it becomes the new due process. Just look at DC and how it keeps passing laws to harass gun owners into not bringing guns into the district, or how New Jersey has a zerop tolerance policy on gun control violations and you can wind up in prison for simply carrying your airport luggage to your hotel room for an overnight wait for a connecting flight.

You have no clue what due process is. Come back and try again after you at least make the effort to become better educated than a chimp.

If you knew it was different than what I am saying it is then you would have explained it instead of carrying on a bluff.

Due process changes by executive order, new laws and changes in case law. It isn't some magical ephemeral eternal object independent of government control and/or definition. For example prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage, same sex marriage was not due process in most states. After the SCOTUS ruling it became part of due process in all states.
Capice now, dude? 'Due process' changes every year.

What do "executive orders" have to do with due process? You still haven't googled it, have you?

Executive orders and other instructions to the executive branch on what policy is and will be is part of 'due process'.

I have looked it up and even quoted a good length of it, and I am satisfied that I understand it contrary to your nonexistent explanation of why I don't.

 

[Compost]

No. I do not support gun control.

 

[Gracie]

Why? When was the last a time a crime was committed with a legal machine gun?

Why have a machine gun? What's the purpose?

 

[Sally Vater]

I support gun safety classes in public high school and community college. Everyone should be familiar with guns.

 

[regent]

Until the gun manufacturers are forced to bear some responsibility I seen no change, and who protects the gun manufacturers?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why? When was the last a time a crime was committed with a legal machine gun?

Why have a machine gun? What's the purpose?

Does there need to be a purpose? Because I want one isn't good enough?