Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and 'family members'

[JoeB131]

Should we have the same evaluation before someone can speak his/her opinion....and if he/she fails they can't speak their opinion?

This is a yes or no question.

No.

You can't kill someone with an opinion.

But I can see why you wouldn't want anyone to evaluate your dumb analogy.

 

[LeftofLeft]

How many of those 2016 homicides were committed by legal gun owners? How many of these weapons used in the crimes were purchased in the gun shops?

Most of them, and in the latter case, almost all of them.

nearly every gun was sold by a legal gun dealer. Of course, you can run a gun business out of your spare bedroom, and that's part of the problem.

“Most” and “almost all of them” are not empirical data to support your premise.

 

[JoeB131]

Gun ownership was a privilege of the rich.

Link to your data?

Watch this massive dodge by the moron

Spiking the Gun Myth

archive.nytimes.com

 

[j-mac]

Gun ownership was a privilege of the rich.

Link to your data?

Watch this massive dodge by the moron

Spiking the Gun Myth

archive.nytimes.com

In 1995, Wills wrote an article about the Second Amendment for The New York Review of Books. It was originally entitled "Why We Have No Right to Bear Arms", but that was not Wills' conclusion. He neither wrote the title nor approved it prior to the article's publication.[17] Instead, Wills argued that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms in a military context only, rather than justifying private ownership and use of guns. Furthermore, he said the military context did not entail the right of individuals to overthrow the government of the United States:

The Standard Model finds, squirrelled away in the Second Amendment, not only a private right to own guns for any purpose but a public right to oppose with arms the government of the United States. It grounds this claim in the right of insurrection, which clearly does exist whenever tyranny exists. Yet the right to overthrow the government is not given by government. It arises when government no longer has any authority. One cannot say one rebels by right of that nonexistent authority. Modern militias say the government itself instructs them to overthrow government—and wacky scholars endorse this view. They think the Constitution is so deranged a document that it brands as the greatest crime a war upon itself (in Article III: 'Treason against the United Statesshall consist only in levying war against them . . .') and then instructs its citizens to take this up (in the Second Amendment). According to this doctrine, a well-regulated group is meant to overthrow its own regulator, and a soldier swearing to obey orders is disqualified from true militia virtue.
— Garry Wills, 1995[18]

Garry Wills - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No surprise you count on a fellow liberal that wants to destroy rights.

 

[wamose]

Democrats are just nosey bastards just like the communists in China are.

 

[JoeB131]

No surprise you count on a fellow liberal that wants to destroy rights.

Naw, man, I want the right to be able to go to the movies or the mall or shopping or work or send kids to school without having to worry some maniac with a gun is going to spray the crowd with lead.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Don't blame the cops, there is a lot of crazies running around with guns...

Cops have NEVER fired their guns at me or any gun owner I know.

Wanna re-think that bullshit comment?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Yes, the last thing we'd want is for crazy people to be denied access to guns.

Instead, we need to keep teaching our kids to do Active Shooter Drills and cower behind their desks.

It's already illegal for the mentally ill to posses firearms. Try enforcing existing laws before enacting new ones.

They tried that... ATF can't use computers and have to hold everything on paper by law, a law GOP enacted....

Very hard to enforce laws when these things exist...

ATF is not the entity responsible for enforcing those laws.

You're on a bullshit roll today, aren't you?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Yes, the last thing we'd want is for crazy people to be denied access to guns.

Instead, we need to keep teaching our kids to do Active Shooter Drills and cower behind their desks.

As long as it doesn't take away from trans gender mental patient story time and white people are evil studies

 

[OldLady]

You see, funny thing, when the Second Amendment was passed, guns were so expensive most people couldn't afford them.

Bollocks ... every household had a firearm for hunting and self-defense in Revolutionary War times.

The Minutemen were not in the 1%.

View attachment 452787

No, a lot of them didn't. The law wasn't enforced because a lot of people couldn't afford one. When our local citizens were called out to repel an attack by the British in 1775, very few locals marched to the battle with guns. I think I remember there were 8 total. It was something of a problem, but we still won.

 

[bripat9643]

No surprise you count on a fellow liberal that wants to destroy rights.

Naw, man, I want the right to be able to go to the movies or the mall or shopping or work or send kids to school without having to worry some maniac with a gun is going to spray the crowd with lead.

There is no right "not to worry," NAZI. The promise of safety is one of the main ways aspiring dictators con people into throwing away their freedom.

 

[j-mac]

No surprise you count on a fellow liberal that wants to destroy rights.

Naw, man, I want the right to be able to go to the movies or the mall or shopping or work or send kids to school without having to worry some maniac with a gun is going to spray the crowd with lead.

Sure you do...the person you quoted doesn’t....

 

[martybegan]

This has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with making gun ownership so expensive and time consuming that common citizens can't afford it.

Why would that be a bad thing?

You see, funny thing, when the Second Amendment was passed, guns were so expensive most people couldn't afford them. Gun ownership was a privilege of the rich.

Then Colt started mass producing them, and we've had criminals with guns ever since.

Funny thing, what they are kind of proposing here is what Germany already has. Germany has gun ownership, about 20 million guns for 80 million people. But it isn't considered a "Right", it's a privilege that has to be earned.

Germany has very little gun crime and few gun murders.

Bullshit, everyone on the frontier had a long rifle or musket, they would be fools for not having one.

 

[martybegan]

You see, funny thing, when the Second Amendment was passed, guns were so expensive most people couldn't afford them.

Bollocks ... every household had a firearm for hunting and self-defense in Revolutionary War times.

The Minutemen were not in the 1%.

View attachment 452787

Joe lies all the time, he's the poster I will be most happy about when he stops posting, preferably because he has assumed room temperature.

 

[martybegan]

Is there anyone who can't see where democrat fantasy takes this (beyond attacking 2nd Amendment rights)?

Hey, I've got no problem with the Second Amendment.

I'm all for well-regulated militias, I was a member of one for years.

The Federal army is not the militia, the State National Guards are not the true militia because they limit membership.

 

[Nostra]

Should we have the same evaluation before someone can speak his/her opinion....and if he/she fails they can't speak their opinion?

This is a yes or no question.

No.

You can't kill someone with an opinion.

But I can see why you wouldn't want anyone to evaluate your dumb analogy.

If you think the Constitution requires mental evaluations before your God given rights are yours, then it applies to all of them.

 

[Nostra]

Gun ownership was a privilege of the rich.

Link to your data?

Watch this massive dodge by the moron

Spiking the Gun Myth

archive.nytimes.com

Your link does not back up your bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Naw, man, I want the right to be able to go to the movies or the mall or shopping or work or send kids to school without having to worry some maniac with a gun is going to spray the crowd with lead.

If the Nazis get their way, that chance increases tenfold as only law abiding citizens won't be able to get guns. The criminals will always have them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats are just nosey bastards just like the communists in China are.

One of the same when you really think about it.

 

[Nostra]

No surprise you count on a fellow liberal that wants to destroy rights.

Naw, man, I want the right to be able to go to the movies or the mall or shopping or work or send kids to school without having to worry some maniac with a gun is going to spray the crowd with lead.

Show me where it says I must give up a Constitutional right simply because you are a pants pissing Snowflake, Buttercup.