CDZ Do You Support Gun Control?

[MathewSmith]

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.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Absolutely not.

By definition, criminals do not obey the law, and this includes laws that purport to prohibit them from possessing arms.

Laws that impair the right of the people to keep and bear arms only deter law-abiding citizens, and all that this accomplishes is to make them easier prey for the criminals.

The earliest gun control laws were rather unabashedly intended to protect the interests of violent criminals—from the earliest laws that were aimed at recently-freed slaves, to protect the safely of Ku Klux Klansmen, through New York's Sullivan law, the progenitor of all modern gun control laws, authored by a criminal gangster-turned-politician, for the benefit if his gang and those allied therewith.

The only thing that is any different about modern gun control laws is that they are not nearly as open and obvious about their true intended purpose; which is the same that it has always been—to protect the interests of criminals and tyrants against the ability of honest citizens to defend against them.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Are there any Americans who could not be said to have "mental health issues" if a loose enough definition is used?

 

[warf]

Are there any Americans who could not be said to have "mental health issues" if a loose enough definition is used?

Well, maybe not the posters on this site.

 

[2aguy]

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.

You would have to define your term "Gun Control." Of the mass shooters, all of them either passed current background checks or would still pass any background check with a mental illness component...including adam lanza and the Colorado theater shooter. Every othe mass shooter, for example the Santa Barbara shooter, passed all the gun control laws in California, he used 10 round magazines, he passed 3 background checks, one for each gun he purchased and also went through the waiting period...dittos all the rest.

Licensing does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns and using them to commit crimes or mass shootings.

Registration of guns, does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns and using them to commit crimes or mass shootings.

Magazine limits do nothing to lower the carnage in a mass shooting or other crime.

The best way to stop criminals, arrest them and lock them up for a long time. Almost all shootings are committed by criminals with at least one prior arrest, many have multiple arrests and felony convictions, and serve little to no time even when the crime involves a gun.

In the town of Richmond, California, the police know that there are 17 individuals responsible for 76% of the shootings in the town.

So you have to define gun control.

 

[2aguy]

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.

What exactly do you propose...and please be specific in how your ideas would physically stop criminals and mass shooters from getting guns. Too often people who support "gun control" as a generic term put forth ideas that have no basis in reality. I have already mentioned licensing and registration as well as magazine limits, as examples of that.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Right now, under current gun control laws, if you commit a crime with a gun you can be arrested. This is accomplished without having to license gun owners or registering guns...it targets actual breaking of the law and it targets actual criminals.

Right now, under current gun control laws, if you are a convicted felon caught in possession of a gun, at your home or on your person, you can immediately be arrested. There is no need to license gun owners or register guns to do this, it is already against the law and you can already be arrested.

Right now, under current gun control laws, if you go to a gun show and buy a gun as a convicted felon you can be arrested.

That is the gun control that I support....the laws we have can already target criminals who use guns without targeting normal, law abiding citizens.

If you want to improve anything....improve the job prosecutors and judges are doing....too often criminals who use guns to commit violent crimes are given 3 year sentences and they serve less than 2 years...hardly a deterrent to repeated gun criminality. Fix that and you will lower the gun crime problem.

Of course, the menatl illness issue.....in most years, mentally ill mass shooters will kill under 50 people a year, and they always kill those people in gun free zones....

End gun free zones and you close down the primary targets of mass shooters and criminals.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I think every able bodied citizen should be able to hit the target they're aiming at and ALL citizens over 18 years of age should have to sign up for selective service and have to do their duty if called with no exceptions (like college or I'm a woman).

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No

 

[westwall]

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.

How do you propose we accomplish that laudable endeavor?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

How do you propose we accomplish that laudable endeavor?

It would be pretty hard to do considering that normal is only a relative term and most people would oppose any such measure that might include them.

*****SMILE*****

 

[westwall]

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.

How do you propose we accomplish that laudable endeavor?

It would be pretty hard to do considering that normal is only a relative term and most people would oppose any such measure that might include them.

*****SMILE*****

I think it is pretty obvious that almost everyone would love to deny weapons to criminals and the insane. One thing that would work with the criminal element is anytime they commit a violent crime they are put away permanently. That does not violate any ones rights, and removes violent people from the regular world. Win, win.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

How do you propose we accomplish that laudable endeavor?

It would be pretty hard to do considering that normal is only a relative term and most people would oppose any such measure that might include them.

*****SMILE*****

I think it is pretty obvious that almost everyone would love to deny weapons to criminals and the insane. One thing that would work with the criminal element is anytime they commit a violent crime they are put away permanently. That does not violate any ones rights, and removes violent people from the regular world. Win, win.

I had a discussion like that back on the DMR Des Moines Register years ago with a female security guard, or so she said, for the state prison. She agreed with me that the truly violent ones and repeat offenders didn't deserve the rights that were granted to them in prison and something needed to be done. She liked my suggestion of putting them on an island paradise, like Bikini Island, and letting them live however they choose with the only security being the US Navy making sure they never leave the island. That way we didn't execute them thereby satisfying the more progressive elements and they were free so long as they stayed there.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[2aguy]

It is interesting that none of the usual people against gun rights ever respond to these threads....I guess because they have to be polite.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Snicker....
Please feel free to join in.
Don't like the 2nd Amendment? Get off your ass and repeal it. Really. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
A sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
"Reasonable" gun control vs "gun nut gun control" | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question: What qualifies as an "infringement" of the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Honest and open debate on gun control | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Gun control? Leave the 2nd amendment out of it! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Are there any Americans who could not be said to have "mental health issues" if a loose enough definition is used?

It's well worth noting that there is a solid history of claims of “mental illness” being used by tyrannical governments to deprive dissidents of basic rights, over political disagreements. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик was particularly notorious, having a number of психушка, or “mental hospitals” that were really prisons for political dissidents.

Think it can't happen here? Have a look at this thread. The OP of that thread may be a bit of an extremist, but the idea is already gaining traction that those who hold to certain essential values of morality, and refuse to go along with those who demand that society embrace certain forms of madness and immorality, are to be marginalized as “bigots”, and possibly even as “mentally ill”.

Is it really so difficult to believe that prohibitions against “mentally ill” people possessing arms wouldn't be abused by including as “mentally ill” those who hold entirely-valid opinions that are deemed politically-incorrect?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Do You Support Gun Control?


nope

 

[westwall]

Are there any Americans who could not be said to have "mental health issues" if a loose enough definition is used?

It's well worth noting that there is a solid history of claims of “mental illness” being used by tyrannical governments to deprive dissidents of basic rights, over political disagreements. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик was particularly notorious, having a number of психушка, or “mental hospitals” that were really prisons for political dissidents.

Think it can't happen here? Have a look at this thread. The OP of that thread may be a bit of an extremist, but the idea is already gaining traction that those who hold to certain essential values of morality, and refuse to go along with those who demand that society embrace certain forms of madness and immorality, are to be marginalized as “bigots”, and possibly even as “mentally ill”.

Is it really so difficult to believe that prohibitions against “mentally ill” people possessing arms wouldn't be abused by including as “mentally ill” those who hold entirely-valid opinions that are deemed politically-incorrect?

Are there any Americans who could not be said to have "mental health issues" if a loose enough definition is used?

It's well worth noting that there is a solid history of claims of “mental illness” being used by tyrannical governments to deprive dissidents of basic rights, over political disagreements. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик was particularly notorious, having a number of психушка, or “mental hospitals” that were really prisons for political dissidents.

Think it can't happen here? Have a look at this thread. The OP of that thread may be a bit of an extremist, but the idea is already gaining traction that those who hold to certain essential values of morality, and refuse to go along with those who demand that society embrace certain forms of madness and immorality, are to be marginalized as “bigots”, and possibly even as “mentally ill”.

Is it really so difficult to believe that prohibitions against “mentally ill” people possessing arms wouldn't be abused by including as “mentally ill” those who hold entirely-valid opinions that are deemed politically-incorrect?

Yup. They are also claiming non believers in man made climate change are mentally ill as well.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's well worth noting that there is a solid history of claims of “mental illness” being used by tyrannical governments to deprive dissidents of basic rights, over political disagreements. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик was particularly notorious, having a number of психушка, or “mental hospitals” that were really prisons for political dissidents.

Think it can't happen here? Have a look at this thread. The OP of that thread may be a bit of an extremist, but the idea is already gaining traction that those who hold to certain essential values of morality, and refuse to go along with those who demand that society embrace certain forms of madness and immorality, are to be marginalized as “bigots”, and possibly even as “mentally ill”.

Is it really so difficult to believe that prohibitions against “mentally ill” people possessing arms wouldn't be abused by including as “mentally ill” those who hold entirely-valid opinions that are deemed politically-incorrect?

Yup. They are also claiming non believers in man made climate change are mentally ill as well.

You can see the pieces already being put into place to allow people to be denied this and other essential rights because they don't hold the opinions that those in power want them to hold.

Was it Dianne Feinstein who, some time in the last year or so, expressed the opinion that war veterans ought to be considered “mentally ill” until proven otherwise, and on that basis, be denied their Second Amendment rights?

 

[jasonnfree]

It's well worth noting that there is a solid history of claims of “mental illness” being used by tyrannical governments to deprive dissidents of basic rights, over political disagreements. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик was particularly notorious, having a number of психушка, or “mental hospitals” that were really prisons for political dissidents.

Think it can't happen here? Have a look at this thread. The OP of that thread may be a bit of an extremist, but the idea is already gaining traction that those who hold to certain essential values of morality, and refuse to go along with those who demand that society embrace certain forms of madness and immorality, are to be marginalized as “bigots”, and possibly even as “mentally ill”.

Is it really so difficult to believe that prohibitions against “mentally ill” people possessing arms wouldn't be abused by including as “mentally ill” those who hold entirely-valid opinions that are deemed politically-incorrect?

Yup. They are also claiming non believers in man made climate change are mentally ill as well.

You can see the pieces already being put into place to allow people to be denied this and other essential rights because they don't hold the opinions that those in power want them to hold.

Was it Dianne Feinstein who, some time in the last year or so, expressed the opinion that war veterans ought to be considered “mentally ill” until proven otherwise, and on that basis, be denied their Second Amendment rights?

I checked that out on factcheck, looks like that's not quite what she said, although she is a major gun grabber. Link below.

Twisting Feinstein’s Words on Military Vets