Our rights will not be denied!

[Nosmo King]

The insane and the incompetent are often restricted in their constitional rights.

Well I didn't ask if they are. I asked if the U.S. Constitution excludes them. There is a monumental difference between something which is actually legal and something which occurs. Women are raped daily in this country - but it's not legal.

So....does the U.S. Constitution exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent"?

If the constitution was the one and only source of law on guns in America, you would have a point. But there are plenty of gun laws excluding citizens who are not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Do you think it's a good idea to permit the insane and the incompetent to bear arms and why?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Do you think it is a good idea to let the government decide whether or not one is competent?
This is a right that is so important that it comes with a warning. THIS right shall not be infringed upon. Those government laws being passed in an effort to restrict our right are unconstitutional.
Hands off.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think it is a good idea to let the government decide whether or not one is competent?
This is a right that is so important that it comes with a warning. THIS right shall not be infringed upon. Those government laws being passed in an effort to restrict our right are unconstitutional.
Hands off.

There are restrictions on what type of weaponry an individual may have. Do you think these restrictions were placed in order to preserve public health and safety, or for a more dubious purpose?

Are you in favor of the mentally incompetent, the mentally retarded, if you will, to bear arms? To have access to semi-automatic firing systems? How would such access be a virtue? How would such access increase public health and safety?

 

[The Irish Ram]

No I don't. I think what we went through with the Obama gun grab attempt was precipitated by the UN. They want us disarmed. It has nothing to do with mental ability.
You have confused gun ownership with mental illness. How the hell would any gun dealer be able to ascertain whether or not I was competent enough to own a firearm? There are no competency tests given at gun stores. This is a disarmament plan, not a competency plan.

 

[P@triot]

Do you think it's a good idea to permit the insane and the incompetent to bear arms and why?

Who gets to decide who is "insane" and who is "incompetent"? Nancy Pelosi? Barack Obama? Diane Feinstein?

This is 100% true NK - I give you my word. I know two people who were held against their will by the medical community on the grounds that they were mentally unstable and a "danger". Neither were. At all. Both were were parents (one was a grandparent). Neither had ever been in trouble with the law. Ever. Both were pillars of their community and in their church. In both cases, the hospital administrations were complaining about low census and admittance from the ER. In order to appease their bosses, the medical community had these two individuals declared and admitted. They were held against their will, stripped of their personal items, and prevented from making phone calls.

Once the families threatened law suites (and in the one case - specifically used the words "low census") they were immediately released and NEVER had another declaration of concern over their mental state again.

Sorry my friend - but there are far too many people with a political agenda (or other agenda) to place constitutional rights in their hands. The document doesn't have an agenda. The document cannot be bribed or convinced. The document cannot lie. The U.S. Constitution is the most perfect law ever written and it is 100% impartial - making it flawless. I suggest we adhere to it and let everything else sort itself out.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think it's a good idea to permit the insane and the incompetent to bear arms and why?

Who gets to decide who is "insane" and who is "incompetent"? Nancy Pelosi? Barack Obama? Diane Feinstein?

This is 100% true NK - I give you my word. I know two people who were held against their will by the medical community on the grounds that they were mentally unstable and a "danger". Neither were. At all. Both were were parents (one was a grandparent). Neither had ever been in trouble with the law. Ever. Both were pillars of their community and in their church. In both cases, the hospital administrations were complaining about low census and admittance from the ER. In order to appease their bosses, the medical community had these two individuals declared and admitted. They were held against their will, stripped of their personal items, and prevented from making phone calls.

Once the families threatened law suites (and in the one case - specifically used the words "low census") they were immediately released and NEVER had another declaration of concern over their mental state again.

Sorry my friend - but there are far too many people with a political agenda (or other agenda) to place constitutional rights in their hands. The document doesn't have an agenda. The document cannot be bribed or convinced. The document cannot lie. The U.S. Constitution is the most perfect law ever written and it is 100% impartial - making it flawless. I suggest we adhere to it and let everything else sort itself out.

So you concerns center on the definition of incompetent and mentally ill rather than any concerns that such folks could pose a danger to public health and safety by owning an AR-15.

Do you realize that many people do not have happy fun time with guns? Do you realize that many families have been shattered by gun vio9lence and are seeking some succor, some refuge from the scurge of guns on the streets? Any common sense, solution might be explored, until someone claims that the mentally ill and the emotionally and intellectually incompetent might be worthy groups to restrict access to guns from.

What would you say to those who have lost family members to gun violence? What would you say to the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy? Would you say that Adam Lanza would have been denied his constitutional rights if he had no access to his weapon?

Is the second amendment not clear about a well regulated militia being necessary for a secure state? Can the mentally ill or intellectually incompetent be seen as part of a well regulated militia?

 

[P@triot]

So you concerns center on the definition of incompetent and mentally ill rather than any concerns that such folks could pose a danger to public health and safety by owning an AR-15.

That concern is easily alleviated by carrying a firearm. The problem (as always) is that the left doesn't want to take personal responsibility. They want society to keep them safe so they don't have to carry a firearm.

Do you realize that many people do not have happy fun time with guns?

Not really. Like any good American - I mind my own business and worry about myself. It's the busy-body, control-freak fascists that are always worried about what everyone else is doing.

Do you realize that many families have been shattered by gun vio9lence and are seeking some succor, some refuge from the scurge of guns on the streets? Any common sense, solution might be explored, until someone claims that the mentally ill and the emotionally and intellectually incompetent might be worthy groups to restrict access to guns from.

But we already have a "common sense" solution. It's called the U.S. Constitution and that's why it was created. We're trying to invent a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The real problem is the left's refusal to take personal responsibility for anything - including their own personal security.

What would you say to those who have lost family members to gun violence?

I would tell them that they and they alone are responsible for their personal security and that they failed. I would also tell them that the U.S. Constitution never promised them security. It promised them liberty.

What would you say to the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy?

I would tell them that the left-wing fascists killed their children because they outlawed firearms in and around schools - creating the exact victim zone that lunatics crave and seek out. I would also tell them that the U.S. Constitution never promised them security. It promised them liberty.

Would you say that Adam Lanza would have been denied his constitutional rights if he had no access to his weapon?

Yes. The last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution made no stipulations about the "insane" or "incompetent" having no constitutional rights.

Is the second amendment not clear about a well regulated militia being necessary for a secure state? Can the mentally ill or intellectually incompetent be seen as part of a well regulated militia?

The second amendment his extremely clear. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for a secure state" is the Prefatory Clause. It merely cites a reason for why they are implementing something. But it is not the what. It is only the why. In this case, the what - or the Operative Clause - is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not the right of the "well regulated militia". The right of the people.

 

[Reasonable]

Want to talk about rights?
Trump Administration Is A No-Show At Hearings On Human Rights | The Huffington Post

Oh right... gun rights is more important than human rights to the orange sex offender and his sheep.

 

[Nosmo King]

So you concerns center on the definition of incompetent and mentally ill rather than any concerns that such folks could pose a danger to public health and safety by owning an AR-15.

That concern is easily alleviated by carrying a firearm. The problem (as always) is that the left doesn't want to take personal responsibility. They want society to keep them safe so they don't have to carry a firearm.

Do you realize that many people do not have happy fun time with guns?

Not really. Like any good American - I mind my own business and worry about myself. It's the busy-body, control-freak fascists that are always worried about what everyone else is doing.

Do you realize that many families have been shattered by gun vio9lence and are seeking some succor, some refuge from the scurge of guns on the streets? Any common sense, solution might be explored, until someone claims that the mentally ill and the emotionally and intellectually incompetent might be worthy groups to restrict access to guns from.

But we already have a "common sense" solution. It's called the U.S. Constitution and that's why it was created. We're trying to invent a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The real problem is the left's refusal to take personal responsibility for anything - including their own personal security.

What would you say to those who have lost family members to gun violence?

I would tell them that they and they alone are responsible for their personal security and that they failed. I would also tell them that the U.S. Constitution never promised them security. It promised them liberty.

What would you say to the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy?

I would tell them that the left-wing fascists killed their children because they outlawed firearms in and around schools - creating the exact victim zone that lunatics crave and seek out. I would also tell them that the U.S. Constitution never promised them security. It promised them liberty.

Would you say that Adam Lanza would have been denied his constitutional rights if he had no access to his weapon?

Yes. The last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution made no stipulations about the "insane" or "incompetent" having no constitutional rights.

Is the second amendment not clear about a well regulated militia being necessary for a secure state? Can the mentally ill or intellectually incompetent be seen as part of a well regulated militia?

The second amendment his extremely clear. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for a secure state" is the Prefatory Clause. It merely cites a reason for why they are implementing something. But it is not the what. It is only the why. In this case, the what - or the Operative Clause - is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not the right of the "well regulated militia". The right of the people.

So, you're indifferent to the suffering of others, just so long as you can keep having happy fun time with your gun. Whatever happens to victims is, essentially their own fault, even if they were six years old. The retarded, the mentally ill should have guns, not because it has anything to do with their safety or the safety of others, but because if they can't get guns, somehow you think you can't get guns.

Given your indifference to the suffering of others, given you belief that the insane should have guns, given your preternatural ability to shove blame for gun violence on to the victims of gun violenc, would you propose any solutions at all to curtail gun violence?

 

[P@triot]

So, you're indifferent to the suffering of others, just so long as you can keep having happy fun time with your gun.

So you're indifferent to the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of others? So long as you get to control them and dictate their lives, it's happy fun time for you?

 

[P@triot]

So, you're indifferent to the suffering of others, just so long as you can keep having happy fun time with your gun.

The only thing I'm indifferent to is the fake sob-stories of the left designed to give them power and control over others.

 

[P@triot]

Whatever happens to victims is, essentially their own fault, even if they were six years old.

No - that one is the fault of left-wingers who create gun-free victim zones to manufacture the body count of small children they need for their narrative to outlaw firearms and control others.

 

[P@triot]

The retarded, the mentally ill should have guns, not because it has anything to do with their safety or the safety of others, but because if they can't get guns, somehow you think you can't get guns.

A. Who decides when someone is "retarded" or "mentally ill"?

B. What ensures us that that person or those people do not have an agenda and are not abusing the authority you wish to empower them with?

You've failed to address that question multiple times.

 

[P@triot]

Given your indifference to the suffering of others, given you belief that the insane should have guns, given your preternatural ability to shove blame for gun violence on to the victims of gun violenc, would you propose any solutions at all to curtail gun violence?

Given your indifference to liberty and given your contempt for the U.S. Constitution, would you propose anything which ensures my right not to have others decide for me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, as if I were a small child with parents controlling me?

 

[P@triot]

would you propose any solutions at all to curtail gun violence?

Yes. And I've addressed this multiple times already. Take personal responsibility for your own security. Carry a firearm, have proper training in using it, and have proper tactical training for defense with it.

When is the last time a victim in a mass shooting was found with a loaded firearm on them? I rest my case your honor...

 

[Nosmo King]

So, you're indifferent to the suffering of others, just so long as you can keep having happy fun time with your gun.

So you're indifferent to the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of others? So long as you get to control them and dictate their lives, it's happy fun time for you?

My aim is not to confiscate guns. I just want to be safe from the havoc they cause.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, you're indifferent to the suffering of others, just so long as you can keep having happy fun time with your gun.

The only thing I'm indifferent to is the fake sob-stories of the left designed to give them power and control over others.

Denial of the victims of gun violence is a bit more callous than blaming them for their plight. Denial makes one utterly blind and thus utterly foolish.

 

[Nosmo King]

Whatever happens to victims is, essentially their own fault, even if they were six years old.

No - that one is the fault of left-wingers who create gun-free victim zones to manufacture the body count of small children they need for their narrative to outlaw firearms and control others.

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Do you actually believe that anyone is glad whenever tragedies happen because it strengthens some perceived political agenda? You're arguments have become increasingly callous and stupid. That's a pity because I thought you might have something important to say.

 

[Kondor3]

You live in a la la world that does not exist. The far right wants to oppress everyone else is the truth of the matter.

1. I agree that the OP is hallucinating

---------

2. The Far Right is full of $hit clean up to its ears

3. The Far Left is full of $hit clean up to its ears.

They're both full of it.

It's just that it floats to the top in different ways, and becomes detectable by smell, at different times.

 

[P@triot]

So, you're indifferent to the suffering of others, just so long as you can keep having happy fun time with your gun.

The only thing I'm indifferent to is the fake sob-stories of the left designed to give them power and control over others.

Denial of the victims of gun violence is a bit more callous than blaming them for their plight. Denial makes one utterly blind and thus utterly foolish.

I'm not denying gun violence. I simply can't be manipulated by bleeding-heart left-wing sob-stories.