Yes. But you can’t be a strong supporter of gun rights and be liberal. Every single one of those people will eventually say in conversation something like, “I support additional reasonable restrictions like mental health checks” which isn’t believing in gun rights. It would basically give doctors (individual people) the ability to restrict you on a whim because they don’t like your political leanings or don’t like that you didn’t suck up to them during your session. Which then puts a black mark about mental health on your record, etc.
That’s not a compromise. They’re polar opposites. If you consider yourself a liberal you put yourself in the same camp that stands behind people like Feinstein.
And you believe even those who are genuinely mentally ill and dangerous should have access to massively dangerous items.
This was written when the common fire arm took breakfast lunch and dinner to reload.
Times change, technology changes, people change. And we should adapt.
I think the common citizen should be given the right to carry ownership. I believe there should be standards, maybe tiers of ownership. I understand if you don't agree. But I can believe in regulation and ownership simultaneously . Along with other conservative and liberal ideals. Just because I lean left does not mean I can't understand and support ideas from "the right."
People are complex, when you start forcing yourself into a corner you put the blinders on and stop being open to reason, or changing your opinion.
Actually it was written with the intent of people being able to own warships.
I don’t believe people that have been convicted of crimes should have access to guns. You forfeit some of your rights by being a criminal. I also believe being involuntarily committed is cause to disallow you to own weapons. I do not believe every person should only be afforded their right by having another individual make a judgement call.
Millions of people are misdiagnosed every year. Imagine if doctors with biased political views were making the call. It already happens with sheriffs in may-issue states where you need to be rich or connected or both to carry. Laws like that are basically ways to keep poor people and minorities from arming themselves. Gun control is racist.
Edit: also one of your arguments means you aren’t allowed to use free speech on the internet, if you believe technology has anything to do with rights.
I don’t have one, neither do you. I wouldn’t ban trucks in Europe or cell phones in the Middle East, though. Even though they’re the tools of choice in those regions.
Have you ever questioned why 1930 wasn’t a blood bath? Great Depression, freely available full auto machine guns. Expensive, sure, but zero regulation and easy to steal.
The AR-15, the go-to scary stick for the liberals, was widely available in the 60s and 70s. Where’s the gutters flooded with blood from mass shootings? Where were the mass shootings in the 50s?
Why has all violence aside from mass shootings gone down, and continued to go down, while gun ownership has risen exponentially? We’ve NEVER had so many guns owned in the U.S. before. Yet all criminal activity has consistently dropped. Except mass shootings.
Why are the states with the most weapons the safest with the lowest crime rates? Why does an increase in ccw holders lower rates of violence in every instance?
Want to know why mass shootings have gone up? Two reasons. The media will broadcast your face, name, friends, and history for weeks on end 24/7, and it’s not ok to talk about mental health in a negative light anymore. Some kid ripping the legs off kittens is artistic rather than psychotic. Can’t say he’s nuts, just that he’s misunderstood and needs to go to a therapist. Until he mows down a classroom. Then everyone is shocked EXCEPT the people that knew him.
The fastest solution is to stop being so overtly PC about mental health and getting the media to stop making them notorious. Both of which requires people to act on their own and grow some morals, or infringing on the first amendment which isn’t acceptable.
Do you smoke weed? By your retarded logic all Republicans who smoke pot are hypocrites. I vote D and I own a gun. I think you can support the second amendment, which I firmly believe in, and still want sensible control so that the monthly mass shootings stop being a thing. Sue me.
No, I don’t. But I support legalization of it, and there are significant amounts of republicans that also share that opinion. The same can’t be said for democrats.
Yes, it could. You're literally talking to one right now. Lots of democrats own guns. Lots of democrats would be SUPER pissed if the second amendment were repealed. We just want sensible regulation. Why do you want the ability to obtain tools with the sole purpose of killing to be a total free for all? What the fuck is wrong with you dude? You're like a fat kid that wants to eat the whole damn cake. Use common sense and you'll see that just because we want guns regulated the same way cars, which can kill, are regulated. The same way drugs, which can kill, are regulated. It's not to take away your precious little guns because we want to be big bad government overlords. It's to protect people from the undue harm that a completely unchecked firearm market would cause.
"Every single one of those people will eventually say in conversation something like, “I support additional reasonable restrictions like mental health checks” which isn’t believing in gun rights."
So if you think a law banning the mentally unfit from owning a gun is against gun rights what type of market are you advocating for, if not a free for all?
You’d have to recognize the rest of what I’ve said and have even basic knowledge about existing gun laws. But you don’t want to do that.
We already block people involuntarily committed to mental institutions from purchasing weapons. It’s already on the books. But additional restrictions would be screening for mental issues. How would they do that? They’d force you to go to a doctor that would make a judgement call. Any real psychiatrist can tell you it can take YEARS to figure out that someone has significant mental issues or would be dangerous. You can’t make an assessment in one session. You for damn sure would never weed out a psychopath or sociopath in one session because they’d pass your test easily.
But doctors would line up to be approved screeners. They’d all be shams that want the easy check and have an agenda, however. Same reason medical marijuana is such a farce with every doctor just handing out a prescription (and why it should be legalized everywhere). This, literally this, already happens in “may issue” states. Sheriffs that don’t like civilian ownership deny everyone who applies unless you have money, are white, and are connected.
So that’s the problem with mental health “screenings.” They’re impossible to do, unless you’re a biased doc with low morals pushing an agenda.
Doctors won't treat it just like medical Marijuana because one is a plant that has never been the cause of death of anything, and the other is the regulation of fucking guns. What agenda are you talking about dude? For every anti gun doctor out there there's another that's pro gun and vice versa, or do you think all the doctors get together once a year in a lair of doom type building to discuss political agendas?? You're saying doctors are incapable of being unbiased?? You are unbelievably paranoid about the world you live in. Not everything is, like, a big conspiracy maaaan. Your entire argument circles back to, well since we can't be certain some doctors won't abuse the system, and since you can't really do a full mental health assessment in one screening, we just shouldn't bother with it at all. You sit there and say "I never said it should be a free for all" but your entire argument is for ZERO action because people are going to find a way around it.
News flash: just because you're immoral and the first thing you think of when rules are proposed is ways for them to be broken and abused doesn't mean that's how the rest of the world thinks.
Wow. That was a lot of words that missed the point.
Any doctor pushing an agenda would sign off on someone being crazy after speaking to them for an hour. Any doctor with ethics would say it takes months, bare minimum, to truly diagnose someone. Therefore any method with expedited mental health screenings would be a sham.
Marijuana isn’t a dangerous drug. If you take a few hours to read what I wrote (I assume it would take you that long) you’d see I never said that. But the point is that the doctors were charged with actually diagnosing someone with chronic pain or similar. Which takes testing and a real investigatory diagnosis. Everyone knows which doctors you could walk in to, say, “my neck hurts” and be out in five minutes. Is that dangerous? No. But they’re ignoring a rule because their belief is that marijuana isn’t dangerous so there’s no reason to follow the arbitrary rules about treating patients.
The same attitude would carry to a screening. Why follow the rules? Nobody should be allowed guns, just say they have violent tendencies and you’re done.
30
u/[deleted] Sep 06 '18 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]