re: Have any of you had recent arguments online supporting the 2nd Amendment?

quote:

---

Unless you're talking social security or working for the government and receiving benefits, agreed.

---

Why? There is no legal basis for this, so it's clearly unconstitutional, but what constitutes government benefits: unemployment, food stamps, income tax credits, disability, loan forgiveness, etc.?

Besides I already feel it's morally reprehensible that our government has created a system that breeds and reinforces dependency and diminishes self-empowerment, to then add taking away constitutional rights on top of that, is just unfathomable.

And just think how easily the government could use this to exert control. Just start offering more benefits to people until they can't say no, then take away their rights. Reminds me of the tactics used in totalitarian states.

quote:

---

Agreed, to some extent. I don't think if you're claustrophobic (which is technically a mental disorder) that you shouldn't be ineligible

---

I'm saying nobody should be ineligible by a diagnosis alone. Now maybe if a person is at an extreme risk to commit violence or harm, but that would be individual specific.

quote:

---

Technically alcohol and THC are psychotropic drugs. It needs to be case by case basis.

---

It should always be a case by case basis for any reason and the burden of proof should fall on the government, whether that's mental health in general or prescriptions that can impact it.