re: Say what you want, but this is hilariously ironic.

quote:

---

I've tried to get him/her to take a firm stance on what constitutes mentally "unfit" for gun ownership.

---

Given that in his perfect world, ALL guns are removed from private ownership, you can bet your arse that if it were up to him, going to the doc because you are having a hard time dealing with the fact your wife died in a car accident 3 days after having twins would be enough to remove you from gun ownership for life.

I'd just like to point out again a substantial flaw in the OP argument.

OP has repeatedly claimed in this thread that if no one else had a gun, then I wouldn't need one.

This does not actually follow logically.

We aren't all the same size. We aren't all the same sex. And, we are all merely one person which means that we can be over matched by multiple people.

All of these are things that can be mitigated by the possession of a gun.

quote:

---

So your contention is that murder, robbery, and adultery are accepted by 2/3 of the world?

OK, so much for this conversation since there are zero roots in reality.

---

This is why you don't have people willing to engage in discussions on here, because this is the kind of ludicrous assertions that get bandied about in the most dishonest way. You don't need a fricking deity to know right from wrong.

quote:

---

Is it though?

I'm not convinced.

---

You're convinced that the system is perfect as it is now?

quote:

---

Under federal law, a person can be tallied in a database and barred from purchasing or possessing a firearm due to a mental illness under two conditions: if he is involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares him mentally incompetent.

---

Your point? I support this.

quote:

---

Now, this board is all about the Donald, so the question is, is that wrong? Should mental instability as flagged currently by the system preclude gun ownership until a further evaluation can be made?

---

I don't know based on your link which parameters were removed. Perfectly fine revisiting them. I suspect if we did, I would discover some vague assed shite was in there.

But, in general, if you've been mentally ill enough to come up on the public radar, I support you failing a background check.

But, you aren't happy with that level. You want a LOT more.

quote:

---

Realize that if you say yes, you're for restricting gun ownership as the individuals on this board choose to view it.

---

And? I also support background checks which the vast majority of pro-2nd people do. Are you really trying to go with the "hey, you let me bite your pinkie toe, so that means I can chop your leg off" type logic?

quote:

---

The laws allow family members or law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily restrict people's access to firearms when they show "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others

---

They can "seek" whatever they like. They just need to be prepared to prove it. And, it can't be cause Johnny seems mean.

quote:

---

The question is, why do we need red flag laws?

---

Are you familiar with how temporary restraining orders work? If you are, and you're honest, you'd know why I say no fricking way do I support super vague assed red flag laws that would be rubber stamped like TROs are.

I am not ignorant of the pragmatic and civic reasons.

Question though- what is, in your opinion, an example of a natural born right?

And on your 2nd point, it's not a niche view that many people view the bill of rights not as creating rights but acknowledging those that already exist.

quote:

---

From a practicality standpoint, it would be easiest to ban all guns than have to screen 300 million people to identify the few that will go and shoot up a concert or a school or a mall.

---

Nope. Practically to enforce the ban you'd have to physically search 300 million people constantly -and- stop contraband from coming over the borders. Neither idea have any sort of practicality.

quote:

---

But, you aren't happy with that level. You want a LOT more.

---

I would be happy with that level. The problem is that we can't even HAVE that level because it's too juicy of a red meat for politicians to get approval from the NRA when they remove it.

quote:

---

I also support background checks which the vast majority of pro-2nd people do. Are you really trying to go with the "hey, you let me bite your pinkie toe, so that means I can chop your leg off" type logic?

---

Not dodging this, I just legit don't know what you're saying.

quote:

---

They can "seek" whatever they like. They just need to be prepared to prove it. And, it can't be cause Johnny seems mean.

---

What would be fair triggers in your mind then? If someone is increasingly aggressive beyond their normal way of being and that can't be counted, then where is acceptable and not acceptable?

quote:

---

Are you familiar with how temporary restraining orders work? If you are, and you're honest, you'd know why I say no fricking way do I support super vague assed red flag laws that would be rubber stamped like TROs are.

---

No, I am not familiar. Talk to me and let's actually stop name calling each other. Explain where you're coming from with this.

quote:

---

Then, a few posts later, complains about not getting "serious discussion"

---

The discussion is only "serious" if everyone agrees.