Read the rest of my posts. The question is when someone has paid their debt, should they be able to own firearms. I say yes.
Mental health problem? Can’t be trusted around firearms? Why are you walking around free then?
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
What are some unpopular gun opinions you have?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Mental health problem? Can’t be trusted around firearms? Why are you walking around free then?
I’m not sure what you’re saying, but there is no right to walk around crazy and dangerous.
Show me where walking around crazy and dangerous is protected?And where in the Constitution does it say that ??
Show me where infringing on the 2nd amendment is allowed?
Thats my point. You're saying that its fine for the government to deem someone unfit for any and all personal freedom or liberty, however people with a history of violence should be totally ignored and treated as if their prior actions never occured. that doesnt seem very logical
I would argue that he isn't saying that, the Constitution is.
Those who disagree with the language of the 2nd Amendment should campaign to amend the Constitution, instead of undermining it by advocating for more judicial overreach in an attempt to negate part of the Bill of Rights. We've seen repeatedly how slippery this slope is.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying we should remove the government completely.
I don’t trust the government to make a decision about someone’s mental health, either. Way to easy for them to manipulate it to remove someone’s right to own a firearm.
Someone who has served their time and has been released is free. Their debt has been paid and they are square with the house. They should be free to own firearms the same as you or me.
Gun laws are stupid.
Pursuit of happiness, and all that. If it makes me happy to walk around crazy and dangerous, then it's "protected". Right ???
Obviously, the original, literal language of the Constitution is concise and absolute, but the Constitution itself allows for modifications. I realize this is a slippery slope, that will eventually lead to 'them' using "common sense" and "necessity" to abolish ownership of virtually everything , but common sense interpretations and extensions are already used commonly. For example, the constitution says nothing about television or the internet, but Freedom Of the Press/Speech is logically extended to these. We have freedom of speech, but can't yell 'fire" in a crowded building simply because we find it amusing to watch the ensuing panic. That is another logical interpretive restriction, that serves the public good. It would be stupid and irresponsible to do otherwise here.
I largely agree with you on a very literal interpretation of the Constitution, but to say we can not and should not keep firearms from nutcases that walk around putting garbage in a shopping cart while talking to people that aren't there, or out of the hands of people that have repeatedly committed violent crimes, is naively and obstinately narrow-minded and short-sighted.
You don’t support the 2nd amendment, I get it. And that is your right although I think it’s weird that you choose to hang out on a gun trading site.
If you remove the government than society would be anarchy. Which is fine if thats how you want it. However in that scenario rights do not exist. So you can't quote the 2A of the US Constitution as reasoning for someone to own a firearm then say get rid of the government. The Constitution is our government. Also doing your time is punishment for your crimes. It doesnt mean we trust you after your done paying it. Thats nuts. thats like saying someone convicted of raping a 7 year old who has paid their debt to society should be able to open a daycare.
