RE: Just When You Thought Arizona Couldn't Get Stupider...
9th April 2011, 22:27
(This post was last modified: 9th April 2011, 23:03 by reverendjeremiah. )
(9th April 2011, 21:01)Dotard Wrote:
(9th April 2011, 20:43)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Of course I support modern weapons, including fully automatic weapons without special permits or laws.
Ok. I miss-understood ya. My bad.
I'm with you on the no restrictions for weaponry. If I can afford a damn M1A1 Abrams then I should be allowed to have one.
Thats cool man..LOL..like I said, I am used to the quick judgemenst on my second amendment laws. I just want to emphasise that the arms available during the creation of the second amendment is OBVIOUSLY what the framers were writing about, and CONNOT be removed fro the populace for ANY reason (except for incarceration, obviously, or special areas of security)
Honestly. I should be able to walk out side in public with a musket on my side and NOT be harrased by the police.
That tells you how much our second amendment has been gutted..and I HATE that!
I also think modern arms were also in that vision..but what I am saying is that bare minimum, it CANNOT be argued against those weapons available during the drafting of the second amendment..as in, there is NO QUESTION about those weapons being what they meant as "arms".
(9th April 2011, 21:26)Ashendant Wrote: So you think people with mental illnesses(specific ones where guns in their hand would be dangerous) should be allowed?
Very good question. I have put much thought into this.
The first thing I wold ask is; "what kind of mental illness?"
The second thing I would ask is; "When was it diagnosed?"
The third thing I would ask is; "What is the infected (for the sake of argument) doing about his or her treatment?"
Of course if the person was ADHD (a mental illness) I would flat out deny taking their right from them. If they were schizo, or bi-polar, or other extreme illnesses I would expect the patient to be counseled by a court in which he would be told that he either give his weapons to a trusted relative, or put them in stow with the local government (at no cost to them) until such time as they are deemed "cured". This will not be a criminal case, and such judgements will not appear on his criminal record as long as this is followed. The court will retain its benevolence in such matters, and take the health of the patient with the SAME RESPONSIBILITY as the health of society.
So, we can screen them as far as we can without treading on their rights. Benevolence is the key.
But if someone doesnt go to a doctor, and has a problem and buys guns..how can we stop them? Give them psych exams before they purchase a weapon?
Now that question I am not sure of. Should we give a psych exam for each purchase of a weapon?
(9th April 2011, 22:26)Dotard Wrote: I think we were talking about people who got arrested and paid their debt to society.
Mental basket cases, I would say No guns for them.
Yes. That is EXACTLY what I was saying.
Mental basket cases I just covered.
Maybe we should take this over to the "guns" poll on this thread:
and if you havent voted already, then do so and state why.
And yes, you should be able to legally buy a fully functional, fully loaded tank in my opinion.