This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Heartlander · 80-89, M
To read the 2nd amendment, it's a state issue if at all.
A problem with restrictions is that it gives a government agency the authority to determine who is or isn't sane enough. So considering how some may consider all Democrats to be insane, it would justify taking away their firearms.
A problem with restrictions is that it gives a government agency the authority to determine who is or isn't sane enough. So considering how some may consider all Democrats to be insane, it would justify taking away their firearms.
BohemianBoo · M
@Heartlander But don't we already do that with lots of things? Like if a person is past the age of consent, but they're determined to be mentally ill, they might not be legally allowed to get married.
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
@Heartlander all the arms of the stupid so calked republicans should have their guns taken away
This message was deleted by its author.
beaglehunter · 70-79, M
@Strictmichael75 like hitler did bull sh-t
BohemianBoo · M
@beaglehunter The Nazis made it easier to own guns, not harder.
beaglehunter · 70-79, M
@BohemianBoo what the hell fairy tale are you reading?well i guess in a few more years you will be an adult and maybe read about hitler
BohemianBoo · M
@beaglehunter I have read about Nazi Germany, far more than you have. The Nazis actually relaxed the gun control laws from the Weimar Republic.
Roadsterrider · 56-60, M
@BohemianBoo Federal law age of consent is 18, different states have lower age of consent for their state. For marriage, state law trumps federal law. Marriage isn't protected by the constitution.
BohemianBoo · M
@Roadsterrider Sure, but if a person is deemed unable to make life choices due to a mental illness, then they might not be allowed to get married, regardless of their age. We recognize that people who are severely autistic are not able to consent, the same way children aren't able to consent.
Roadsterrider · 56-60, M
@BohemianBoo Someone with psychological problems is already prohibited from owning a firearm, and I support that. The problem is the next step, redflag confiscations. Legislation that allows an anonymous tip to move law enforcement to confiscate a persons firearm without due process, without any evidence. Who gets to decide who is mentally unstable? Who gets to decide when someone loses their constitutional rights?
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Strictmichael75
Democrat or Republican?
I was just emphasizing the risk of letting a government agency determine who is or isn't sane enough to own a firearm :)
There are plenty of examples in our history to suggest caution for such paths.
In some states, during the Jim Crow era, Blacks were prohibited from possessing firearms.
God, Black people weren't even allowed to use public facilities.
I some places, people with epilepsy were forced to be sterilized.
There were all kinds of legal schemes to strip Hispanic Americans of their land.
And just being a native American was enough to put you on the receiving end of awful things.
Democrat or Republican?
I was just emphasizing the risk of letting a government agency determine who is or isn't sane enough to own a firearm :)
There are plenty of examples in our history to suggest caution for such paths.
In some states, during the Jim Crow era, Blacks were prohibited from possessing firearms.
God, Black people weren't even allowed to use public facilities.
I some places, people with epilepsy were forced to be sterilized.
There were all kinds of legal schemes to strip Hispanic Americans of their land.
And just being a native American was enough to put you on the receiving end of awful things.