Then rather than try to do what it takes to reduce mass shootings we'll just have to roll with the punches and hope it isn't our loved ones that get sacrificed on the pyre of good intentions.
Poll: Who do you Think Will be The Next POTUS?
- Thread starter ThePackageDeli
- Start date
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
I don’t have a problem erring on the side of caution. I do have a problem with Presidents, who think it’s OK or even an option to take peoples constitutional rights away. Nothing good comes from panic.
Over70irregs
Well-Known Member
That’s all I got. Sad…
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I had no idea you were so unconstitutional. But you can’t complain when the Democrats do the same thing. I do agree sometimes freedom is dangerous.
P.S. If one is diagnosed with mental illness and he's making violent threats then he has imo surrendered his right to a wait and see what he does next and then maybe we'll act.
Over70irregs
Well-Known Member
Yes they do. Super sad
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Again, who gets to decide that? Now you’re advocating for mental health to be politicized. because it will be. Do you know what you get when you mix politics and healthcare? Politics.
Except you put it out there that Trump wanted to take away guns without qualifying that it was in regards to taking guns from mentally ill people instead of all of us. And it was just floating an idea. Didn't happen.
If someone is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and he's publicly threatening to kill people then it seems pretty clear cut to me. If he hasn't been diagnosed but he's making threats then he should be taken into custody so that he can be examined. Freedom to say terrible things doesn't supersede public safety. Yelling fire in the theater for example.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Go back and watch what Trump was talking about. He wasn’t talking about someone that was mentally unfit. Actually, he was talking about someone whose spouse had said he had made threats, but there was no evidence. It’s really kind of disturbing when you cannot just say how wrong Trump was for saying that. Really doesn’t make you much different than the people you argue against on the other side. Wrong is wrong. Hero are worship is disturbing. I don’t have a problem calling people out and still supporting them especially when they admit they did something they should not. And I believe DeSaints has even done that many times in regard to his Covid response. Trump not so much..
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Neither did Biden‘s vaccine mandate still didn’t make it any less wrong. Mentally ill is such a subjective term. Like we’ve discussed many liberals think someone that owns more than two guns and a handful of ammo is mentally unstable. Be careful what you wish for.
He's still right on anyone making threats, if there's proof, that they be taken into custody and denied access to guns. It's not a matter of hero worship. I think he's got an obnoxious personality. But I think he's right to offer for consideration ideas on how to deal with the problem. What this is about is 2nd Amendment proponents, and I support the 2nd Amendment, don't want any restrictions on guns in any way. I don't care. If anyone is saying anything in public, online or otherwise, of a threatening nature, that person needs to be investigated. If they have a documented history of mental illness then they need to have access to guns taken from them as much as humanly possible to do. That's not taking away your right to bear arms.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Well, you should have no problem with Democrats also ignoring the Constitution and thinking they can ban a legitimate presidential contender from being on the ballot, because after all, according to them, he has a history of felonious activities, including in their opinion, being the leader, of an insurrection. No due process is super fun!!
Of course it’s ridiculous but so is your summation of how we should just ignore the constitutional rights of Unconvicted citizens. this is what you asked for, whoever’s in charge gets to decide. Enjoy the slippery slope. It’s a fun ride to the bottom.
Last edited:
You're trying to bolster your argument by referring to something unrelated.
Do police arrest people they suspect of committing a crime? And when they arrest them do they remove any weapons on a suspect's person? Has the suspect been tried and convicted yet?
Anyone who makes violent threats online or in person should be investigated. Anyone who has a history of mental illness should be restricted from possessing guns. Anyone who has a history of mental illness who is making threats to harm others should be taken into custody for examination and any weapons that person owns should be removed from his possession until such time he's deemed to not be a threat to others or himself. Most if not all mass murderers would qualify as mentally ill. The problem is often they fall through the cracks because no one wants to deal with them. A surefire way to get people to lock away guns is to hold them responsible for the actions of their children who had access to unsecured firearms. Your 18 yr old son kills a bunch of people.with your gun then you go to prison. Might not stop it all but any lives saved is worth the tiny threat to your 2nd Amendment rights.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
So a history of mental illness, ever been to a psychiatrist, ever been prescribed drugs for depression? Ever had a family member accuse you of acting violently towards them? Do you see a counselor because of emotional issues? Ever threatened someone you’re gonna kick their ass? Those people need to have their rights restricted? Taken into custody? Hmm…..where was the crime?
An 18-year-old kills someone and you want the parents to go to jail? Isn’t an 18-year-old an adult? Curious examples.
The Sandy Hook killer is a prime example. His mother was a gun collector. She also saw that he needed serious help mentally. She didn't secure those guns and got murdered with one of them. Then he murdered all those kids. If he hadn't killed her but used her gun to kill others then she should have been held accountable. If we don't come up with solutions to save at least some from dying then we are essentially saying that our right to own guns is more important than the lives of others up to the point that we won't allow even one small concession that might save lives.
Not everyone who sees a psychiatrist is a potential murderer. Not by a long shot. Day to day fusses with your family or neighbors, having arguments doesn't qualify either. But raging that you're going to kill someone should get you detained at least long enough to be evaluated. And if you are determined to be a threat then any weapons you may have should be confiscated until such time a mental health professional determines you're no longer a threat. Someone posting online raging against heterosexuals and she's going to kill some to get even should raise red flags. That was the Nashville shooter. How many could've been saved if she had been taken seriously?
Over70irregs
Well-Known Member
We are in crony trade off times. They both rotate until they are just bones.
