Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

[Kantuckkeean]

What mentally ill? My cousin has been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder, she is a hoarder. Should she be denied the right to defend herself with the common tools of the day? I don't think so.

The problem with the mentally ill should be denied firearms argument is that the determination of mental impairment is subjective. Just because a person is sick in the head does not mean they must be violent. Who determines who is ill? Maybe fear of other people's inanimate possessions is a mental illness...

It isn't until a person proves themselves incompetent or dangerous that they can legitimately be prohibited the common right to defense.

You're right in some regards. I'm sorry to hear that your cousin suffers from OCD. Hopefully, she can get help for that. I don't think that your cousin should be prevented from owning firearms based solely on a diagnosis of OCD either.

However, you know darn good and well that I'm not trying to prevent hoarders from owning guns and if you don't, then maybe common sense is meaningless to you. The reason that your arguments irritate me is because you often misconstrue or paint things in black and white without allowing for anything in between. There are many mental illnesses and if a person is diagnosed with certain ones, then they should not have the right to own firearms, in my opinion. I would leave that up to a psychiatrist or psychologist who has made a good faith effort to ascertain the individual's potential for violence.

I'll ask again (with a slight re-phrasing): Do you believe that violent criminals and people suffering from a mental illness that makes them a high risk of becoming violent should have easy access to firearms?

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

...
Then I'd let them know that the NRA is anti-democratic.

Not for nothing but the founding fathers were vehemently "anti-democratic" as well. They referred to 'democracy' as "mob rule" and took numerous steps to prohibit it.

The VAST majority of Americans (80%+) support common-sense gun control legislation, like universal background checks, closing loopholes, preventing potentially violent offenders from obtaining guns, etc. However, the NRA is adamantly opposed to the will of the vast majority of Americans. The NRA is an extremist fringe group these days. They even oppose legislation that would prevent the mentally ill and violent criminals from obtaining weapons. Seriously.

Like many here, I had to pass a background check to get my ccw permit. It wasn't hard though. I just don't understand the opposition to universal background checks and reasonable waiting periods. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you'll get approved. If you're a wife-beating or violent felon, mentally ill or whatever, you shouldn't. Common-sense legislation may prevent criminals from obtaining a gun and may save numerous lives (maybe yours or one of your loved ones). Doesn't sound that bad to me.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

What other "common sense" infringements do the vast majority of Americans support? Would they support similar infringements upon their First Amendment rights? Fourth Amendment rights? Fifth Amendment rights?

Where is the line drawn?

The trouble with "common sense" control is that it boils down to control. And that is in direct opposition to liberty.

It really doesn't matter (strictly speaking from the stated intent behind the BOR sense) if 99.99% of the American people support measures to control the rights of others. The purpose for the BOR is to prohibit such things from taking place.

Not that I am fond of everything the NRA has done, but the NRA is not opposed to preventing violent offenders from obtaining weapons. Nor am I, but infringing upon the rights of everyone who hasn't been proven guilty [of a violent crime] isn't an answer that anyone should accept.

Every act of random violence is already illegal. There are over 20,000 "common sense" gun control laws in effect. Does anyone truly believe that infringing upon my rights (or yours) will somehow stop a single criminal from engaging in a criminal act?

Perhaps I am just one out of the 20% of Americans who oppose the concept of someone else deciding when, and to what extent, I can engage in my natural born rights - rights that are legally recognized by this nation's supreme law - but my opposition is backed by the stated intent of the men who made the Constitution our nation's supreme law. To my way of thinking that reigns supreme over a mob's desire to inflict their whims on others.

Old England had a law called 'Corruption of Blood.' The law was based on the concept that an entire family's blood was tainted if one member [of the family] engaged in a criminal act; with the end result being that the entire family was punished for the actions of one member. Such things are illegal in the US - yet the idea of punishing the innocent [for the sins of the guilty] is quite prominent [as you note - some 80% of the population favors infringements upon individual rights]. I wonder how the public would embrace such a concept if they truly understood what they stood to lose.

 

[Duckshot]

My cousin is perfectly fine. It's OCD not brain cancer.

Most criminals get their guns by stealing them, like Adam Lanza did.

I don't beleive a person should be prohibited common tools of defense without having proven themselves dangerous.

 

[Kantuckkeean]

"Could prevent heat of the moment killings"


These waiting periods have been in place for some time now. Exactly how many muders did they prevent?

And yeah, waiting periods do affect gun owners? What if I get called away to Missouri on an emergency duck hunting expedition? Well hell, I would need a new fowl peice. What if I can't get a decent gun before the plane leaves? Would you deny me the right to go duck hunting within state and federal regulation with the shotgun of my choice?

What about Liberty?

I don't know how many murders waiting periods prevented.

"Yes, and how many deaths will it take 'til he knows that too many people have died? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. The answer is blowin' in the wind." - Bob Dylan

I'm not sure why you scoff and joke, but you're at liberty to do so as you wish. Perhaps you miscomprehended what I said... we both know that that's happened before.

To be clear, I'm not fighting to take away your liberties, unless you're a violent criminal or suffer from a mental illness that makes you prone to violence. I'm not against law-abiding citizens obtaining and owning firearms. I think that there can be exceptions to (almost) every rule. Like passports... you need one expedited? No problem. My wife did that last year. You just pay a little extra. You're a law-abiding guy in need of a new over-and-under for an "emergency duck hunting expedition"? No problem. You pay a little extra for expedited acquisition.

You're a violent criminal and you want a WHAT and WHAT?! Yeah no. You gave up that right through your violent actions. Seems a small cost to pay to live in a safer society.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

You're a violent criminal and you want a WHAT and WHAT?! Yeah no. You gave up that right through your violent actions. Seems a small cost to pay to live in a safer society.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Who is paying when "common sense" gun control laws are in place, but the criminal element simply avoids them entirely and engages in criminal actions anyway?

Not the criminal element.

It's the non-criminals who bear the cost of lost freedoms [or infringed rights].

Perhaps the answer is action that actually targets the guilty?

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Tahts-a-dats-ago,

We live in much different world than the founding fathers did.

You asked: "Does anyone truly believe that infringing upon my rights (or yours) will somehow stop a single criminal from engaging in a criminal act?"

Again, I'm not looking to infringe upon your rights... unless you're a violent criminal, or suffer from a mental illness that could make you prone to violent outbursts.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Here is the thing, our rights under our Constitution are not dependent on polls, rights are rights, they are not subject to approval by polls or votes. Our 2nd Amendment rights do not end because someone doesn't like guns. If a poll says 60% of Ameticans think the 13th amendment should be limited does that make it right or just?

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Who is paying when "common sense" gun control laws are in place, but the criminal element simply avoids them entirely and engages in criminal actions anyway?

Not the criminal element.

It's the non-criminals who bear the cost of lost freedoms [or infringed rights].

Perhaps the answer is action that actually targets the guilty?

With the number of guns and criminals in America, we cannot prevent all gun crimes, but we can prevent some and make others more difficult to commit.

Which of your rights have I suggested be lost (or infringed upon)?

Targeting the guilty (and imminent) is the objective...

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Tahts-a-dats-ago,

We live in much different world than the founding fathers did.

You asked: "Does anyone truly believe that infringing upon my rights (or yours) will somehow stop a single criminal from engaging in a criminal act?"

Again, I'm not looking to infringe upon your rights... unless you're a violent criminal, or suffer from a mental illness that could make you prone to violent outbursts.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

People are people.

If anything, today's society serves to drive home the wisdom of the framers.

Advocating restrictions on other people's rights is looking to infringe - even if the intentions are pure.

What's the old adage...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

I have no doubt that you mean well. Nor do I doubt the need to prevent violent offenders from obtaining a firearm. I do have issues with the concept of allowing someone the power to determine who is prone to future actions that are undesirable (wondering why - if that person is so potentially dangerous - the unstable individual isn't under constant supervision).

Freedom is so incredibly precious. Unimaginable numbers have fought for it, and unimaginable numbers have died fighting for it. It just seems shameful that so many, in our society, would so casually toss it aside for some never-to-be-realized sense of security.

For every action there is a reaction. Are we (as a society) really that eager to gamble our freedoms?

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Here is the thing, our rights under our Constitution are not dependent on polls, rights are rights, they are not subject to approval by polls or votes. Our 2nd Amendment rights do not end because someone doesn't like guns. If a poll says 60% of Ameticans think the 13th amendment should be limited does that make it right or just?

Of course not. But also, I don't know of anybody who is saying that we should end 2nd Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Kantuckkeean]

(wondering why - if that person is so potentially dangerous - the unstable individual isn't under constant supervision).

Answering that would require delving into the political realm which isn't allowed here.

Seems that we share at least some common ground... and probably more than our differences.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

With the number of guns and criminals in America, we cannot prevent all gun crimes, but we can prevent some and make others more difficult to commit.

Which of your rights have I suggested be lost (or infringed upon)?

Targeting the guilty (and imminent) is the objective...

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

There are over 20,000 gun control laws in place. It is illegal (in every state) to commit "gun crimes."

There is no real proof that a single "gun crime" has been prevented by all those gun control laws. There's zero proof that new gun control laws would prevent a single "gun crime." At best the claim (preventing gun crimes and making them more difficult) is conjecture.

infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something), encroach on.

A permission to partake in my natural born rights is infringement. Requiring said permission without a finding of guilt, on my part, for a crime committed is infringement.

If targeting the guilty is the objective, why suggest actions that target everyone? And who decides who is imminently a threat, and why isn't that imminent threat under constant supervision?

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Answering that would require delving into the political realm which isn't allowed here.

Seems that we share at least some common ground... and probably more than our differences.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

I think the question can be addressed without delving into the political realm. I don't see it as a right vs left vs middle vs etc.. at all. I see it as a question that begs for a reasonable answer; especially in light of all that is at risk.

Yes, I have no doubt that we have much in common.

 

[Plumbata]

There are many mental illnesses and if a person is diagnosed with certain ones, then they should not have the right to own firearms

The Soviets engaged in the "pathologization of dissent" via their MSM propaganda; manipulating the more pliable minds of their populace to ostracize or shame dissenters, followed by outright criminalization. That tactic is being deployed almost exclusively by one end of the ideological and cultural spectrum against their perceived adversaries in every context where it is deemed more expedient than fair, open, uncurated and uncensored debate. It's much easier to just bring on some quack partisan psychiatrists to label someone as a mentally ill "danger to society" and then unleash the state (or indeed corporate) apparatus to strip that individual of their more inconvenient rights; pesky things like like free speech or free association. It has happened in some form for millennia so it's no surprise that it's happening here and now too, and the plebs lap it up as always if they're promised that it's to protect them and most assuredly in their best interest.

I can't drop any spicy memes or the plethora of charged media hitpieces or news articles here which showcase this perverse manipulation of public sentiment but I'm sure plenty of you have seen this alarming trend gain steam in recent years, particularly this last one.

I wish I had answers or solutions for this but honestly don't pretend to understand the incalculable complexities of justly governing hundreds of millions. Obviously the pathologically violent as traditionally understood shouldn't have ready access to weapons, but in an age when "silence is violence" and "there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth", the definitional checklists for what constitutes "mental illness" (let alone basic biological realities) are likewise being bent in any direction to suit the agenda of the day and may soon encompass some or all of us here depending on who is revising those definitions and what master they serve. Metal detectorists are a strange bunch ya know, always looking over their shoulder while sneaking into the woods to dig suspicious holes at odd hours...

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Not for nothing but the founding fathers were vehemently "anti-democratic" as well. They referred to 'democracy' as "mob rule" and took numerous steps to prohibit it.





What other "common sense" infringements do the vast majority of Americans support? Would they support similar infringements upon their First Amendment rights? Fourth Amendment rights? Fifth Amendment rights?

Were is the line drawn?

The trouble with "common sense" control is that it boils down to control. And that is in direct opposition to liberty.

It really doesn't matter (strictly speaking from the stated intent behind the BOR sense) if 99.99% of the American people support measures to control the rights of others. The purpose for the BOR is to prohibit such things from taking place.

Not that I am fond of everything the NRA has done, but the NRA is not opposed to preventing violent offenders from obtaining weapons. Nor am I, but infringing upon the rights of everyone who hasn't been proven guilty [of a violent crime] isn't an answer that anyone should accept.

Every act of random violence is already illegal. There are over 20,000 "common sense" gun control laws in effect. Does anyone truly believe that infringing upon my rights (or yours) will somehow stop a single criminal from engaging in a criminal act?

Perhaps I am just one out of the 20% of Americans who oppose the concept of someone else deciding when, and to what extent, I can engage in my natural born rights - rights that are legally recognized by this nation's supreme law - but my opposition is backed by the stated intent of the men who made the Constitution our nation's supreme law. To my way of thinking that reigns supreme over a mob's desire to inflict their whims on others.

Old England had a law called 'Corruption of Blood.' The law was based on the concept that an entire family's blood was tainted if one member [of the family] engaged in a criminal act; with the end result being that the entire family was punished for the actions of one member. Such things are illegal in the US - yet the idea of punishing the innocent [for the sins of the guilty] is quite prominent [as you note - some 80% of the population favors infringements upon individual rights]. I wonder how the public would embrace such a concept if they truly understood what they stood to lose.

When people realize they can vote themselves “free money”...when the majority of the populace is morally bankrupt...where does it leave the remainder? “Democracy” is an overused term in the media.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

I'm pro-2nd Amendment. I have a lifetime permit to carry a concealed weapon. I've got pistols, rifles, shotguns... My wife has a Featherweight .38 with an internal hammer to protect herself and the kids if I'm not around. I often carry when travelling since the vast majority of the states that I travel to have reciprocity laws and I don't know what I'll run into. I don't often feel the need to ccw when I'm out in town. The rural folks around me are pretty mellow. If I lived in another location, perhaps I'd ccw more. I always have a knife on me though.

I am also a lifetime member of the NRA. My father bought it for me a couple of decades ago as a gift when it was super cheap. I'm glad he did because I am adamantly anti-NRA and the NRA has spent waaaaay more on me on printing and mailing costs of their monthly propaganda magazine, "American Rifleman", and all the other crap they send me, than the paltry $50 or $100 that my father spent on the lifetime membership (I can't remember. It was long ago.). I'd cancel it because of the environmental impact of using those resources, and because they can claim me as a member in their advertising and fundraising drives and bigger numbers are better for that stuff, but I remain a member so that I can partake in their bankruptcy in my own little way and I recycle all of their propaganda (except for the pre-paid envelopes... which I send back to them un-stamped and empty... so that they have to pay the postage... "Postage will be paid by addressee"... support the USPS!!).

Before the NRA's bankruptcy filing, they were calling me weekly, begging for donations. I'd keep their fundraising people on the line as long as possible so that they couldn't spend time wheedling money out of another NRA member... and I'd explain my reasons for not giving them a dime at length. Half the crap that they'd say to try to get me to donate were lies, so first I'd call them out on their lies and propaganda. Then I'd let them know that the NRA is anti-democratic. They fight ANYTHING gun related. The VAST majority of Americans (80%+) support common-sense gun control legislation, like universal background checks, closing loopholes, preventing potentially violent offenders from obtaining guns, etc. However, the NRA is adamantly opposed to the will of the vast majority of Americans. The NRA is an extremist fringe group these days. They even oppose legislation that would prevent the mentally ill and violent criminals from obtaining weapons. Seriously.

Like many here, I had to pass a background check to get my ccw permit. It wasn't hard though. I just don't understand the opposition to universal background checks and reasonable waiting periods. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you'll get approved. If you're a wife-beating or violent felon, mentally ill or whatever, you shouldn't. Common-sense legislation may prevent criminals from obtaining a gun and may save numerous lives (maybe yours or one of your loved ones). Doesn't sound that bad to me.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

“Lifetime Permit to Carry Concealed” I hope that means what I think it does...otherwise I call BS on you. No such thing (is there?).

“Permit” is the key word.

“Closing loop holes”...explain that one to me. Seems getting away with any liberty is deemed a loophole these days.

I feel there is some future thought yet to be thunked on ur part. No insult intended.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Is it extreme to be concerned that our government could fall to the fate of other governments in history...that greed for power and hate could rule the day as it did in Germany only a couple generations ago? As is currently happening in China?

Is it out of the question that foreign funded “movements” along with a red flag event couldn’t possibly result in the overthrow of our government?

I say it’s a real possibility....actually it’s almost a certainty. To argue otherwise is foolish and ignorant of history in my opinion. At that point this discussion about common sense goes out the window.

 

[Kantuckkeean]

“Lifetime Permit to Carry Concealed” I hope that means what I think it does...otherwise I call BS on you. No such thing (is there?).

“Permit” is the key word.

“Closing loop holes”...explain that one to me. Seems getting away with any liberty is deemed a loophole these days.

I feel there is some future thought yet to be thunked on ur part. No insult intended.

Yes. It exists. Indiana has a limited license to carry (5-year, fee exempt) and unlimited license to carry (lifetime, with fee). You can hold both at once if you choose. So call it what you want.

https://www.in.gov/isp/firearms.htm

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Yes. It exists. Indiana has a limited license to carry (5-year, fee exempt) and unlimited license to carry (lifetime, with fee). You can hold both at once if you choose. So call it what you want.

https://www.in.gov/isp/firearms.htm

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

I see. It’s kind of like a “lifetime fishing license”.

It’s still a permit that can be revoked at any time if the person develops a drug addiction, is arrested for certain crimes, ect.?

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Also to answer the original question posed....I know that most all my neighbors have a small arsenal of guns.
Doesn’t make me lose any sleep. Just the way it is.