Skip to main content

View Diary: Armed gunmen ambush teachers in an Oregon school ... as a readiness test (306 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course I have heard of the Mulford act, I have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Coss

    mentioned it here many times showing how many gun control initiatives were intended to disarm minorities only while allowing free white men to "keep and bear"  Plus I love pointing out to my righty buddies that their hero St. Ronnie was the biggest gungrabber of all time......

    As to felons, it's just another excuse to pull the guns from minorities set up in the 68 GCA right after the BPP protest on the Calif. Statehouse steps and the passage of the Mulford act...

    However with rights come responsibilities.....I think a person who has proved through their actions that they resort to violence to achieve goals could be constitutionally restricted but only for actual violent crime....

    The creeping spread of the felony makes a lot of people who would be no danger prohibited and though there is a Federal process for rights renewal, Congress refuses to fund it so practically, there is no way to get a problem corrected even though the law allows, even demands it.....

    As to the mentally ill, that is a real issue with legitimate points on both sides of the equation, as the law is written now a person must be either involuntarily committed for more than a 48hr op or be adjudicated "mentally defective"  

    One thing about the recent gun control bills I was against is the squishy way they handled mentally ill people and where the hell is the line drawn....No I don't want a paranoid schizophrenic like my Uncle to be carrying daily but he has been adjudicated and committed....The recent NY case where a cat had his permit and guns pulled for having been prescribed an anti anxiety drug in the past is flat ridiculous....The balance is somewhere in the middle and we can only restrict imo if we can develop some type of non arbitrary bright line that when crossed could pull gun rights

    In other words, yes all rights have limitations but they need to be clear, unambiguous limits that restrict the right as little as is possible. Not stuff like our ridiculous No Fly/Terrorist watchlist being used to deny without due process....

    Basically anything that restricts or removes a right without direct due process should not happen imo.

    Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
    I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
    Emiliano Zapata

    by buddabelly on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:40:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I respect this logic. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly

      And apologize for conflating your position with the other poster.

      I find it a tad difficult to believe that conservatives don't trust the government on gun rights but do trust the government to decide whether you're mentally competent. Seems to me it would just be easier for the government to declare a person mentally unfit to have a gun than to take your gun away.

      I used to argue your position on guns with conservatives but soon realized they're mostly just liars who have no problem with the government denying others rights on a host of issues. They're the same people who insist Trayvon Martin deserved to be shot to death because, well I don't actually grasp why...

      Money doesn't talk it swears.

      by Coss on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:49:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site