If a person doesn't want to carry a weapon of deadly force they don't have to be mentally tested to show they are of capacity to have it.

Mental health, there is a standard for it and it needs to be used.

I just have one question for you. How do you know that if someone is part of an "anti-government" group, that means they are automatically crazy and gonna go shooting up people with a gun? Isn't that making a rather big assumption?

And also, what if them having their gun stolen isn't their fault? That seems a wee bit strict to me, and can make one defenseless.

First of all what you are suggesting has been tested REPEATEDLY by the Supreme Court and found to violate the constitution on at least six points.

Also your requirement of anyone having a gun stolen from them automatically means refusal is SO ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now how about this...

What if your children die from their own stupidity. Say for instance they go to a party with known gangsters and they provoke someone with a gun and they get shot for shooting their mouth off? Or even better yet they are screwing around with a gun and shoot someone else? First and foremost if your children are over 18 they are responsible for their own destinies and no matter what you say someone can kill them JUST as easily with a car, Sharks with laser beams on their frikken heads, a screwdriver, rat poison... I mean the list of possibilities goes on. They even could have a jet crash into them while driving home. What then? Ban Jumbo Jets?

Now since you keep shooting your mouth off about extensive mental exams what are your standards? Ban anyone who has the wherewithal to kill an intruder in their house? Ban anyone who wants to go hunting? You spew great (cough cough) ideas and you have no clue as to where to draw the lines let alone how to judge someone sane? I suppose you have to be a property owner to own a gun suddenly? What is your test of sanity? Ban people from owning guns because they were the victims of incest and child abuse because they MIGHT go crazy one day???

Again you are suggesting we violate our constitutional rights just for the safety of YOUR children?

Dragoness, you are a hoot! I mean seriously! I would LOVE to see you on TV! It would be very interesting!

So for another question... How many errant gun owners is too many? One? Twenty? Out of how many millions of people?

I could care less if Arizona is an open carry state. I got friends from there. If someone is shooting off their mouth, carrying a gun and acting in a threatening manner you call the cops. Their job is to keep the peace. If they start shooting at the police and they manage to defeat the police then it is to me at least an obligation to do my duty to protect my community and shoot back at that person and us civilians are allowed to own firepower the police are not allowed. Remember the Van Nuys a few years back? the criminals shooting at the cops wore body armor and carried FULLY automatic AK-47s. Had I have been there with a five round .30-06 hunting rifle I would have stood off at a distance the AK-47 can't reach and I would have put a bullet the bullet proof vests would not have stopped through each one of them starting with the car's driver first. In all reality I would have preferred to maneuver behind them. There would not have been a singe DA who would touch anyone under those circumstances for any reason. If anything the cops would have been thanking me or anyone else who would have stopped them. it took the cops getting guns handed to them by people and a local gun store to give them the fire power they needed to fight back.

So how much smoke will you blow up our backsides over this?

One more time...

What is your test of sanity since you are throwing this at us like monkey poo!



And Kleisto...

The reason why we need driver's licenses is that the use of Highways is regulated for a number of reasons. Use of highways have been under state jurisdictional since colonial times. Not all roads are "free" like the New Jersey Turnpike. Likewise there is a time when people should not drive. If driving were a right we would have a lot more blue hair on the road and they are dangerous becasue they cannot acknowledge their physical abilities are becoming compromised with age.

Also we do not build roads. The states do. For as unfair as it may seem operating motor vehicles of any kind have been under government regulation.

Something that also differentiates a car from a gun (Right vs. privilege) is that gun ownership is a matter of survival and self preservation. Cars are just a means of getting around. We do not need a car to survive. it helps. But the right to defend yourself is not a privilege. It is a mandate of our constitution. THAT THEY CANNOT TAKE AWAY FROM US!

Again I will say the same thing and I hope it gets understood this time.

I will be for people having guns if an extensive mental health exam is completed, they have no misdemeanors or felonies, they are not a part of a militant or anti government group and if they understand it is their responsibility to not get their weapons stolen and if they do, they do not get another one until the original is returned to them.

I cannot go for guns otherwise.

This is self explanatory.

The problem is, we understood you the FIRST time. You were wrong THEN, and you're STILL wrong. Is THAT self-explanatory ... ?

Guess there's no sense debating you is there? If all you're gonna do is dodge any criticisms, what's the point?

You just cannot answer my questions, can you? So is this how the Libertarian Party answers everything? This is such a Democrat tactic!

So I take it you refuse to answer me and just parrot on about mental health exams...

Ummm not looking into this too deeply but are you harboring some deep seated issues regarding mental health here in disguise?

I love how you project your personal rationals on the rest of us. So what, you do not like guns. That is your personal choice. BUT BUT BUT when you want to impose your world values upon us you had better have some kind of standard you can impose or else you are just suggesting SWEEPING totalitarian measures.

So once again you wish to debate us like a five year old?

I used to think more of you but the more you post like this instead of debating with logic and reason or answering questions posed to you just shows me and the rest of the world how shallow you are. So one more time...

What is your standard of sanity? What test would you impose? What would automatically disqualify someone from gun ownership?

Are these questions that tough? Or is it you do not wish to see your argument ripped to shreds?

Just becasue YOU believe in something does not make it right. If it was you would not dodge questions presented to you repeatedly.
I see you try to qualify this as personal belief but you sound like you want that belief imposed on us. Belief is nice but you had better have reason to back it if you wish to present it to the world. You also should have a plan if you got such great ideas but Mental Health exams is a can of worms you have no idea how bad it will be when opened!

Political debate is not nice or easy! But there is also questions and answers. If you feel you can't give us a rational answer please say so and we can move on easier!

NEXT POSTER PLEASE!



We will be moving along now please this way!!!!!!

I am in favor of guns if a person can pass an extensive mental health exam, I am in favor of guns if a person has no misdemeanors and/or felonies, I am in favor of guns if a person is not a member of a militant group or anti government group, I am in favor of guns if a gun owner is held fully responsible for their gun and if stolen or lost they get no other guns until it is found. All of the above will make me a supporter of guns for Americans.

Without that to ensure that legal gun owners act properly and safely, I cannot support guns.

Criticize all you want, no problem. It doesn't change my view and what I fight for.

And yet again you fall back on your lame duck argument.


And your answers to my question are?????????



Hot air?


At least I have ideas I can present. All you do is go about half way and then abruptly stop and sit down.



YEP YEP YEP!

Must be tough among us cavemen now isn't it?

That's fine, you have a view point and I get that. But at least try and answer the questions thrown at you. That you don't suggests you don't have much to back up your ideas besides the ideas themselves. I mean no offense in saying that mind you, but that's how it comes off.

You want to have an opinion, fine, but don't come with it if you aren't prepared or willing to defend it with something when questioned.

The founders would have been aware of drugs. There's nothing new about them (when Walgreen's started, they sold cocaine over the counter for pain and common illness). Did you know the Constitution is written on Hemp? You must keep in mind that the founders didn't come out of nowhere-they were keenly aware of history and culture.

WOW, suddenly I hear crickets on this post. I guess answering questions is too hard for some people.

My opinion is self explanatory. Your question was answered in my post.

Do I have to repeat it again?

And what does that tell you? Same thing with car registration and fees. Someone(s) making a killing from making up regulations. They made a multi billion dollar business out of them. If you could add up all the cars on the road in the entire USA and calculate how much it cost to register a car and pay the insurance, it's in the 100s of billions of dollars.

The more regulation there are, the more money the State makes off from it. Unless if they manage to chase away most and then they place more and even more regulations on them and eventually nobody wants to buy a gun, because it's fees upon fees upon fees.
Unless it's unavoidable necessities, like cars. Everyone wants a car (ok, some doesn't need any in big cities) so there is no way around it and they are literally robbing people blind by their regulations.

Owning a gun is a huge responsibility. Rights be damned if you are an not a qualified citizen. By the way no different than the "right" is now, you have to be a qualified citizen.

If you cannot prove you are mentally capable of the responsibility you don't get the right.

If you prove to be criminal of any kind you don't get the right.

If you show you hate America by being militant or are in a group who hate America you don't get the right.

If you cannot be responsible enough to know that your gun is a deadly weapon and protect it so it doesn't get into the hands of either children or thieves then you don't get the right.

Self explanatory.

Damn it gets tiresome sometimes.

I already answered the question and I will one more time.

There are mental health standards in place and we need to use them.

And like I said before what are they becasue that statement is subjective. WHAT TEST? There are DOZENS of tests? Are you suggesting we take them all to own guns?

Please don't tell me you are suddenly going to run for mommy and daddy now? I have repeatedly asked you the same question and your answers are less than satisfactory to more people here than just me.

What tests are you referring to to gauge a person's sanity?

Mental health standards are in place for mental capacity. There only needs be one and it will do just fine.

Maybe the one used for police officers. That would be a good one. More strict than that would be better but it is a good starting point.

I am returning this thread. Please leave the baiting post, insults/attacks off of the forums. The ONLY appropriate action is to report post. Do not engaged into them.

Kim