Thoughts and Prayers

[mtangelsfan]

15 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Warrantless searches.  The Patriot Act.  Government spying

Civil forfeiture 

[UndertheHalo]

20 minutes ago, Jason said:

@UndertheHalo I actually appreciate your honesty in admitting you are ok with the 2nd Amendment being repealed. Most ant gun folks i talk to will never admit that. I think I’m probably the most pro 2A guy on angelswin so I feel like us talking about this is like Peter Griffin fighting the giant chicken. 

Well, I appreciate you saying so.  I hope nobody takes my rants personally.  My intention is not to be jerk or belittle anyone’s opinion.  I respect your opinion of course.  Even though I don’t agree.  

[UndertheHalo]

32 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

If you really truly believe that the onus is on the individual then the terrorists have won

GOD BLESS AMERICA?

I’m not sure how I should interpret this. 

[UndertheHalo]

37 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Warrantless searches.  The Patriot Act.  Government spying

 

21 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Civil forfeiture 

I think these are reasonable things to take issue with, and I agree on most.  I personally don’t have a huge issue with the patriot act.  Some of the things it implements I believe could be and probably should be rolled back.  

I guess I just don’t see how restrictions on guns are the same as the stuff you’ve noted.  Oh well.

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

 

I think these are reasonable things to take issue with, and I agree on most.  I personally don’t have a huge issue with the patriot act.  Some of the things it implements I believe could be and probably should be rolled back.  

I guess I just don’t see how restrictions on guns are the same as the stuff you’ve noted.  Oh well.

I don't take it personally.  You simply don't see the second amendment as a true right

Edited November 8, 2017 by mtangelsfan

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

 

I think these are reasonable things to take issue with, and I agree on most.  I personally don’t have a huge issue with the patriot act.  Some of the things it implements I believe could be and probably should be rolled back.  

I guess I just don’t see how restrictions on guns are the same as the stuff you’ve noted.  Oh well.

To me it's bigger than guns. These things should be looked at as issues of constitutional liberties. Once we give any of them up, they are gone for good.

[arch stanton]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’m not sure how I should interpret this. 

"The onus should be on the individual to demonstrate fitness to own a gun "

These are your words. The onus is not on the individual. Nobody needs to beg to own a gun. The onus is on you to take it away

 

[Adam]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

To me it's bigger than guns. These things should be looked at as issues of constitutional liberties. Once we give any of them up, they are gone for good.

Exactly. The last thing we need is a precedent for stripping people of constitutional rights.

[UndertheHalo]

4 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

"The onus should be on the individual to demonstrate fitness to own a gun "

These are your words. The onus is not on the individual. Nobody needs to beg to own a gun. The onus is on you to take it away

 

So, is going to the DMV and showing that you aren’t going to be a disaster behind the wheel “begging” to have a car ?

[Adam]

You don’t need approval from the DMV to own a car

[UndertheHalo]

You know what,  let’s have it so people can buy guns to look at them but need a license to get the bullets.  No doubt that’ll work for you.  

[Adam]

Dude you used a bad comparison, not me.

i would never use a gun, probably ever, but definitely not to cause harm to anyone in a non-self-defense situation. I’m not the subject of your debate. 

[Rico]

The history of mental illness alone is bad enough, but mental illness and a record of violent criminal history should definitely bar someone from owning an AR-556.

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, Rico said:

The history of mental illness alone is bad enough, but mental illness and a record of violent criminal history should definitely bar someone from owning an AR-556.

 

Absolutely

[UndertheHalo]

51 minutes ago, Adam said:

Dude you used a bad comparison, not me.

i would never use a gun, probably ever, but definitely not to cause harm to anyone in a non-self-defense situation. I’m not the subject of your debate. 

It’s not a bad comparison.  We have thresholds for certain things.  Why not for guns ?  Anyway whatever man.  I’ve made my position well known.  I appreciate and respect your disagreement. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Adam]

We have them. Government sucks at its job.

[Jason]

8 hours ago, Rico said:

The history of mental illness alone is bad enough, but mental illness and a record of violent criminal history should definitely bar someone from owning an AR-556.

It already does

[Spirit]

9 hours ago, Rico said:

The history of mental illness alone is bad enough, but mental illness and a record of violent criminal history should definitely bar someone from owning an AR-556...

 

...and a vehicle.

 

 

[floplag]

16 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

My opinion is that they are not fit to have a gun. And it’s not an arbitrary decision.  A medical professional has declared them disabled.  A social worker has then accepted that determination.  What is the threshold that you need ?  Do you literally need someone telling you about the voices in their head at the gun store to stop them from getting a gun ? Dude, you’re acting like this person is suffering because they can’t have a gun.  It’s just ridiculous imo.  These folks couldn’t open a bank account man.  

So im curious, do you define this as ANY mental illness?   I agree there are certain obvious indications but its a matter of where you draw the line.  What level of illness goes over that line and what, if any, do not?  There are certain obvious indicators that i think most people would agree with but you cant just say "mental illness", that needs to be very clearly defined.  

Then you face the issue or people not looking for help to avoid being flagged as damaged, what else do they lose?  Thats one hell of a stigma.  In CA they just said its ok for people to knowingly infect others with AIDS to avoid stigmatizing them so they get help, how could this be justified in that environment without being completely contradictory?  and no you cant say guns are different, they are not.  They are literally a guaranteed constitutional right.  

I personally have an issue with assuming "imperfect" people are dangerous and need rights taken away, if you go down that road what else will eventually fall under that heading?   As others have said its not just about guns.  Its the precedent it sets.  These types of things set legal boundaries for decades and the impact has to be factored.  Its easy to toss out buzzwords but in a big picture scenario, its not so obvious.   

I fully support the idea of those with a proven history of violence, such as convicted felons, forfeiting the right under law.  But how can you take anything away on the grounds of what they might do as opposed to what they have done?  A person breaks too many driving laws or can no longer see as proven by eye test may lose the right to drive based on direct empirical evidence, not based on the fact that they may or may not have an accident or the potential to drive drunk at some point in the future.  Dont we also have a funny little thing called due process?  doesnt this go in direct opposition to that?  

Take the emotion of guns out of it, insert literally any other right in question, would you feel the same way?  If not then the argument is void.   

[Jason]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

I fully support the idea of those with a proven history of violence, such as convicted felons, forfeiting the right under law.  But how can you take anything away on the grounds of what they might do as opposed to what they have done?  A person breaks too many driving laws or can no longer see as proven by eye test may lose the right to drive based on direct empirical evidence, not based on the fact that they may or may not have an accident or the potential to drive drunk at some point in the future.  Dont we also have a funny little thing called due process?  doesnt this go in direct opposition to that?  

Take the emotion of guns out of it, insert literally any other right in question, would you feel the same way?  If not then the argument is void.   

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

The movie makes a good point, and proves that its not a given that it would have happened   
I just think its incredibly dangerous to deny almost anything at all on the basis of a what if.   Not everyone with even the most dangerous mental issues ever harms another person.   It will likely prevent people from seeking the help they need and could trigger even more incidents.  

Regardless its still a matter of symptom over cause.   To much focus on how, not near enough on why. 

[Jason]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

The movie makes a good point, and proves that its not a given that it would have happened   
I just think its incredibly dangerous to deny almost anything at all on the basis of a what if.   Not everyone with even the most dangerous mental issues ever harms another person.   It will likely prevent people from seeking the help they need and could trigger even more incidents.  

Regardless its still a matter of symptom over cause.   To much focus on how, not near enough on why. 

Totally agree

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

So im curious, do you define this as ANY mental illness?   I agree there are certain obvious indications but its a matter of where you draw the line.  What level of illness goes over that line and what, if any, do not?  There are certain obvious indicators that i think most people would agree with but you cant just say "mental illness", that needs to be very clearly defined.  

Then you face the issue or people not looking for help to avoid being flagged as damaged, what else do they lose?  Thats one hell of a stigma.  In CA they just said its ok for people to knowingly infect others with AIDS to avoid stigmatizing them so they get help, how could this be justified in that environment without being completely contradictory?  and no you cant say guns are different, they are not.  They are literally a guaranteed constitutional right.  

I personally have an issue with assuming "imperfect" people are dangerous and need rights taken away, if you go down that road what else will eventually fall under that heading?   As others have said its not just about guns.  Its the precedent it sets.  These types of things set legal boundaries for decades and the impact has to be factored.  Its easy to toss out buzzwords but in a big picture scenario, its not so obvious.   

I fully support the idea of those with a proven history of violence, such as convicted felons, forfeiting the right under law.  But how can you take anything away on the grounds of what they might do as opposed to what they have done?  A person breaks too many driving laws or can no longer see as proven by eye test may lose the right to drive based on direct empirical evidence, not based on the fact that they may or may not have an accident or the potential to drive drunk at some point in the future.  Dont we also have a funny little thing called due process?  doesnt this go in direct opposition to that?  

Take the emotion of guns out of it, insert literally any other right in question, would you feel the same way?  If not then the argument is void.   

I’ve mentioned several times that I believe the 2nd amendment should be repealed.  

Go ahead and let the mentally challenged have guns also.  It’s a guaranteed constitutional right and we wouldn’t want to infringe their right to a gun on the basis of what they may do with it. 

 

[Adam]

30 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’ve mentioned several times that I believe the 2nd amendment should be repealed.  

Go ahead and let the mentally challenged have guns also.  It’s a guaranteed constitutional right and we wouldn’t want to infringe their right to a gun on the basis of what they may do with it. 

 

I agree

[floplag]

27 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’ve mentioned several times that I believe the 2nd amendment should be repealed.  

Go ahead and let the mentally challenged have guns also.  It’s a guaranteed constitutional right and we wouldn’t want to infringe their right to a gun on the basis of what they may do with it. 

 

Please stop exaggerating.  I said no such thing, in fact i said the contrary that i do support restrictions, but it needs to be based on fact, not assumptions and possibilities.   Its highly probably that teenage drivers, especially boys, will have at least one accident, do we ban them from driving?  

Your opinion on 2A is yours to have, but until that time comes, it is there and must be treated as such.   I dont agree personally, though i also dont think people need arsenals or open carry, or many other such things.