And thus is the problem - we have mentally ill people who aren't being judged incompetent.

My friend John is obviously mentally handicapped. He operates on the level of a fifteen year old or sixteen year old. He's disabled from both the US Army and US Post Office, and "barely" exists as a private citizen. He's fifty years old, owns a house (with his mother's help because the banks won't allow him to have a debit card no less a home loan), yet his power and his phone gets turned off every month because he remember to pay the bills. He's been rear ended four times in two years but they are "not his fault" even though he drives a big truck, drives way too fast, stops short, and locks up his breaks more in fifteen minutes than I do in ten years.

He's armed with a AR15. He also worked at the post office, and hasn't gotten laid in twenty years. He's primed to go off.

No. Firearms empower. With a firearm you know you will hurt people, and more than one. With a knife or a baseball bat you "might injure" one person.

The differences between the two are staggering. There are more cars on the roads then guns, and more drivers than gun owners. Cars are used daily, firearms are used once every other month. Automobile deaths are accidents, and when they happen they happen to multiple people - the driver, everyone in his (her) car, and whatever they hit.

So I guess under your law of "thinking"... that muslim kid is primed to become a suicide bomber... that german guy is primed to be a nazi... right?

Here's what happens in countries that have strict gun control:

I'm pretty sure as a 6'3" well built man, I could knock several heads off with a bat, I could walk through a crowd and stab several people with a knife, I could poison a ton of people with pure nicotine, I could do a lot of different things. If I am intent on killing people, I'm going to kill as many as I can, regardless of what tool I use.

Besides, none of those mass murder guys needed to use an assault rifle to inflict the damage they did. A simple hand gun could have cause just as much.

So no matter how you look at it, your arguments ignore the facts and as such, are completely invalid.

And yet, they are not designed for killing but manage to kill far more people than guns do. Your blatant disregard of the facts do not make them any less factual. And not every auto related incident is an accident, just as every firearm related incident isn't intended.

I give up … shoot me.

.

Alcohol and Tobacco deaths dwarf assault rifle deaths.

Yet, the only discriminating factor for obtaining these is your age.

Hahaha... He can't shoot you. He's giving up his guns.

Maybe throw a rock at you? Chuck a stick in your direction?

Gun bans brought to you by a government that can't balance a budget!

I can't believe people trust the government, lawyers telling doctors how to do things, makes no sense, now this.

The mentally ill must be allowed to own firearms. The Constitution demands it!!

[/sarcasm]

Why, he had over 20 minutes before the police got there. He just kept shooting the same kids, he could of went to another room.

Your few seconds are meaningless in this situation.
I honestly am for some new regulations, but every thinks this is going to stop something it will not.

I believe large cap magazines jam more than smaller ones giving time to jump the gunman. HA Anyway....

yeah sorry, but carrying a gun should not be a right but a privilege.
and in your context of being able to protect your freedom you'd need a lot more weapons than AR's.
The US govmt has drones and accurate GPS systems, you and millions of revolutionists wouldnt stand a chance.
To put things on an even keel, your right to bear arm should be extended to bear armed rockets and similar (at best), and that aint gonna happen.
AR's have no use in civilian hands, and does much more damage than it does the public any good.

There's nothing wrong with only letting certain people vote... or only letting certain religions exist... there's nothing wrong with only letting certain blacks be free... right?

Ha yep.

Tobacco - 18
Ar-15 - 18
Hand Gun -21
Alcohol - 21
Vote - 18
Join the Military -17
Porn - 18 ish

You don't think some of the Military will stand with the American people? It is hard enough for them to shoot an enemy, then a fellow American?
Everyone in the Military Wants to be there..... Right? Couldn't be for the money, college, nothing else to do. You know how many people refused to go to the first Iraq war?

You're correct on the first part...minors (and in many States, felons) are restricted from voting.

Its worth pointing out that most psychopaths also have extremely high IQ's as a general, common characteristic.

Ban Smart People! LOL

I'm talking about certain people... what if we decide that people on welfare or people that didn't pay enough taxes didn't get to vote... why not also restrict to to only those with a college degree of 4 or more years... sounds good right?

You met my friend John once. No way he should be allowed to own firearms.

Its funny the NRA said nothing about things have to tighten up. How these maniacs and irresponsible gun owners make us all look bad and things have to tighten up. The president wasnt against guns ,he signed a fucking bill that allowed people to carry in fed parks. But the NRA cant do that because they dont work for gun owners they work for gun companies and if the rules are tightened up. They cant sell as many guns.

Oddly enough, this has never come up in discussion before. When I went to purchase my first firearm, they told me the only restriction was that I not be a felon. I've never heard of any mental health laws for firearm ownership. (I am in California.)

For me this is no longer about firearms. We have mentally ill people just walking around, buying firearms, and worse - driving on our streets - and we aren't stopping them.

Too much lead paint or something.

I dont think James Holmes would of passed a mental health test
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-reveal.html

But we are not talking about you or how tall you are. We are talking about mass murderers, who all seem to be nothing more than wimps and losers who dream of being in the military but are afraid of their own shadow.

What? Maybe you still haven't heard of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? IT IS A RIGHT. Not a damn "privilege"

And as a right...it doesn't have to have a "use". If I want one, I can have one. End of story.

If, as a society, we decide we don't want that anymore...then let's repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I see both sides argument...but as long as there is a 2nd Amendment then guns should be available to all legal U.S. citizens. End of story.

Minors and felons are "certain people"...and those "certain people" are restricted from voting. Thus, some people can vote, while other people cannot vote. Just like some firearms should remain legal to own, while other firearms should be illegal to own.

actually everyone seems to forget the well formed militia part of the sentence.

I give up too. From this day forward anyone can purchase a firearm. Can't shoot straight because you are blind as a bat, no problem, sign here.

(Btw, assault rifles are cheap!)

Do you think that civil rights are absolute?

1st Amendment rights are not absolute (illegal to slander someone etc, illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, CP is illegal too). 2nd Amendment is not absolute either. Better believe that the majority of people in this country do not want felons being able to legally own firearms...US Citizen or not.

See, this is what I am talking about:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tally-ill.aspx

California law:

But it's still not part of a background check.

You may have noticed the part where I said "legal"... meaning non-felons.

None of it matters though...PLENTY of felons have guns. They just steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market.

And YES...for any non-felon LEGAL citizen they should be able to own firearms WITHOUT any laws that infringe on that in any way.

I'll repeat it so nobody can misunderstand: If, as a society, we decide that this is NOT what we want...then REPEAL THE 2nd AMENDMENT.

The Supreme Court didn't seem to "forget" that. They ruled it means what I am saying. That Citizens have the RIGHT to own firearms.

Instead of trying to nitpick words and try to figure out what the 2nd Amendment means...let's just either repeal it or shut the fuck up and realize that there are crazy people in this world and big daddy govt. can not protect us from everything no matter how many laws they pass.

Minors and felons are already restricted from owning firearms. Most "gun nuts" agree to the regulations on fully automatic firearms and other class 3 weapons. You want to ban certain guns for the way they look, and for certain evil features such as a bayonet lug.

I'm so glad they outlawed balisong knives and nunchucks because they were so much better at killing people than other weapons.

i said "should" be a privilege, not a basic human right.
and yes if that is how the 2nd amendment is authored, then i think we need to change it.
but i would rather just restrict AR's / heavy ammo / large clips etc.
i know some folks in this thread thinks these murderers would just find other ways to mass murder, i dont really agree.
most of these murderers are in love with their guns and if they didnt have guns they would probably never murder anyone.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

That's just not true.

Serial killers almost NEVER use a gun. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't. Ted Bundy didn't. The list goes on and on.

A lunatic gets his hands on a gun every once in a while and starts shooting. It's insane, but it's a dangerous world.

I'd like to be able to stop it too. But taking away the rights granted to us as U.S. citizens isn't really the way to do that in my opinion.

As I said earlier...big daddy govt. can't control EVERYTHING (even though they try to).

You simply can not stop a crazed person from doing what these people did. Even if you don't accept that they would have simply used a different method (remember what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City), you still have to understand that if they REALLY wanted to only use a gun...then they would simply steal one or get one off the black market.

Criminals and homicidal maniacs don't obey the law. And to guys like that, nothing will stop them from doing what they are hell-bent (literally) on doing.

The guy that shot up the Sikh temple in Milwaukee last summer was an Army Vet.

No, I clearly read what you posted...which was: "...as long as there is a 2nd Amendment then guns should be available to all legal U.S. citizens. End of story."

A felon is still a "legal US Citizen". Just because one commits a felony does not mean they automatically become an "illegal US Citizen" whatever that means.

And now you are backtracking and saying: "any non-felon LEGAL citizen they should be able to own firearms WITHOUT any laws that infringe on that in any way."
So I guess you promote the idea of children being able to purchase/own firearms too? You do know that "non-felon LEGAL citizen" includes children born in the USA right?

Why repeal the 2nd Amendment when all society has to do is place restrictions on the 2nd Amendment...just like there are restrictions on every other civil right.

So now that you are off your "certain people" trip...I own multiple firearms that might look "scary", so your assumption about me is wrong.