Updated: DD mk NICS no more
- Thread starter norlandgeese
- Start date
redshooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Central Ontario
Ya I already have a DDM7
To everyone bashing, have you read the bill at all?
Everything it puts forward is only gonna restrict access to criminals and certain class of mentally ill people.
If you are against that you simply are retarded.
Every time a mass shooting occurs, mental illness is blamed (with reason in most cases unless it's racism or terrorism, which can also be linked to mental problems if you ask me).
Yet, some gun owners are all: NO! Let's do nothing about it! Cause everyone have the right to get a gun! Why punish the law abiding gun owners!
This bill, for once is not punishing the good guys! The bill is even backed by the NRA, you guys think they would back anything like that if it wasn't in the good gun owner's avantage?
Well guess what, it's not everyone's right. It's the right for all law abiding, mentally sane people.
Everything it puts forward is only gonna restrict access to criminals and certain class of mentally ill people.
If you are against that you simply are retarded.
Every time a mass shooting occurs, mental illness is blamed (with reason in most cases unless it's racism or terrorism, which can also be linked to mental problems if you ask me).
Yet, some gun owners are all: NO! Let's do nothing about it! Cause everyone have the right to get a gun! Why punish the law abiding gun owners!
This bill, for once is not punishing the good guys! The bill is even backed by the NRA, you guys think they would back anything like that if it wasn't in the good gun owner's avantage?
Well guess what, it's not everyone's right. It's the right for all law abiding, mentally sane people.
You are looking at it from a Canadian perspective.
For an American, It is their right. Same as the right to life and property. They value their rights very differently than us Canadians. Not only that, it is the SECOND right on their Bill Of Rights. That sounds pretty damn important.
Look at it this way, Should one american have less rights than another american? If you think the answer is yes, that is a path down to a very dark road.
They had a pretty bloody civil war on that very question.
That, is very true. But I don't think it's a bad thing. In order to stop mass murder, they may look our way and see that some screening and basic safety course is not such a bad idea.
There is the problem, the fact they see this as a right, and I know a lot of people here will also hate me for saying this but the second is outdated. It was written when a Mohawk could jump out off the bush and scalp you. This is not the world we live in anymore.
If they keep seeing it that way, they will never solve anything.
In the society we live in now, we all have the right to rise against tyranny, THAT will never change.
But in order for the day to day works, it's not a right but a privilege to own a firearm.
A privilege that is not hard to gain, simply be an honest man, and be sane.
And if someone that is honest BUT not sane, well in moments of clarity, that person should acknowledge the fact it is not safe for herself to own a gun.
If we go down the second road, nothing can go forward since the argument is always going to go back to: Yes but the second... And that simply does not take reality in account.
And if you go that route, how can you take guns out of the criminals hands, they are still americans, why couldn't they have guns? Why do we have mental health institutions? These people should have the right to live on our streets, right? And own guns, right..?
I know there's the argument where: who draws the line, they could all write us off as mentally ill and take away our guns... But that's not in the economies interest (especially not in the US) and that's pretty close to conspiracy theories, plus, like mentioned, if you go that route, again, close all institution cause who are we to choose who goes there.
And I'll say it again, honest and sane. If this is not the definition every gun owner should be in your mind, there's no discussion possible here.
There is the problem, the fact they see this as a right, and I know a lot of people here will also hate me for saying this but the second is outdated. It was written when a Mohawk could jump out off the bush and scalp you. This is not the world we live in anymore.
If they keep seeing it that way, they will never solve anything.
In the society we live in now, we all have the right to rise against tyranny, THAT will never change.
But in order for the day to day works, it's not a right but a privilege to own a firearm.
A privilege that is not hard to gain, simply be an honest man, and be sane.
And if someone that is honest BUT not sane, well in moments of clarity, that person should acknowledge the fact it is not safe for herself to own a gun.
If we go down the second road, nothing can go forward since the argument is always going to go back to: Yes but the second... And that simply does not take reality in account.
And if you go that route, how can you take guns out of the criminals hands, they are still americans, why couldn't they have guns? Why do we have mental health institutions? These people should have the right to live on our streets, right? And own guns, right..?
I know there's the argument where: who draws the line, they could all write us off as mentally ill and take away our guns... But that's not in the economies interest (especially not in the US) and that's pretty close to conspiracy theories, plus, like mentioned, if you go that route, again, close all institution cause who are we to choose who goes there.
And I'll say it again, honest and sane. If this is not the definition every gun owner should be in your mind, there's no discussion possible here.
Last edited:
The NRA backed a bumpstock ban
The left will use the mental illness against gun owners. Are you an addict? ADD? Strong distrust of the government? No guns for you!
Does the bill leave any potential room to expand and/or to adjust the classification and/or the interpretation of mental illnesses targeted? Slippery slope from the perspective of a country who has the 2A as a right. What other rights can be taken away for anyone labelled mentally ill? The right to life and liberty which you can argue they can exercise to cause harm?
Last edited:
Just in time, was figuring out how I was going to hold my receiver on the chop saw.
I find what people say tiring, to be nice... When the US government failed at just about every single level of government to easily stop the parkland shooting, how is more background checks supposed to help? how do you fix nonsense like the 46 police calls to this guy’s house, the fact he was banned from the school, and that the school had a file on his murderous desire, the document released revealing that the therapist recounted numerous visit about this guys murderous fantasies, or the fact that the FBI ignored complaints about him. Then to top it all off police waited outside while he shot up the school kids.
Really, what the h*ll is new gun regulation gonna do?! Don’t blame people for their anger at DD stance.
Really, what the h*ll is new gun regulation gonna do?! Don’t blame people for their anger at DD stance.
Update —> DD retraction:
No nay.... never.... DD mk NICS no more.....
https://www.facebook.com/militaryarms/photos/a.710487602296375.1073741825.200640669947740/1867175473294243/?type=3
No nay.... never.... DD mk NICS no more.....
https://www.facebook.com/militaryarms/photos/a.710487602296375.1073741825.200640669947740/1867175473294243/?type=3
Last edited:
It says "shall not be infringed."
Not "shall not be infringed unless mentally ill, a felon, etc."
The founders were very clear that no free man should ever be disarmed.
If a criminal is too dangerous to own a firearm, they are too dangerous to be out of prison.
Glad Daniel Defense saw the light.
His wallet got affected therefore it affected the strength of his convictions. He should resign and go work in an industry more towards his values.
Until that happens I will never buy DD again.
This is good for endless debate, but let me know how a well regulated militia goes when it's full of mentally ill people...
I know a lot of questions won't have answers, but I always wondered, if they can't enroll cause they are a liability in a well structured organisation such as the army, how are they fit to own a firearm next door to your child? But that also brings the question, how come you are not mature enough to drink at 18 but are to own a firearm? A gun in the hands of a child is more dangerous than a bottle of beer in my mind.
And like I said, things written in another time may still be true, but may also have changed, I doubt the founders knew about anger disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, psychotic disorder... Society evolve, we gain knowledge of different things, laws and policies should follow it.
But that's just my opinion and I know it might be worth **** to you. I'm just a guy who works in underprivileged neighborhood with, among others, mentally ill people. People that certainly don't deserve to be in institutions, but to which I certainly wouldn't give a gun either.
If less messed up people would have access to firearms, we would have less graves to dig, less antigun people on our backs, cause there would be much less problems, period.
Last edited:
Regardless of my own low opinions on the efficacy of gun control, I'm not sure that it was criminals that the founding fathers were trying to keep guns away from when they specified they should belong to "free men."
