Updated: DD mk NICS no more

-raqh- said:
Well, it seems like it's a thing to be a weathervane these days...
Click to expand...

When has it been anything but? They are politicians, whether they are NRA, or Corporate Executives, they are still politicians, even if they haven't been elected to public office. They'd Pimp their own Mothers if it furthered their cause.
 
-raqh- said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the founding fathers were well aware of mental illness. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they are too dangerous to be in the general population.
 
vultr said:
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."
Click to expand...

Not all of them. George Mason was very much against slavery.
 
cadgo said:
I'm sure the founding fathers were well aware of mental illness. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they are too dangerous to be in the general population.
Click to expand...

Ahah, friend, mental illness began to be recognized in early 1900s, before that, everything was seen as madness and imputable to the devil.

As for your second statement, I don't know where to begin as this is wrong in so many ways... Either you have a far too great confidence in people, or you really gotta be nuts not to be trusted with a firearm.

But like I said, I know it's a never ending thing and I won't shake your beliefs, nor will you do mine, as I work with these people daily, and see the grey zone you definitely don't.
 
-raqh- said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you honestly believe that the only reason that we have fewer mass murders in Canada than the in the USA is the firearms act, then you need to get your head examined...
 
Lexthedestroyer said:
If you honestly believe that the only reason that we have fewer mass murders in Canada than the in the USA is the firearms act, then you need to get your head examined...
Click to expand...

Perhaps the head examined part is a bit harsh, but I think you're right. I don't believe it has anything to do with guns, and everything to do with the way they do things south of the 49th (equity, health care, and education). In "the land of the free", the freedom for a good life isn't reality for so many citizens. If you're born in the wrong part of town you better be exceptionally smart, otherwise your screwed. I think part of the problem is Americans are inundated with propaganda about how great their system is. All the "progressives" who have seen success in life can't seem to see that banning this object, or excluding that person won't change the underlying cause, and therefore do nothing.
 
Last edited:
Lexthedestroyer said:
If you honestly believe that the only reason that we have fewer mass murders in Canada than the in the USA is the firearms act, then you need to get your head examined...
Click to expand...

Don't recall saying our system is perfect, nor that it was the only reason. Our societies, culture and many other factors differ in so many ways, just like when you help/treat a person, you cannot apply a unique solution to one another. But there are things we can try and learn from each other.

Stopping may be a term that is too radical, and is a unicorn, but at least, help going in the right direction.
 
-raqh- said:
Ahah, friend, mental illness began to be recognized in early 1900s, before that, everything was seen as madness and imputable to the devil.

As for your second statement, I don't know where to begin as this is wrong in so many ways... Either you have a far too great confidence in people, or you really gotta be nuts not to be trusted with a firearm.

But like I said, I know it's a never ending thing and I won't shake your beliefs, nor will you do mine, as I work with these people daily, and see the grey zone you definitely don't.
Click to expand...

You are arguing semantics. They were aware that people were mentally unwell, regardless of the accepted terms used to describe it. And yet the second amendment does not say "shall not be infringed unless mad".

If you are too dangerous to own a gun, you are too dangerous to be in the general population. It is extremely easy to get an illegal gun in any country.

On a side note, i believe you need to find a new career field. You clearly do not see your clients as human beings. People with mental illnesses are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of crime. They have the same basic human rights as everyone else and one of these is the right to bear arms and self defense.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

I've had many great conversations with gun owners in the US, some of which included Marty.

Here's the interesting part, most of those owners would agree to a number of regulations and laws including a lic. like we have, restrictions on mentally ill clients etc etc IF

1. Gun owners had a direct say and drafting of the legislation

2. They could guarantee that more legislation wouldn't be pushed down their throat at the next "media outrage"


The problem is:

1. Gun owners don't get to draft the legislation

2. There will always be more laws pushed down our throats


That's it that's all.


Why give a single inch when that turns into feet, yards, miles................
 
Farmboy said:
I've had many great conversations with gun owners in the US, some of which included Marty.

Here's the interesting part, most of those owners would agree to a number of regulations and laws including a lic. like we have, restrictions on mentally ill clients etc etc IF

1. Gun owners had a direct say and drafting of the legislation

2. They could guarantee that more legislation wouldn't be pushed down their throat at the next "media outrage"


The problem is:

1. Gun owners don't get to draft the legislation

2. There will always be more laws pushed down our throats


That's it that's all.


Why give a single inch when that turns into feet, yards, miles................
Click to expand...

You're talking to the wrong Americans if you think the majority of gun owners would accept licensing.
 
cadgo said:
You are arguing semantics. They were aware that people were mentally unwell, regardless of the accepted terms used to describe it. And yet the second amendment does not say "shall not be infringed unless mad".

If you are too dangerous to own a gun, you are too dangerous to be in the general population. It is extremely easy to get an illegal gun in any country.

On a side note, i believe you need to find a new career field. You clearly do not see your clients as human beings. People with mental illnesses are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of crime. They have the same basic human rights as everyone else and one of these is the right to bear arms and self defense.
Click to expand...

You are the one that thinks people should be in prison or institutions for their entire life.

I see people who aren't fit to use a firearm but definatly deserve ton live life at the full extend of their capacities.

You'd give a gun to an autistic person? Or you'd rather put em in an institution.

Thx I'll keep helping those poeple and fyi we, in Canada, do not have the right the bear arms... Also, there are far less chances of them being targeted here because we actually take care of em with access to social workers and special care (for free!).

But hey man, I told you already we both have our views, Let's agree to disagree. You have your rights, I have my job. And the beauty of it, is we dont call em clients, cause my work isn't a business.
 
Last edited:
-raqh- said:
You are the one that thinks people should be in prison or institutions for their entire life.

I see people who aren't fit to use a firearm but definatly deserve ton live life at the full extend of their capacities.

You'd give a gun to an autistic person? Or you'd rather put em in an institution.

Thx I'll keep helping those poeple and fyi we, in Canada, do not have the right the bear arms... Also, there are far less chances of them being targeted here because we actually take care of em with access to social workers and special care (for free!).

But hey man, I told you already we both have our views, Let's agree to disagree. You have your rights, I have my job. And the beauty of it, is we dont call em clients, cause my work isn't a business.
Click to expand...

Let's clear a few things up. First, people are not defined by their illness or disability. Please use person first language, particularly if you are working with this population. I really hope you are not referring to the people you work with as autistic, schizophrenic, etc.

Second, people with autism are a broad and diverse population. It is a spectrum and plenty of people on the spectrum could certainly be trusted with firearms.

Third, we were discussing mental illness and not developmental disabilities. If you want to discuss people that have mental illnesses and comorbid developmental disabilities that is a different topic.

Fourth, they are called clients.

Fifth, Canada's mental health system is #### and their special education programs are atrocious compared to America's. Do you honestly believe that Americans with disabilities and mental illness have to pay for their services out of pocket?
 
Farmboy said:
I've had many great conversations with gun owners in the US, some of which included Marty.

Here's the interesting part, most of those owners would agree to a number of regulations and laws including a lic. like we have, restrictions on mentally ill clients etc etc IF

1. Gun owners had a direct say and drafting of the legislation

2. They could guarantee that more legislation wouldn't be pushed down their throat at the next "media outrage"


The problem is:

1. Gun owners don't get to draft the legislation

2. There will always be more laws pushed down our throats


That's it that's all.


Why give a single inch when that turns into feet, yards, miles................
Click to expand...

American gun owners aren’t interested in gun licenses...
 
Excuse my terminology, english isn't my first language.

But you are definatly right on that point, I work mostly with teenagers and am trying everyday to get em to say they have adhd, they are not.

I think you get the point, you are the one that pointed out semantics yet you bring it to the table now.

It isn't a different topic as you say everyone that is able to live in the general population are suitable to own firearms, I'm simply pointing out it isn't the case.

People with (thats right) certain form of austism would most likely hurt themselves or others, people with major anxiety disorders amongs others go thru extreme depressive phases on which case they could easily try to endroit their lives, A LOT of people with disorders and mental issues live in underpriviledged aeras aren't being taken care of and/or simply dont follow their treatment. Someone with medication could certainly ne stable enough and be fit to own, tho it isnt the case everyday.

That is simply a tiny portion off all the grey I was talking about which makes it not black and white, interned/emprisonned people vs the rest of the world.

All I know about the US health system is a lot of people seem not to have access to it. The ones that Do, I have nous doubt they are well taken care of as medecine is a business down there.

Here, it isn't and no, in social work, they aren't clients.
 
redshooter said:
Read much? Your comprehension is somewhat lacking.

Sorry, what can I say, my IQ is a little bit more than 10X my shoe size. You shouldn't make assumptions, but if you must, assume I'm not stupid enough to believe the rhetoric of a Snake Oil Peddler, regardless of which side of the political divide they are on. Anyone that thinks Ontario's Liberal party is left leaning is smoking some good stuff. Can you let me in on where I can find some, I need a break from reality.
Perhaps you should leave the thinking to someone else...
Click to expand...

Very well said...
 
redshooter said:
In the short term perhaps, maybe bring the price down to a point where I could afford one, although I doubt they'll take that kind of hit.

His position on this is smart, and good for his business in the long term. The current system allows total fruitcakes to have ready access. It's one thing to steal a firearm, and use it in a crime, something else entirely to be able to waltz down to the store and buy one, entitled, or not. A slight change in regulations is far better than a drastic one, esp. if it's just a tweak of what already exists, as this appears to be. The "Out Of My Cold Dead Hands!" mentality is one of the worst things gun owners can display. It's fine to feel that way, but to communicate it in public is foolish. it's no different than the anti-gun Zealots position, just the flip side. Make no mistake, if it comes down to "out of my cold dead hands" then that's exactly what will happen.




Hilary Clinton may be corrupt, but to call her crooked compared to Trump is laughable. Trump is a flimflam artist. He's not what he claims to be. He's not a billionaire, his only success is fooling people into thinking he's some kind of genius businessman. If it wasn't for daddy's money he'd likely be in some US prison, because he seems to be unable to be honest, period. His only genius is in how he has marketed himself to the average Joe. It blows my mind that people can't see this.

As for Commie Bernie...f:P: There is no Left in American Politics, to believe any successful US politician is a Commie is so disconnected from reality it leaves me awestruck. A degree of Socialism is what make our society work, you doubt that take a moment to consider what life would be like without roads, and other common infrastructure.

If I had the coin I'd place an order for a DD today to support a guy who obviously understands that we have to win over small "a" anti-gun types. My way, or the highway works for no one as a rule.
Click to expand...

Blows my mind that Trump can use his non profit organization to bribe politicians, settle lawsuits unrelated to the non profit, and pay himself for use of his golf courses, but Clinton is the crooked one.
 
Farmboy said:
We should.

Humans should have a right to self defense, from others and the government. Period
Click to expand...

You do. The right to self defense and bear arms is a fundamental and universal human right. Regardless of whether your current government recognizes that or not.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Click to expand...
- Thomas Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom