You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

My preferred alternative is maybe if people complain on you, a cop could come and talk (if you're agreeable to it) and determine whether you're a danger.

They seem to have done that, and didn't reach agreement on his mental health level. "I'm not nuts!" "Yes you are!" It's a very interesting and difficult problem. Should there be a new mental health standard where you lose your 2nd amendment rights (and possibly other rights) without losing all your rights, as you would with a psychiatric hold?

I think few would argue for letting legitimately crazy people walk around in public with a weapon. But what about when they're just below the "lock em up" level? Should that level be lowered for gun owners? Or for vehicles-of-peace owners? There's a huge and obvious slippery slope here, and we can see how many (lefties/communists/etc) would be enthusiastic about the ride down. Can we, or should we, try to edge our way down it, just to that extent?

IMO, given the nature of negotiation and compromise, something like this is somewhat necessary, but there should be a LOT of pushback maintained to prevent the slide to the bottom. The problem here, aside from the actuality of crazies going on a shooting spree, is that arguing for letting them do that before acting is more based on a fear of the slippery slope (gun grabbers) than the shooting spree itself, which in turn gives them a stronger position.

Final question: Should the Cruz kid have been locked up, or just had his guns taken away?

0
0

[–] Voopin__Voopin ago 

i agree with lots of what you said, except im one of those "shall not be infringed" in the strictest sense types. im not really willing to compromise, mainly because (like the ben franklin meme) disarming law abiding citizens does not protect law abiding citizens.

also another good one was "if we ban guns, nobody will get shot. that's how we stopped everyone from doing drugs."

basically, criminals do not follow laws. Murder is already illegal, and if theyre willing to risk that sentence/consequences, a gun ban wouldn't even make a blip on their radar.

i digress, sorry about that.

regarding the Cruz kid, im not as informed on him as most. i do believe i read that the FBI was informed that he was talking about bringing guns to school, and threatening others. I'd get behind prosecuting him for communicating a threat. i cant really say i'd get behind taking his guns...... people never stop to think that might really piss him off, cause him to buy a stolen weapon from tyrone, and carry out his shooting anyway. I can't get behind locking him up for being creepy (like the ERPO guy in washington) but i can get behind it if he communicated credible threats.

Sorry for being so pissy yesterday, i've just become increasingly frustrated at the gun-grabbing. ANY new gun grabbing only takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I feel like it's not going to help with the number of deaths at all-- i think it's just going to create criminals out of normal people who refuse to compromise on their 2nd amendment rights.

0
1

[–] Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I can see the in the strictest sense side, because it makes the grab easier. On the other hand, that can become an argument for stripping ALL rights instead just the 2A. It's a real problem with no easy solutions.