pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Report: Massacre Perpetrator Had Asperger Syndrome, Personality Disorder
#11
glocke12;54578 Wrote:
ByblosHex;53694 Wrote:Easier said than done.

Its very easy...Its called not owning guns or keeping them somewhere else...

Sorry, but if someone in your house is mentally ill or disturbed enough that you think they may be dangerous to themselves or others, you simply have no business keeping firearms in your home.

I don't know the specifics of this case, but there is a difference between someone who acts out because they are angry and someone who goes on a shooting spree.

Also, the article I read stated that the mother was overly protective. It is entirely possible there were much deeper issues going on here than we will know about.

As long as a reasonable person would believe the firearms are safe (i.e. locked up), I really don't see what the problem here is. Seriously, how many gun owners lock up their firearms because they live with a prohibited person and it is never an issue...
Reply
#12
rmagill;54558 Wrote:Frankly, why should someone be prohibited from possessing a firearm because an organ - the brain in this case - is not functioning and the person is seeking the proper treatment, why should they not be allowed to possess a firearm? If they should, then lets ban everyone on dialysis or with liver failure.

A malfunctioning brain is far different than a malfunctioning liver...

I do agree with you that each case is different, but to be honest, if someone is mentally ill enough to where they cannot take care of themselves in terms of personal hygiene, paying bills, working, maintaining their house, driving, etc...than they simply are not responsible enough to own firearms.

Thats not too say they can't shoot with supervision, but I wouldn't want someone like that having unsupervised access to firearms.
glocke12, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#13
glocke12;54580 Wrote:
rmagill;54558 Wrote:Frankly, why should someone be prohibited from possessing a firearm because an organ - the brain in this case - is not functioning and the person is seeking the proper treatment, why should they not be allowed to possess a firearm? If they should, then lets ban everyone on dialysis or with liver failure.

A malfunctioning brain is far different than a malfunctioning liver...

I do agree with you that each case is different, but to be honest, if someone is mentally ill enough to where they cannot take care of themselves in terms of personal hygiene, paying bills, working, maintaining their house, driving, etc...than they simply are not responsible enough to own firearms.

Thats not too say they can't shoot with supervision, but I wouldn't want someone like that having unsupervised access to firearms.

Where in the Second Amendment is the exception clause for responsibility? Last I checked, it states that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... regardless of our level of responsibility.

Using the responsibility test is a slippery slope. Should people with debt - mortgages and college loans included - be prohibited from possessing firearms? I mean, they are not responsible enough to stay out of debt. Or how about someone with 50 parking tickets. Are they too irresponsible to possess a firearm? How about someone who declared bankruptcy, or dropped out of high school because they wanted to. Are they too irresponsible?

Just because someone might act recklessly with any object is not grounds to prohibit them - or anyone else - from possessing such object. Neither is my belief or desire for someone to or not to possess a firearm. I have several friends who are very reckless with firearms. I don't think they should own firearms - but I support their right to do so. Allowing people that might not be the most responsible to have potentially dangerous is a side-effect of freedom. If one wants freedom, then one must accept the risks involved. If the cost of freedom is too high... well "Those who would give up essential liberty..."
Reply
#14
rmagill;54594 Wrote:
glocke12;54580 Wrote:A malfunctioning brain is far different than a malfunctioning liver...

I do agree with you that each case is different, but to be honest, if someone is mentally ill enough to where they cannot take care of themselves in terms of personal hygiene, paying bills, working, maintaining their house, driving, etc...than they simply are not responsible enough to own firearms.

Thats not too say they can't shoot with supervision, but I wouldn't want someone like that having unsupervised access to firearms.

Where in the Second Amendment is the exception clause for responsibility? Last I checked, it states that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... regardless of our level of responsibility.

Using the responsibility test is a slippery slope. Should people with debt - mortgages and college loans included - be prohibited from possessing firearms? I mean, they are not responsible enough to stay out of debt. Or how about someone with 50 parking tickets. Are they too irresponsible to possess a firearm? How about someone who declared bankruptcy, or dropped out of high school because they wanted to. Are they too irresponsible?

Just because someone might act recklessly with any object is not grounds to prohibit them - or anyone else - from possessing such object. Neither is my belief or desire for someone to or not to possess a firearm. I have several friends who are very reckless with firearms. I don't think they should own firearms - but I support their right to do so. Allowing people that might not be the most responsible to have potentially dangerous is a side-effect of freedom. If one wants freedom, then one must accept the risks involved. If the cost of freedom is too high... well "Those who would give up essential liberty..."

Oh ok. You're right. The CT shooter AZ shooter the V tech shootet and movie theater shooter should NOT have had their rights to own and access firearms restricted.

Hope you remember that when they pass the next wave of firearm restrictions.
glocke12, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#15
Murder is illegal. I'm so glad that law stopped mass shootings!Rolleyes

Bad people wil do bad things. Stopping me from exercising my rights wont stop a law breaker from breaking the law. That's what they do.

The onus of.responsability lies with.the person. The the gun, ammo, magazine size, or mental disorder is a red hering argument. Yes, mental disorders can play a role in sentancing, but do not completely abdolve.a person of.their own responsability. If it was completely the redilt of.the disorder, then everyone with the disorder would be mass.murderer and have a free pass.
Reply
#16
They only pass them because of people with your mentality not because those people should have had their rights removed. They shouldn't have as far as I see. If we didn't know they would do what they did why would we even think about restricting them? Are we supposed to have clairvoyance? They had should have had their rights and their actions are the price of freedom. Not having those rights won't stop a thing.

glocke12;54612 Wrote:
rmagill;54594 Wrote:Where in the Second Amendment is the exception clause for responsibility? Last I checked, it states that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... regardless of our level of responsibility.

Using the responsibility test is a slippery slope. Should people with debt - mortgages and college loans included - be prohibited from possessing firearms? I mean, they are not responsible enough to stay out of debt. Or how about someone with 50 parking tickets. Are they too irresponsible to possess a firearm? How about someone who declared bankruptcy, or dropped out of high school because they wanted to. Are they too irresponsible?

Just because someone might act recklessly with any object is not grounds to prohibit them - or anyone else - from possessing such object. Neither is my belief or desire for someone to or not to possess a firearm. I have several friends who are very reckless with firearms. I don't think they should own firearms - but I support their right to do so. Allowing people that might not be the most responsible to have potentially dangerous is a side-effect of freedom. If one wants freedom, then one must accept the risks involved. If the cost of freedom is too high... well "Those who would give up essential liberty..."

Oh ok. You're right. The CT shooter AZ shooter the V tech shootet and movie theater shooter should NOT have had their rights to own and access firearms restricted.

Hope you remember that when they pass the next wave of firearm restrictions.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Wilmington, DE's sanctioned CDC gun violence report is in... DeadEye 2 546 11-04-2015, 02:02 PM
Last Post: DeadEye
  Keefe Report: “Don't Let Them Register Your Guns, Mate” das 0 482 10-13-2015, 08:38 AM
Last Post: das
  House Report: "Choke Point" Targets Legal Businesses for Asphyxiation das 0 486 05-31-2014, 08:11 PM
Last Post: das
  Breaking - Report: DOJ Leaked Docs to Smear Fast & Furious Whistleblower, Says IG Pocketprotector 0 480 05-20-2013, 01:54 PM
Last Post: Pocketprotector
  New Government Report Undercuts Obama Anti-Gun Agenda das 1 553 05-11-2013, 06:30 AM
Last Post: soberbyker



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.