Are you a communist and don't know it?

Different than her having access to one at home when she has decided to skip her meds

I have taken the person in my life to the range, the woods, a farm, to fire weapons maybe 1000 times.

Dont want her to have access to a gun whenever she wants.

Nope. There is no such thing as a reasonable restriction. It’s a Constitutionally protected right. The ONLY time you get to take away a right is when someone has committed a crime and taken the rights of another individual away. Then they have removed their own rights. I just don’t trust government to hold the keys when the entire intent is to act as a check and balance against federal tyranny. Think about that, start letting them draw the line… where does it end? Pretty soon, it’ll be “If you criticize us, you lose your right to own a gun because it scares us”. . . let’s not forget that they put Japanese in internment camps in WWII. We should ALL distrust the government more than each other.

2 Likes

Why allow access to a knife? To a car? To a bat? What’s so special about a firearm? You can do a massive amount of damage with gasoline and a match… it’s not about the weapon, it’s about getting sick people assistance.

the Government can restrict gun ownership and does

Everyday

I understand the whole “give them an inch and they will take a mile” argument because it is 100% valid but eventually something has to give

All that said. I cannot, and I tried, find a single article or story of someone who is Bi-Polar and owned a gun legally in their name murdering someone.

Perhaps this is just an issue too close to me personally

Be safe brother!!

1 Like

Gotta run and cook my grandson some Spicy Chicken Romano before he gets violent and beats me up again. :smiley: Good discussion, we may not agree but I enjoyed it!

Rent control, in the long term, decreases fairness in housing.

If he/she is too dangerous to have a gun, what about the other easily obtained items that can be used to kill people? Because, guns are not remotely the only means to do so.

Yep, and the 2nd did NOTHING.

Again, the second was not intended to allow a small minority to overthrow the government. The second did nothing because most people at that time were ok with interning them. It’s also very much a last resort, things have to be very bad for people to put their lives on the line.

So no the 2nd is not in place to stop govt tyranny.

Yes it is, that doesn’t mean it will be used against any and all government transgressions against liberty. That won’t happen unless those transgressions rise to the level of millions thinking things are so bad they are willing to lay down their lives to change them.

2 Likes

Yes, it reminds me of Democrats, except their “nation” is the planet under the new world order.

A Liberal hero signed an executive order to relocate and detain thousands of Japanese based on the actions of a hostile power and the color of their skin. I think the fact that no one acted was amazing. With that said, the intent of the 2nd is to allow the citizens of the US to coordinate with the states to respond to tyranny. Read Federalist 46 if you want the true intent.

Will the 2nd keep tyranny out? Maybe, maybe not. Does that mean we abandon it for perceived safety? Absolutely NOT. I want the chance to fight if we end up like Venezuela, which judging by the actions of the left during this Covid nonsense, it exactly where they’ll push it. People being arrested for opening a private business and engaging in free trade with other citizens? Do you realize how INSANE that is?

1 Like

No, it’s not the place to stop bad government policy. Fortunately, they corrected their actions and paid reparations to Japanese people that were impacted. What IF, they decided to come after the Germans, then the Italians? What happens then? You think a huge percentage of the population is just going to take that crap? Ever wonder why they went after only Japanese? Let’s not forget, 0.08% of the population was impacted by FDR’s executive order. What if the impact was 1%? 5%? 10%?

That people think that getting a haircut or going to the gym is more important than people’s life. Yep that’s insane.

No, it’s NOT insane. Free choice is free choice. If I CHOOSE to go to a store and that person CHOOSES to keep it open, who the hell is the Government to step in and say NO? What makes you qualified to determine whether or not me “risking my life” is worth it or not? Do you take the same tact with people that sell a guy a motorcycle? That’s dangerous.

NO. I do NOT accept this garbage that we’re risking lives by engaging in free trade with each other. No one HAS to be there. Let’s keep this in perspective. 0.02% of the population have died from this disease. In contrast, 0.2% died from heart disease last year. Where are you demanding that people stop selling food that is unhealthy? Should we mandate exercise?

A free society has risks and people are free to choose whether or not to take those risks. This nanny state crap has GOT to end.

2 Likes

Just to expand on the previous point. ~1.2% of the population dies each year. What’s the cutoff for too dangerous to engage in free activity? Government’s job should be to provide guidelines based on fact and evidence and then let people choose what they want to do. The government isn’t our parent and this insistence that they ACT like our parent is destructive.

2 Likes

I’m not a proponent. I believe in renting where you can afford to rent.

1 Like

You’re right, it’s the attitude of a bratty 2yr old whining, crying and stomping his feet yelling. YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

No, it’s the attitude of an adult human being responsible for his own actions. The fact that you see adults as a 2 year old because they won’t do as the government tells them just shows your bias against freedom.

2 Likes