The question is, where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw it? Remember that it was not long ago that everything under the LGBTQ etc banner was labeled a "mental disorder." I personally think that this was correct, and idiots changed the rule book because of their own predilections. Be that as it may, the questions that I started with still stand. The constitution espouses that our rights come from our creator, and thus can not be "infringed," by government. "Mentally Ill," has to be defined, and an Individual needs to be "adjudicated," to be placed under that definition, before a suspension of their rights can occur, IMHO. This would not have stopped any of the shootings that have occurred, and just proves that A. all discussion of this is simply posturing by both sides, and B. laws do not prevent crime!
NRA says it opposes idea of banning transgender Americans from owning guns
- Thread starter Onomea
- Start date
- Status
How can the state condone firearms ownership by people who want to buy a weapon that can fire more than one time in a few seconds? What are they doing, assaulting someone?
Swing and a miss, strike three, you're out.
See how that sounds?
Rammer Jammer
Member
I'm wary of the slippery slope of gun control and banning whole categories of people.
But I'm also wary of people who have publicly declared their insanity as trans being armed. Depression anxiety etc are mental health issues and don't warrant bans. Trans schizophrenia etc are full blown psychotic disorders that can merit disarmament.
But I'm also wary of people who have publicly declared their insanity as trans being armed. Depression anxiety etc are mental health issues and don't warrant bans. Trans schizophrenia etc are full blown psychotic disorders that can merit disarmament.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, we tried to let this go as a viable topic but people just can't follow the rules.
CLOSED.
CLOSED.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
