Mike1234567
member
yer ALL krayzee... sind mee awl yer gunz cuz I NOT krayzee... if yoo duzint sind mee yer gunz i KEEL yoo!! i KEEL you reel bad thin i hert yoo REEL bad!! butt I dont need no steenkeen hi-pointsez!!
Mental Health"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never cease to be amazed at the faith placed in a "discipline" that engages in science-by-consensus -- literally a voting process -- to enumerate the maladies it deigns to treat.
The "discipline" in question has never been validated, has never been able to produce consistent results, has actively participated in shaping our education system, and is richly funded from government sources. Their validity is predicated on subjective criteria evaluated by none other than themselves.
And yet, with no actual evidence that they have any real insight into the subject at hand, beyond the kind of understandings long guarded as trade secrets by fortune tellers and con men, they hold themselves up as the standard for "who knows best what's going on in your head."
And unto this body we, as a culture, seem to be calmly accepting of their authority to pronounce us fit or unfit for this or that endeavor based solely on their subjective opinion and interpretation of a list of maladies on which their colleagues have voted.
Really?
You want to hang your rights on that authority?
Well, of course. After all, you need only look upon the crown jewel of their last four decades of industry: the state of the public school system and the products issuing therefrom. They clearly have fecal aggregation mastered.
Any fool can see that.
Psycho is the root of Psychologist for a reason.
so our laws the way they are now are only prohibiting people from buying guns who are trying to buy them responsibly,
Ummm, yeah, but nothing to do with the reason you imply. Psychology is latin for "Study of psyche". A psychologist is one who practices psychology.
You're stating how things ARE though. I'm stating how I think things SHOULD BE. If they are are stabilized enough on meds to be walking free then I see no reason why that shouldn't also extend to firearms ownership. I know that's not the way it currently works, but there's a lot about the current system we don't like
Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? A huge principle of our justice system...
Yes, certain people should be barred from owning guns, even if they're not legally prohibited.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This. In theory some people just shouldn't be handling a firearm period, but who do you really trust to make that decision?Who and by what criteria decides who can and can not own firearms?
There is the crux of the matter.
I agree!What this thread shows you is that even in the gun owning community there are half-wits who'd deprive other people of their liberties based on baseless perception, calculation, and a good mix of fear.
And this really isn't realistic. It's ideal, and it should be the way things are done, but it doesn't work. This is diving headfirst into a huge amount of debate about the nature of corrections as a whole, and it really requires a lot of education specifically into our criminal justice system's history (not that you don't know it - I just don't want to assume anything), not to mention ethics, what the goal of our justice system should be versus what the goals used to be and why they changed (rehabilitation, vs punishment, vs reintegration, vs removal from society/storage), etc, etc. I could submit a 100-page thesis on the subject, but I can't debate it here.Is the man free or is he a felon? If he's a felon, why is he free?
Oh, you don't trust him? And yet you let him roam free among the general population? Seriously?
Make up your mind. Lock him up as a felon, or let him go. Really let him go. All the way.