The following 'policy' is comprehensive:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How 'bout that, Katie?
Time to repeal all firearms laws nationwide to 2nd ammendment.
They want to violate God-given rights that are protected in the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) - based on a DWI or an unsubstantiated accusation from an angry ex? No, thank you. Trying to do that will bring out a whole lot of angry gun owners. The far left totalitarian fringe should be more cautious.
I'm certainly willing to do more than my share.
No, we don't. We advocate those of us that are NOT mentally ill having the ability to protect ourselves and our families from those that would go off the deep end. I don't have a problem with crazies getting guns, so long as I can fight back. Against all crazies, foreign, domestic and tyrannical.
Do these twits have a clue as to how many LEO's this would disarm?
I express my anger at the ballot box.
For those 9 percent of Americans with anger issues, I think they just calculated how many active duty military personnel and veterans, and how many police there are in the US.
Clearly all of them are people with anger issues.
If somebody is too “mentally ill” to own a gun, then he’s too crazy to be loose on the streets. Do they think that guns are the only way a berserk crazy can kill lots of people? Do they think that a crazy can’t also do lots of damage with a sword or a bucket of gasoline?
Except that angry white "clingers" with CCW aren't the "problem" demographic for firearm homicides. And that demographic is certainly not "young, white males living on the edges of urban areas". The US would have roughly the homicide rate of Norway without the "problem" demographic.
Liberals must live their lives with their heads stuck so far up their **** that they can't hear or see anything at all.
* I am not-so-young but white and I just wrote out the checks for my state and federal taxes so you betcha I have "anger issues" today! Still, everyone is about as safe today as a baby in a Republican mother's womb!
“Tens of thousands of gun-loving Americans gathered in Nashville, Tennessee, this past weekend for the National Rifle Association’s annual convention.”
Hmm, all those guns in the same place and no reports of gun violence?.......Weird.
I assume there was none because if there had been I’m sure the lefty lib media woulda went batcrap crazy and gone with it as 24/7 breaking news.
If you've EVER had a disorderly conduct, yer banned. If you have EVER had a DUI, yer banned. If you were EVER caught with a joint, yer banned. If you have EVER had a divorcing wife issue a TPO, yer banned.
How about no. Does NO work for you?
Dammit, this ffffffffers love to ratchet it up. Say they got this. Next, would be ANY misdemeanor, yer banned. Then, ANY traffic ticket, yer banned.
“...gun restrictions based on criminal records of misdemeanor violence, DUI/DWIs, controlled substance crimes, and temporary domestic violence restraining orders could be a more effective...means of limiting gun access...”
Back during the 50’s there was a deplorable practice in the South called a “literacy test”. Ostensibly just to prove the prospective voter had an understanding of the issues being voted on, in reality it was a means of blocking blacks from voting since they were the only people who consistently failed the test.
A version of this same despicable act is now being offered by these “researchers”. Oh, you can own a firearm they say. Just as long as you have never;
robbed a bank,
shot someone,
smoked grass,
been drunk at a party,
had an ex-wife swear out a restraining order out of spite,
etc.
Wait, we still have gun violence? Better listen to those researchers and increase the restrictions to include;
any speeding tickets,
jaywalking,
breaking in line at a movie,
talking sports smack,
offending anyone...
But you see where I’m going. Who do you think would write these rules that determine whether you can protect yourself? Will they be politicians who surround themselves with bodyguards while telling you that DUI from back in college means you and your family will be defenseless? Will these overseers have your best interest at heart, or their political agenda?
“quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” isn’t just a quaint Latin phrase in this instance. It cuts to the very fallacy of this whole argument.
The rest of you may accept this hidden ambush, but I’ll stick with the 2nd Amendment.
From the abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2172/abstract;jsessionid=09D1D7D0EA798D7D280D3209C92A3FCC.f03t01of "Guns, Impulsive Angry Behavior, and Mental Disorders: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R)"
"The study found that a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%)."
ONLY 8.9% possess firearms and 1.5% carry? In a country with more guns than people, 91.1% of individuals who identify that they have impulsive angry behavior issues don't even own guns, and 98.5% don't carry? That seems like amazingly good judgment!
“The authors suggest that rather than screening potential gun owners based on their mental health history, “gun restrictions based on criminal records of misdemeanor violence, DUI/DWIs, controlled substance crimes, and temporary domestic violence restraining orders could be a more effective—and politically more palatable—means of limiting gun access in this high-risk group.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. No way.
If people who identify Democrat didn’t have guns, almost all gun violence would stop.