Posted on 07/21/2015 8:03:27 AM PDT by rktman
I don't think anyone here would turn that opportunity down. The problem isn't that. The problem is that we won't know about it until it's over with.
Dismantle VA and ATF, AMEN!
We need to march on Washington with our guns and shoot anyone who gets in the way.
Walker’s my guy - Cruz is my second... You’re right dware - Trump’s pushing the field... it’s good...
It's prima facie proof they are, at least, unstable.
I have absolutely no problem with this.
The person has either claimed, or been adjudicated "incompetent" to manage their own affairs.
Do you want them to have a firearm?
Depends on who the judge was. Is missing a few payments cause? Is there a footnote to the 2nd that says “unless you can’t handle your money?”
I absolutely agree with this, the problem I see is with legal overreach.
Once the precedent is set, the expansion is easy, to those with green eyes or ... or...
Currently guns and mental incompetence are handled on a case by case basis. And I think it should continue.
The question is now whether a person in that condition should be in possession of a firearm. The question is whether an unelected bureaucrat should get to decide the question, rather than a court (or, heaven forbid - a real Congress).
For the VA or SSA to declare a person INCOMPETENT to manage their own affairs, it requires a doctor's judgement AND circumstantial proof.
My sister currently takes care of my dementia afflicted mother and manages her funds. It was not a fast, or easy process. Doctors, social workers, and finally, a judge were required to make this happen.
You would not want to meet my mother if she had a firearm. She hallucinates and goes into fits of rage.
This kind of lawless krap couldn’t happen with any decent American president ( of either party). Elections do indeed have consequences, especially when congress and the courts are compromised, complicit, or bought off ,
These dumb asses don’t have the brains to run our Country let alone our lives.
Figures. The US government wants to take guns away from people that need them the most.
Yeah, that'll work.
Great. We can add you to the list of traitors when things get sporty.
The Federal government has no such power to do this, and if you know the Constitution, you know that. So, why support tyranny?
Pretty strong words for a newbie.
And in fact it is not the Federal Government that does this.
It's done by order of a State Judge. And it's based on the well-founded precedent that the mentally deficient cannot purchase or possess a firearm legally.
Just who is it you think gets relieved of their right to purchase a firearm? Some pu$$y that cries so much he needs prozac?
It's people who have DEMONSTRATED themselves incompetent to administer their own affairs...a very high threshold in every jurisdiction.
Oh, one other thought: You feel pretty brave with your words in a virtual environment, but I assure you that you would be far more likely to crawl in a corner and piss yourself than to say it to my face.
Unlikely that I would say it to your face. I avoid tyrants and their supporters if I can.
I must also note you seem pretty "sporty" in a virtual environment.
And oh yeah: not a noob. Been around here since the early 00's, just didn't comment for a long, long while. Might soon go "dark" again. Bet you'd be happy about that.
Then we’ll go with your idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.