If a armed person starts walking down your street or maybe up your sidewalk and based on their behavior you, based on your life’s experience and wisdom, judge the person to be crazy what will you do?
Oh I guess you will work your way through the definitions of crazy or find smeone to give a diagnosis being sure to protect their HIPPA rights.
Or will you take defensive measures, will you call the cops, would you expect them to disarm the crazy, as judged by you, person?
ORIGINAL POST:
YOU: Tyranny is giving a crazy person with guns due process rights
ME:
Seriously?
How is that Tyranny? Please do explain!!!
How is “crazy” defined?
What illnesses are included?
Who does the diagnosis?
Who has access to the medical records that HIPPA is supposed to protect?
YOUR RESPONSE:
If a armed person starts walking down your street or maybe up your sidewalk and based on their behavior you, based on your life’s experience and wisdom, judge the person to be crazy what will you do?
Oh I guess you will work your way through the definitions of crazy or find smeone to give a diagnosis being sure to protect their HIPPA rights.
Or will you take defensive measures, will you call the cops, would you expect them to disarm the crazy, as judged by you, person?
ME:
Nice snark and dramatic response. Sorry your example makes no sense and does not apply to the topic at hand...
Do you support Second Amendment?
Why did you not answer any of my questions?
I will list them again:
How is that Tyranny?
How is “crazy” defined? ARE ALL ‘CRAZY’ PEOPLE DANGEROUS?
What illnesses are included?
Who does the diagnosis?
Who has access to the medical records that HIPPA is supposed to protect?
This thread is about confiscation of firearms prior to any threatening incident based on a vague? medical diagnosis by someone placed in a database viewable by someone. This is not dealing with an armed person who is proving to be an immediate threat.
In your example armed person might not be crazy—could be a lot of things...such as angry, intent on robbing me, etc. but not “crazy.” Look at certain streets in Chicago on any weekend night...the shooters are not crazy, they are lawless and immoral, but not “crazy.”
Why stop with vague definition “crazy??” In Jan/Dec 2017, Obama administration initiated rules that would prohibit seniors from possessing firearms if they needed any help with finances...
“Have you ever thought of letting someone else manage your finances? Under finalized new rules released just before Christmas by President Obama, Social Security recipients will be banned from buying a gun if they are deemed “financially incompetent.” Some 4.2 million Social Security recipients — about 10 percent of all people 65 and older — could lose the right to own a gun as a result.”
Just because someone can’t manage his finances doesn’t mean that he’s a danger to others.
So they don’t have a right to arm and defend themselves? Because Obama said so?
My mom when a little nutty when she went thru menopause—emotional swings, sitting outside in yard alone, etc. Oh it passed and was very temporary and episodic. However would you deny her Second Amendment rights? Would she have to turn in a firearm?
Slippery slope :(
I suggest you review the definition of Tyranny: GOVERNMENT by a ruler or small group of people who have UNLIMITED POWER OVER THE PEOPLE. That is what Second Amendment guards against.