*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

I guess everyone can agree that a gun is less harmful in the hands of a trained, sane and not-evil person. What I can't wrap my head around is the resistance to make it harder for people not fitting that criteria to get guns.

Who's making that determination?? I posted an article yesterday where a shrink admits to having no justifiable reason to involuntarily admit a man to a psychiatric facility against his will. Yet she did it anyway because SHE decided that it would be cool if he weren't allowed to buy a gun.

I would rather let maniacs have guns than let doctors lock up innocent people and remove their rights without due process.

I simply can't believe how someone can be so afraid of their government and their neighbors that they'd rather give lunatics and convicted felons free access to buy guns, because they feel restricting that might lead to dem guv'ment comin for muh guns.

Lunatics can't get guns. If someone has been adjudicated as mentally ill, they can't buy a gun.

Convicted felons, can't buy guns either.

So what's your problem? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens be wary of further restrictions? If it's not to stop felons, or lunatics....who would the restrictions be for then???

Teh capitol police, which protects members of congress, is armed with semi-automatic weapons, high-ammo clips, and all that shit. So I have a real fucking problem with a member of congress saying "yes we need these weapons to protect us, but you don't need them to protect your family" That's fucking bullshit.

[CoccoBill]

Who's making that determination?? I posted an article yesterday where a shrink admits to having no justifiable reason to involuntarily admit a man to a psychiatric facility against his will. Yet she did it anyway because SHE decided that it would be cool if he weren't allowed to buy a gun.

I would rather let maniacs have guns than let doctors lock up innocent people and remove their rights without due process.

I would rather try to improve both situations than throw my hands up in the air and wave them like I just don't care.

Lunatics can't get guns. If someone has been adjudicated as mentally ill, they can't buy a gun.

Convicted felons, can't buy guns either.

C'mon you know better, they can just (for example) go online and buy a gun, or if it's not a federal crime they can go to some other state or other bs like that.

Teh capitol police, which protects members of congress, is armed with semi-automatic weapons, high-ammo clips, and all that shit. So I have a real fucking problem with a member of congress saying "yes we need these weapons to protect us, but you don't need them to protect your family" That's fucking bullshit.

Well that's a completely separate issue. You might though have difficulty finding people there if they weren't protected.

[BananaStand]

I would rather try to improve both situations than throw my hands up in the air and wave them like I just don't care.

This is pollyanna stuff. Have you and monkey been sharing notes??

How do you even begin to predict what someone will do with a gun? If you KNOW someone is mentally ill and unstable, there's paperwork and shit that prevents that person from buying a gun. In the absence of that...people are innocent until proven guilty. So you really can't start making determinations about who should and shouldn't have guns without violating the right to due process.

C'mon you know better, they can just (for example) go online and buy a gun, or if it's not a federal crime they can go to some other state or other bs like that.

You have no idea what you're talking about

Well that's a completely separate issue. You might though have difficulty finding people there if they weren't protected.

It is absolutely NOT a separate issue. It's the CORE issue.

If congress says that they deserve more protections, and more rights than the ordinary citizen, then they are creating the type of privileged ruling class that the bill of rights, and the second amendment were designed to prevent. If you think that's ok, you don't belong in America.

[CoccoBill]

This is pollyanna stuff. Have you and monkey been sharing notes??

Any chance you'd once reply to something without kindergarten level name calling, insults and general douchebaggery? I'm running out of doubt benefits.

How do you even begin to predict what someone will do with a gun? If you KNOW someone is mentally ill and unstable, there's paperwork and shit that prevents that person from buying a gun. In the absence of that...people are innocent until proven guilty. So you really can't start making determinations about who should and shouldn't have guns without violating the right to due process.

Professionals in the field (psychology, sociology, criminology, policy etc) are better equipped to say exactly which markers should determine the policy, but just because the current policy isn't perfect doesn't mean it can't be made better. People are innocent until proven guilty, sure, but that doesn't mean certain high risk behavior couldn't temporarily limit one's rights.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Such a convincing argument.

It is absolutely NOT a separate issue. It's the CORE issue.

If congress says that they deserve more protections, and more rights than the ordinary citizen, then they are creating the type of privileged ruling class that the bill of rights, and the second amendment were designed to prevent. If you think that's ok, you don't belong in America.

No, it's a completely separate issue that can be decided completely independent of measures against school shootings.

And no I don't think it's ok, and no I don't belong in America that's why I'm not there. Any other hyperbole and strawmen you want to get off your chest?

[BananaStand]

Any chance you'd once reply to something without kindergarten level name calling, insults and general douchebaggery? I'm running out of doubt benefits.

Sure. Just make a post that's not hopelessly naive, and you'll see.

Professionals in the field (psychology, sociology, criminology, policy etc) are better equipped to say exactly which markers should determine the policy,

No, they aren't. This is just....just...wrong man. First of all, just the anecdotal evidence is incredibly compelling. One of the most prominent liberal newspapers in the country, ran an op-ed about the most prominent social issue of the day where the author confessed to violating a man's constitutional rights, for entirely selfish reasons.

Due process must be meted out by people educated on THE LAW.

but just because the current policy isn't perfect doesn't mean it can't be made better.

What do you mean by "better"? Because I think a policy that preserves people's constitutional rights is "better" than a policy that restricts guns. You're clearly using "better" to describe your chosen agenda.

People are innocent until proven guilty, sure, but that doesn't mean certain high risk behavior couldn't temporarily limit one's rights.

Actually.....that's EXACTLY what it means.

Such a convincing argument.

The argument that you posted, to which I gave that response, was completely uninformed and devoid of any facts. Your move.

No, it's a completely separate issue that can be decided completely independent of measures against school shootings.

No it isn't. The measures being suggested are bans on certain types of weapons. Not just a ban in schools....a BAN. So it's not a separate issue. It's the CORE issue. You can't say certain people are worthy of a higher level of protection, and other people are not. That's not how America works. You can't separate the issues just so you can have your way.