The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:30 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Well, apparently the Broward County Sheriff is a **** coward and so are his deputies. Chalk that up in the "gun control is **** retarded" column.

What kind of worthless **** pussy takes cover behind his car while kids are getting shot? I mean what the actual **** is that ****?

I can't believe I actually applied to that department at one point. I'm **** glad I didn't take it now; evidently they just leave people **** hanging while they're getting shot at.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4691
Location: Cincinnati OH
But we can all rest easy knowing Trump would have run into there unarmed to save the day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
But we can all rest easy knowing Trump would have run into there unarmed to save the day.


Really, Donald Trump's silly off-the-cuff comments and known propensity for bravado are the salient issue here. It's nice to see that we're sticking to the important issues.

Oh wait. We're treating 17 year olds as if they're now policy experts while at the same time advocating raising the age to buy "assault weapons". Maybe the Broward County Sheriff can do better at making sure that law-abiding 19 year olds can't buy an AR-15 since he obviously can't do anything about the non-law-abiding ones even when given 45 chances to do so.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4691
Location: Cincinnati OH
Oh I agree his ridiculous babble isn’t the issue. But I can still make snide remarks about it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3041
Wwen wrote:
Assuming there's no money to be maid by handing out DSM prescriptions all day for all citizens. A brave new world indeed. I wouldn't trust every psychiatrist.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. Are you suggesting psychiatrists get some sort of gain from the meds they prescribe?

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
Oh I agree his ridiculous babble isn’t the issue. But I can still make snide remarks about it.


That's interesting. I'm surprised to learn that you don't think Donald Trump would do precisely that and end up getting himself killed for his foolishness.

Trump appears to like children a great deal, is noted for his overblown confidence in his own abilities, and has an obvious wish to be seen as a hero in the way that Kelly and Mattis are, but he is not. I could totally see him pursuing such an unwise course of action. Even more so if he were armed.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:46 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Screeling wrote:
Wwen wrote:
Assuming there's no money to be maid by handing out DSM prescriptions all day for all citizens. A brave new world indeed. I wouldn't trust every psychiatrist.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. Are you suggesting psychiatrists get some sort of gain from the meds they prescribe?


I think he means DSM diagnosis, as the DSM is not a drug and you can't "prescribe" it.

I can certainly believe that at least some psychiatrists would engage in a certain amount of rent-seeking. What I'd be more concerned about is anti-gun fanatics fabricating "psychological problems" and presenting them to credulous psychiatrists - or anti-gun psychiatrists worming their way into any vetting system in order to deny guns to people.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
Diamondeye wrote:
Screeling wrote:
Wwen wrote:
Assuming there's no money to be maid by handing out DSM prescriptions all day for all citizens. A brave new world indeed. I wouldn't trust every psychiatrist.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. Are you suggesting psychiatrists get some sort of gain from the meds they prescribe?


I think he means DSM diagnosis, as the DSM is not a drug and you can't "prescribe" it.

I can certainly believe that at least some psychiatrists would engage in a certain amount of rent-seeking. What I'd be more concerned about is anti-gun fanatics fabricating "psychological problems" and presenting them to credulous psychiatrists - or anti-gun psychiatrists worming their way into any vetting system in order to deny guns to people.

I can see that.. get a shrink that thinks guns are the devil’s playthings since nobody really NEEDS a gun......

Shrink: “Do you have any guns in your home?”
Guy: “Yes, I have a shotgun”.
Shrink “Why do you have a shotgun?”
Guy: “For my protection, there’s a lot of crime in my neighborhood and I’ve been the target of some vandalism.”

(Shrink scribbles on notepad) “Patient exhibit paranoia and persecution psychosis.”

Now, if the guy goes in ‘cause he hears voices ... well, I suppose it depends on what tthe voices are telling him. I hear voices... just today I heard a tiny voice tell me “Go ahead, eat some more of those jelly beans... they’re good for you!”. I did, they were, so ... yeah. That.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3041
Diamondeye wrote:
Screeling wrote:
Wwen wrote:
Assuming there's no money to be maid by handing out DSM prescriptions all day for all citizens. A brave new world indeed. I wouldn't trust every psychiatrist.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. Are you suggesting psychiatrists get some sort of gain from the meds they prescribe?


I think he means DSM diagnosis, as the DSM is not a drug and you can't "prescribe" it.

I can certainly believe that at least some psychiatrists would engage in a certain amount of rent-seeking. What I'd be more concerned about is anti-gun fanatics fabricating "psychological problems" and presenting them to credulous psychiatrists - or anti-gun psychiatrists worming their way into any vetting system in order to deny guns to people.

Well, an extended involuntary hold in the psych ward requires a legal affidavit (at least in my state) that is evaluated by a judge. From what I've heard thus far, they're not easy to get extended beyond the initial hold unless there is a lot of evidence. If some borderline patient threatens to blow their head off, they get an initial 96 hour involuntary hold in the unit. This can be extended by additional documentation of ongoing threat to self and others and I'm pretty sure (though not positive) it requires nursing staff and psychologist buy-in. I suppose an argument could be made that those other people could just rubber-stamp it though.

I would imagine a similar burden of proof would be required if there were a system implemented to revoke somebody's right to bear arms on any long term basis. It would not happen at just the psychiatrist's say-so.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:48 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3041
Taskiss wrote:
I can see that.. get a shrink that thinks guns are the devil’s playthings since nobody really NEEDS a gun......

Shrink: “Do you have any guns in your home?”
Guy: “Yes, I have a shotgun”.
Shrink “Why do you have a shotgun?”
Guy: “For my protection, there’s a lot of crime in my neighborhood and I’ve been the target of some vandalism.”

(Shrink scribbles on notepad) “Patient exhibit paranoia and persecution psychosis.”

Now, if the guy goes in ‘cause he hears voices ... well, I suppose it depends on what tthe voices are telling him. I hear voices... just today I heard a tiny voice tell me “Go ahead, eat some more of those jelly beans... they’re good for you!”. I did, they were, so ... yeah. That.

Being schizophrenic would not be enough to involuntarily hold someone unless the voices are telling them to kill someone or themselves. The only way I can see delusions being enough to hold somebody is if they somehow involved believed they could fly or something. I haven't seen delusions like that yet, but that kind of thought content is more in line with a manic episode which such people definitely should not own guns.

But again, if the same evidentiary standard were used for extended involuntary holds, very few people would ever slip through the cracks like you mentioned above. From what my attendings have told me, judges almost always land on the side of the patient, even when the patient isn't protesting the hold.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:13 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Screeling wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Screeling wrote:
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. Are you suggesting psychiatrists get some sort of gain from the meds they prescribe?


I think he means DSM diagnosis, as the DSM is not a drug and you can't "prescribe" it.

I can certainly believe that at least some psychiatrists would engage in a certain amount of rent-seeking. What I'd be more concerned about is anti-gun fanatics fabricating "psychological problems" and presenting them to credulous psychiatrists - or anti-gun psychiatrists worming their way into any vetting system in order to deny guns to people.

Well, an extended involuntary hold in the psych ward requires a legal affidavit (at least in my state) that is evaluated by a judge. From what I've heard thus far, they're not easy to get extended beyond the initial hold unless there is a lot of evidence. If some borderline patient threatens to blow their head off, they get an initial 96 hour involuntary hold in the unit. This can be extended by additional documentation of ongoing threat to self and others and I'm pretty sure (though not positive) it requires nursing staff and psychologist buy-in. I suppose an argument could be made that those other people could just rubber-stamp it though.

I would imagine a similar burden of proof would be required if there were a system implemented to revoke somebody's right to bear arms on any long term basis. It would not happen at just the psychiatrist's say-so.


If this were purely an administrative and medical matter, I'd agree, but I do not put it past the anti-gun whackjobs to try to make it far easier to take someone's guns away on flimsy "psychological" grounds.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:16 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2207
Location: Bat Country
Diamondeye wrote:
Screeling wrote:
Wwen wrote:
Assuming there's no money to be maid by handing out DSM prescriptions all day for all citizens. A brave new world indeed. I wouldn't trust every psychiatrist.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. Are you suggesting psychiatrists get some sort of gain from the meds they prescribe?


I think he means DSM diagnosis, as the DSM is not a drug and you can't "prescribe" it.

I can certainly believe that at least some psychiatrists would engage in a certain amount of rent-seeking. What I'd be more concerned about is anti-gun fanatics fabricating "psychological problems" and presenting them to credulous psychiatrists - or anti-gun psychiatrists worming their way into any vetting system in order to deny guns to people.

This a lot. I think Ben Shapiro or someone of that nature had someone make a "report" on him and the cops have to investigate. Given the shitty nature of progressives, they are likely to abuse their political enemies with this sort of thing.

Also, this still doesn't protect against undiagnosed people. And we know enough about these shooters to know what drives them. Narcissism and resentment. In the United States of Narcissists, it's no surprise that we get these people. A narcissistic injury can only be responded to with violence. So, what's making everyone crazy? IMO, we've lost some things that keep people together. This country will come apart at the seams. There are some traditions worth keeping, but the left wants to tear everything down. The "revolution" won't go as they wish and there will be a lot of blood on their hands.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3041
I don't understand why undiagnosed people would need protection. The whole idea behind seizing somebody's guns due to mental health is that it would require a diagnosis. Taskiss' paranoia not withstanding, there is a process that has protections against abuse for that.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:25 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Screeling wrote:
I don't understand why undiagnosed people would need protection. The whole idea behind seizing somebody's guns due to mental health is that it would require a diagnosis. Taskiss' paranoia not withstanding, there is a process that has protections against abuse for that.


All people are undiagnosed until they are diagnosed. What undiagnosed people need protection from is a diagnostic process altered by legislative fiat in for ulterior motives.

I certainly would not put it past the Democrats to try to sneak in some seemingly-minor provision to that effect in a "bi-partisan" bill. After all, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
Screeling wrote:
I don't understand why undiagnosed people would need protection. The whole idea behind seizing somebody's guns due to mental health is that it would require a diagnosis. Taskiss' paranoia not withstanding, there is a process that has protections against abuse for that.

Admit it, you’re out to get me!

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:24 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Taskiss wrote:
Screeling wrote:
I don't understand why undiagnosed people would need protection. The whole idea behind seizing somebody's guns due to mental health is that it would require a diagnosis. Taskiss' paranoia not withstanding, there is a process that has protections against abuse for that.

Admit it, you’re out to get me!


I didn't know Screeling was into the 2-humpers.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline
Not the ranger you're looking for
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 318
Location: Here
Taskiss wrote:
Screeling wrote:
I don't understand why undiagnosed people would need protection. The whole idea behind seizing somebody's guns due to mental health is that it would require a diagnosis. Taskiss' paranoia not withstanding, there is a process that has protections against abuse for that.

Admit it, you’re out to get me!


Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3041
Diamondeye wrote:
Screeling wrote:
I don't understand why undiagnosed people would need protection. The whole idea behind seizing somebody's guns due to mental health is that it would require a diagnosis. Taskiss' paranoia not withstanding, there is a process that has protections against abuse for that.


All people are undiagnosed until they are diagnosed. What undiagnosed people need protection from is a diagnostic process altered by legislative fiat in for ulterior motives.

I certainly would not put it past the Democrats to try to sneak in some seemingly-minor provision to that effect in a "bi-partisan" bill. After all, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

Right, but the DSM-5 has very specific criteria that would need to be documented. For example, the manic episode requires:
Spoiler:
A. A distinct period of abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or
irritable mood and abnormally and persistently increased goal-directed
activity or energy, lasting at least 1 week and present most of the day,
nearly every day (or any duration if hospitalization is necessary).
B. During the period of mood disturbance and increased energy or activity,
three (or more) of the following symptoms (four if the mood is only irrita-
ble) are present to a significant degree and represent a noticeable
change from usual behavior:
Mood Disorders
1. Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity.
2. Decreased need for sleep (e.g., feels rested after only 3 hours of sleep).
3. More talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking.
4. Flight of ideas or subjective experience that thoughts are racing.
5. Distractibility (i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or irrel-
evant external stimuli), as reported or observed.
6. Increase in goal-directed activity (either socially, at work or school,
or sexually) or psychomotor agitation (i.e., purposeless non-goal-
directed activity).
7. Excessive involvement in activities that have a high potential for
painful consequences (e.g., engaging in unrestrained buying sprees,
sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments).
C. The mood disturbance is sufficiently severe to cause marked impair-
ment in social or occupational functioning or to necessitate hospitaliza-
tion to prevent harm to self or others, or there are psychotic features.
D. The episode is not attributable to the physiological effects of a sub-
stance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication, other treatment) or to an-
other medical condition.
Note: A full manic episode that emerges during antidepressant treat-
ment (e.g., medication, electroconvulsive therapy) but persists at a fully
syndromal level beyond the physiological effect of that treatment is suf-
ficient evidence for a manic episode and, therefore, a bipolar I diagnosis.

I mean, I guess you can say a doctor can just make all of these up. But any instance of abuse on this could lead to said psychiatrist losing their license to practice. I don't see how one can convincingly make the case that any abuse on stuff like this could happen on any recurring basis without getting flagged or reported and likely some sort of judicial review of the physician's competence.

Could a doc do it a couple times without repercussions? Probably so and yeah, that's a couple times too many. But those sorts of things would be easily fought in court and quite honestly, there aren't that many psychiatrist in the U.S. to make that much of a dent in the gun-owning population and willing to take those risks.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Screeling wrote:
I mean, I guess you can say a doctor can just make all of these up. But any instance of abuse on this could lead to said psychiatrist losing their license to practice. I don't see how one can convincingly make the case that any abuse on stuff like this could happen on any recurring basis without getting flagged or reported and likely some sort of judicial review of the physician's competence.


I'm making the case that legislation specific to allowing gun confiscation based on psychological conditions might alter the process you are articulating for those cases, and those cases only. I am not disputing the integrity of the process as it exists right now; I am saying that I do not put it past Congress to do something like... for example not actually require a diagnosis for this purpose.

Quote:
Could a doc do it a couple times without repercussions? Probably so and yeah, that's a couple times too many. But those sorts of things would be easily fought in court and quite honestly, there aren't that many psychiatrist in the U.S. to make that much of a dent in the gun-owning population and willing to take those risks.


That is probably true insofar as I'm sure that the vast majority of psychiatrists are honest. However, a shortage of psychiatrists is a concern too. I can certainly envision a GVRO scheme in which emergency orders are issued without any diagnosis by a physician (regardless of the bona fides of the emergency) and requiring a clearance by a doctor to end the "temporary" order.

Lots of untrained people think they can read the DSM-V and diagnose people; it's very easy to see the symptoms of a manic episode in someone if one wants to and is not properly trained to apply it. The concern here is that the burden of obtaining the diagnosis may not be on the state, or on the "family and friends" proposed in some schemes, but on the gun owner under the guise of a "temporary" situation.

The integrity of the medical community is not, by itself, sufficient defense against the gun-grabbers. Taking guns away from people is, for many anti-gun people, not actually about crime, violence or safety. It's about cultural victory over an identity stereotype that they A) hate B) believe that they sit in judgment of and C) cannot accept has any form of power, either in the form of the vote or in the form of a gun.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
Kairtane wrote:
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.

Great. I was just starting to be able to sleep at night.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:16 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5066
Disclaimer... my Post is about to be like diet soda: it will have nothing of value in it. But I cannot resist it anyway.

Diamondeye wrote:
Trump appears to like children a great deal, is noted for his overblown confidence in his own abilities, and has an obvious wish to be seen as a hero in the way that Kelly and Mattis are, but he is not. I could totally see him pursuing such an unwise course of action. Even more so if he were armed.


Of course... Keep the children alive now, so you can "grab em by the pussy" when they are adults.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:56 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
If you got on an Access Hollywood bus with Donald Trump, you were there to get your pussy grabbed, all the pearl-clutching notwithstanding.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5713
TheRiov wrote:
Hell at this point I’d settle for universal background checks, restrictions on private sales, yearly inspections and licensing (including tests/courses) and mental health/watchlist disqualifications for firearm ownership and mandating that every gun have its ballistics registered.


Referring to the bold, I'd agree to requiring a test to exercise your second amendment right if you agree to a test to exercise your right to vote.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3441
Location: St. Louis, MO
I have some ideas about tests to license people's right to speak.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group