Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

[377OHMS]

Quote from L-Kabong:

If you really believe that you would not have become so apoplectic.

I've made no post in this thread that is apoplectic.

Liberals here in P&R like to delude themselves into believing that their posts have grave impact on conservatives reading them and use lots of adjectives to describe that perceived impact but I assure you that isn't the case. Again, the only person posting unrestrained emotive tripe here today is you.

I view my own posts here as simply letting you guys know that your party is approaching some red lines that could trigger events that cannot be predicted and that you will almost certainly regret.

Liberals have overestimated their authority and mischaracterized the election result as a mandate for radical change. That mandate does not exist and when you start fiddling around with the second amendment you are literally playing with fire.

Got a problem with crazy guys (nearly all of them democrats btw) shooting up schools, theaters and political events? Consider funding mental hospitals and reestablishing the paradigm of institutionalizing mentally ill people when they exhibit psychosis instead of looking the other direction and pretending that they are "mentally-challenged" and leaving them to fend for themselves among us.

 

[wjk]

Quote from L-Kabong:

I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of certain people,
people who would clearly pose a danger to others. That is hard to do though, practically speaking. If you are in a free society, and you have no spot on your record, you can buy a gun. You could l be totally fucking crazy and still pass a background check.
And you can easily buy a gun illegally.

I am not at all opposed to greater scrutiny regarding purchases, and in fact think it is necessary. The anger you detect on my part is largely because of the speed this incident was politicized by some in power. In my opinion, that seems to send a different message than that which you, piezoe, and a few others might be advocating. I just don't feel there is anything to discuss regarding the weapons that Feinstein is listing. There are many, many other issues that should be addressed first, but unfortunately gov doesn't work that way. It's too often a knee-jerk reaction. What's particularly troublesome is the constant passing of bills without reading them along with rushing solutions forward without correctly identifying the problems being addressed.

 

[wjk]

Quote from L-Kabong:

And no, I don't see that kind of tyranny emerging here.

Nor do I, in part because this country has an armed populace. I believe that preventing tyranny was the primary intent of the 2nd.

A soft tyranny can morph into a hard one over decades, however. In such a case, many would not see it happening, or even care if they’re willing to take whatever tradeoff is offered. To believe such an event is possible should not garner the term "extremist", "radical", or any other type of label (not accusing you). Just look how long some of our politicians stay in power. Better yet, look at guys who want it so bad that when they are ousted from their party, they switch parties to try and get back into power.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from 377OHMS:



Got a problem with crazy guys (nearly all of them democrats btw) shooting up schools, theaters and political events? Consider funding mental hospitals and reestablishing the paradigm of institutionalizing mentally ill people when they exhibit psychosis instead of looking the other direction and pretending that they are "mentally-challenged" and leaving them to fend for themselves among us.

+1

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from 377OHMS:

...Got a problem with crazy guys (nearly all of them democrats btw) shooting up schools, theaters and political events? Consider funding mental hospitals and reestablishing the paradigm of institutionalizing mentally ill people when they exhibit psychosis instead of looking the other direction and pretending that they are "mentally-challenged" and leaving them to fend for themselves among us.

Problem solved, no gun more gun control required.

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from 377OHMS:


Got a problem with crazy guys (nearly all of them democrats btw) shooting up schools, theaters and political events? Consider funding mental hospitals and reestablishing the paradigm of institutionalizing mentally ill people when they exhibit psychosis instead of looking the other direction and pretending that they are "mentally-challenged" and leaving them to fend for themselves among us.

Nonsense. More red herrings. The state already insitutionalizes people against their will if a courts deems them imminent threats to themselves or others. You can't simply deprive a person of his freedom just because he is crazy, psychotic, or schizophrenic.

It's the combination of an assault rifle - any gun in fact - in the hands of a lunatic. Not the gun in and of itself, not the lunatic in the abstract.

In the name of protecting 2nd amendment rights we don't need to strip the rights of others.

What do you want to do, have the Feds impose a mental sanity patrol in every town, encourage people to report odd behavior, and have the feds yank suspicious characters out of their homes and undergo psychiatric examination? Let's establish a police state so we can be free?

What could the government do about Adam Lanza before the fact? Nothing! What should it have done? Nothing! It had no basis, no cause to.

His parents should have put him under care. Unfortunately, he was living with his mother, who was a gun nut.

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from Lucrum:

Problem solved, no gun more gun control required.

Supposing love of guns is a criterion for psychoses?

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from wjk:

Nor do I, in part because this country has an armed populace. I believe that preventing tyranny was the primary intent of the 2nd.

A soft tyranny can morph into a hard one over decades, however. In such a case, many would not see it happening, or even care if they’re willing to take whatever tradeoff is offered. To believe such an event is possible should not garner the term "extremist", "radical", or any other type of label (not accusing you). Just look how long some of our politicians stay in power. Better yet, look at guys who want it so bad that when they are ousted from their party, they switch parties to try and get back into power.

I am intrigued by the term soft tyranny. Can you flesh out or explain to me the process of conversion of soft tyranny into hard tyranny?

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from L-Kabong:

In the name of protecting 2nd amendment rights we don't need to strip the rights of others.

Strip the constitutional rights of 300 million people in order to protect the rights of 100,000 mentally ill people who should be institutionalized from a humanitarian standpoint anyways?

And there is the problem with liberalism. You would rather invasively search grandmothers and 5 year old girls than pull middle eastern men out of the line at the airport to be searched and questioned.

Its madness. Push that madness along far enough and people are going start getting the idea that their lives are safer with leftists imprisoned in camps or worse. Just keep it up.

 

[wjk]

Quote from L-Kabong:

I am intrigued by the term soft tyranny. Can you flesh out or explain to me the process of conversion of soft tyranny into hard tyranny?

It would be easier if you read Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny". It took him an entire book to explain it, and he's an expert on the subject. If your really want to understand the process, begin there.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp