(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:05 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm really not interested in what other people do about guns.

It's a Constitutional right that you are allowed to have one and you should have no restrictions placed on you due to the actions of others. It's really just that simple.

If you want to fight gun crime then you fight crime, not guns.

so you aren't interested in learning from other people?

no restrictions? so fully automatic guns should be made readily available, and should be available to mentally ill people?

We enshrined the issue in our foundational document.

It isn't merely a policy issue where we can look around and see what works. It is a uniquely American problem given this context.

The wording is quite clear, "shall not be infringed."

The negatives associated with that sort of policy are clear and obvious, but such is the price of living in a free and unique society.

so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:05 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so you aren't interested in learning from other people?

no restrictions? so fully automatic guns should be made readily available, and should be available to mentally ill people?

We enshrined the issue in our foundational document.

It isn't merely a policy issue where we can look around and see what works. It is a uniquely American problem given this context.

The wording is quite clear, "shall not be infringed."

The negatives associated with that sort of policy are clear and obvious, but such is the price of living in a free and unique society.

so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

I think you know what I mean. Any kind of mental illness that leads to an increased risk of being a harm to yourself or others. depression, schizophrenia, etc.

Why is everyone so concerned about mentally ill mass shooting when they account for
less than 1% of the homicides annually? The mentally ill depression issue of more concern
is that most gun deaths are suicide, every year more than homicide by gun.

The gang bangin, drug dealing, thug life scum commit the vast majority of homicides by gun
every year. You will not keep guns out of their hands with gun control legislation. They
do not obey the law.

(06-23-2015 01:37 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why is everyone so concerned about mentally ill mass shooting when they account for
less than 1% of the homicides annually? The mentally ill depression issue of more concern
is that most gun deaths are suicide, every year more than homicide by gun.

The gang bangin, drug dealing, thug life scum commit the vast majority of homicides by gun
every year. You will not keep guns out of their hands with gun control legislation. They
do not obey the law.

I was merely posing a question for HeartofDixie who believes there should be no type of regulations for guns at all.

(06-23-2015 11:53 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:05 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so you aren't interested in learning from other people?

no restrictions? so fully automatic guns should be made readily available, and should be available to mentally ill people?

We enshrined the issue in our foundational document.

It isn't merely a policy issue where we can look around and see what works. It is a uniquely American problem given this context.

The wording is quite clear, "shall not be infringed."

The negatives associated with that sort of policy are clear and obvious, but such is the price of living in a free and unique society.

so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

and I have officially read the dumbest thing ever posted on any message board ever.
JHC. You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Why just bless your little heart you just don't know any better.

Poor guy

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:05 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so you aren't interested in learning from other people?

no restrictions? so fully automatic guns should be made readily available, and should be available to mentally ill people?

We enshrined the issue in our foundational document.

It isn't merely a policy issue where we can look around and see what works. It is a uniquely American problem given this context.

The wording is quite clear, "shall not be infringed."

The negatives associated with that sort of policy are clear and obvious, but such is the price of living in a free and unique society.

so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We enshrined the issue in our foundational document.

It isn't merely a policy issue where we can look around and see what works. It is a uniquely American problem given this context.

The wording is quite clear, "shall not be infringed."

The negatives associated with that sort of policy are clear and obvious, but such is the price of living in a free and unique society.

so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

so you also believe ex felons should be allowed to buy whatever they want as well I take it?

I find it interesting that you compare someone with cancer to someone that is schizophrenic.


and yes. by limiting that, the next step will obviously be throwing everyone into concentration camps and taking away all of their liberties.

(06-23-2015 02:01 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

so you also believe ex felons should be allowed to buy whatever they want as well I take it?

I find it interesting that you compare someone with cancer to someone that is schizophrenic.


and yes. by limiting that, the next step will obviously be throwing everyone into concentration camps and taking away all of their liberties.

You're creating straw man arguments because you don't have a position based on anything but a complete and total ignorance of the legal issues here.

(06-23-2015 02:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:01 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

so you also believe ex felons should be allowed to buy whatever they want as well I take it?

I find it interesting that you compare someone with cancer to someone that is schizophrenic.


and yes. by limiting that, the next step will obviously be throwing everyone into concentration camps and taking away all of their liberties.

You're creating straw man arguments because you don't have a position based on anything but a complete and total ignorance of the legal issues here.

do you even know what my actual position is on gun control, or are you just assuming you know based off of an article I posted, and a couple questions I asked you?

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:01 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

so you also believe ex felons should be allowed to buy whatever they want as well I take it?

I find it interesting that you compare someone with cancer to someone that is schizophrenic.


and yes. by limiting that, the next step will obviously be throwing everyone into concentration camps and taking away all of their liberties.

You're creating straw man arguments because you don't have a position based on anything but a complete and total ignorance of the legal issues here.

do you even know what my actual position is on gun control, or are you just assuming you know based off of an article I posted, and a couple questions I asked you?

I've shown no interest in anything other than what you have posted.

(06-23-2015 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:01 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

so you also believe ex felons should be allowed to buy whatever they want as well I take it?

I find it interesting that you compare someone with cancer to someone that is schizophrenic.


and yes. by limiting that, the next step will obviously be throwing everyone into concentration camps and taking away all of their liberties.

You're creating straw man arguments because you don't have a position based on anything but a complete and total ignorance of the legal issues here.

do you even know what my actual position is on gun control, or are you just assuming you know based off of an article I posted, and a couple questions I asked you?

I've shown no interest in anything other than what you have posted.

you said I am creating straw man arguments. That means I am arguing one side or another. I asked you about the mental issue part, you compared it to cancer victims, and I said that is absurd.

I haven't given an argument to one side or another. I've merely asked questions here. So what straw man arguments have I created, and what legal issues am I ignorant to?

(06-23-2015 02:41 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:01 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  so you also believe ex felons should be allowed to buy whatever they want as well I take it?

I find it interesting that you compare someone with cancer to someone that is schizophrenic.


and yes. by limiting that, the next step will obviously be throwing everyone into concentration camps and taking away all of their liberties.

You're creating straw man arguments because you don't have a position based on anything but a complete and total ignorance of the legal issues here.

do you even know what my actual position is on gun control, or are you just assuming you know based off of an article I posted, and a couple questions I asked you?

I've shown no interest in anything other than what you have posted.

you said I am creating straw man arguments. That means I am arguing one side or another. I asked you about the mental issue part, you compared it to cancer victims, and I said that is absurd.

I haven't given an argument to one side or another. I've merely asked questions here. So what straw man arguments have I created, and what legal issues am I ignorant to?

Highlighted for simplicities sake

He made statement based on law. Aside from that, wow.

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We enshrined the issue in our foundational document.

It isn't merely a policy issue where we can look around and see what works. It is a uniquely American problem given this context.

The wording is quite clear, "shall not be infringed."

The negatives associated with that sort of policy are clear and obvious, but such is the price of living in a free and unique society.

so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

(06-23-2015 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:41 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You're creating straw man arguments because you don't have a position based on anything but a complete and total ignorance of the legal issues here.

do you even know what my actual position is on gun control, or are you just assuming you know based off of an article I posted, and a couple questions I asked you?

I've shown no interest in anything other than what you have posted.

you said I am creating straw man arguments. That means I am arguing one side or another. I asked you about the mental issue part, you compared it to cancer victims, and I said that is absurd.

I haven't given an argument to one side or another. I've merely asked questions here. So what straw man arguments have I created, and what legal issues am I ignorant to?

Highlighted for simplicities sake

obviously sarcasm isn't a strong suit of yours.

And you are the one who linked limiting mentally ill people being restricted access to weapons and not allowing them to vote as the next step.

So in terms of the "straw man argument", would that make you the pot, or kettle?

(06-23-2015 02:47 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

(06-23-2015 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:41 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  do you even know what my actual position is on gun control, or are you just assuming you know based off of an article I posted, and a couple questions I asked you?

I've shown no interest in anything other than what you have posted.

you said I am creating straw man arguments. That means I am arguing one side or another. I asked you about the mental issue part, you compared it to cancer victims, and I said that is absurd.

I haven't given an argument to one side or another. I've merely asked questions here. So what straw man arguments have I created, and what legal issues am I ignorant to?

Highlighted for simplicities sake

obviously sarcasm isn't a strong suit of yours.

And you are the one who linked limiting mentally ill people being restricted access to weapons and not allowing them to vote as the next step.

So in terms of the "straw man argument", would that make you the pot, or kettle?

IMO it's worth discussing. Both are Constitutional Rights and both can be dangerous.

(06-23-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:47 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

(06-23-2015 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:41 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I've shown no interest in anything other than what you have posted.

you said I am creating straw man arguments. That means I am arguing one side or another. I asked you about the mental issue part, you compared it to cancer victims, and I said that is absurd.

I haven't given an argument to one side or another. I've merely asked questions here. So what straw man arguments have I created, and what legal issues am I ignorant to?

Highlighted for simplicities sake

obviously sarcasm isn't a strong suit of yours.

And you are the one who linked limiting mentally ill people being restricted access to weapons and not allowing them to vote as the next step.

So in terms of the "straw man argument", would that make you the pot, or kettle?

IMO it's worth discussing. Both are Constitutional Rights and both can be dangerous.

we aren't talking about voting rights. we are talking about whether or not mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others, should have easy access to fully automatic weapons. throwing in voting to this is a straw man argument. If you want to talk about voting, take it to another thread.

Sorry to offend you Mr. Self-Appointed Message Board Thread Regulator.


So your stance is anyone with a mental illness should be banned from owning firearms am I correct?

Or are you going to do your usual stance of not stating your stance and only running down everyone else's?

(06-23-2015 03:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Sorry to offend you Mr. Self-Appointed Message Board Thread Regulator.


So your stance is anyone with a mental illness should be banned from owning firearms am I correct?

Or are you going to do your usual stance of not stating your stance and only running down everyone else's?

not as simple as that. no.


I was just curious what kind of conversation this article would create, but of course it turned into a normal battle cry of "don't take our guns!"

I really just enjoy posting articles and not giving my own opinion so I can watch people make assumptions about things, and just be completely closed off to any ideas that might not normally go along with their beliefs.

I particularly enjoy comments like "I don't care if it worked somewhere else".

I enjoy playing devil's advocate. It let's me know who the intelligent people are in this world and who actually has the capacity to listen to an outside opinion and have an intelligent conversation.

(06-23-2015 02:47 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 01:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so to clarify, you are fully ok with mentally ill people having easy access to fully automatic weapons. correct?

Morally, no. It isn't good policy.

Legally, yes. There is no alternative. A diagnosis of a mental illness is not a criminal conviction. You don't ban amputees or people with cancer from having guns, the mentally ill are no different. They have rights as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, and trying to paint me into a corner isn't furthering the discussion. There is no corner here.

My wife has a diagnosed mental illness. She has a history of anorexia/bullemia. Is she not allowed a gun?

Apparently not, all anybody ever needs is for somebody to diagnose them with a mental illness and BAM they can take away any right they choose.

Up next, anybody who was ever mentally unstable can't be trusted to vote.

The connection between the mentally ill and felons continues to strengthen in the eyes of some.

(06-23-2015 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:41 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  do you even know what my actual position is on gun control, or are you just assuming you know based off of an article I posted, and a couple questions I asked you?

I've shown no interest in anything other than what you have posted.

you said I am creating straw man arguments. That means I am arguing one side or another. I asked you about the mental issue part, you compared it to cancer victims, and I said that is absurd.

I haven't given an argument to one side or another. I've merely asked questions here. So what straw man arguments have I created, and what legal issues am I ignorant to?

Highlighted for simplicities sake

obviously sarcasm isn't a strong suit of yours.

And you are the one who linked limiting mentally ill people being restricted access to weapons and not allowing them to vote as the next step.

So in terms of the "straw man argument", would that make you the pot, or kettle?

(06-23-2015 11:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm really not interested in what other people do about guns.

It's a Constitutional right that you are allowed to have one and you should have no restrictions placed on you due to the actions of others. It's really just that simple.

If you want to fight gun crime then you fight crime, not guns.

+1.