Vivek ramaswamy

[randylahey]

Does the government determine who's stable? Do you think they'd allow people that speak out against them to own guns

[jfish26]

How would you determine who's stable and who's not

Well we know that YOU consider transsexuality to be a mental illness.

[jfish26]

Does the government determine who's stable? Do you think they'd allow people that speak out against them to own guns

They do now. Where are you going with this?

[randylahey]

Seems like that would give the government the ability to strip gun rights from anyone they choose

Surely they wouldn't take advantage of this?

[KUTradition]

Does the government determine who's stable? Do you think they'd allow people that speak out against them to own guns

They do now. Where are you going with this?

the “government” determines who is stable?

[KUTradition]

don’t psychologists/psychiatrists determine stability?

[randylahey]

How would you determine who's stable and who's not

Well we know that YOU consider transsexuality to be a mental illness.

Yes. So is anxiety or depression and a ton of other things. Should all those people not have guns?

Someone having a "mental illness" illness does not mean they will be violent or shouldn't be allowed to have tools of self defense

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Did you know gun control legislature in this country had racist roots? It began to keep guns out of the hands of black people.

Are you racist? Do you still think they shouldn't have guns

Did you know that I don't need some schmuck on crimson.com to educate me in regards to something he assumes people 200 years ago intended - or did not intend?
You ask if I am racist. The answer to your question is - yes. I am racist against any and all races.
I believe you are asking me if I think Black people should have guns. The answer to that question is, I don't feel ANYONE "SHOULD" have a gun.
I do believe people should have the right to own a "reasonable" (define "reasonable" as you will) gun but ONLY if those Black people (AND PEOPLE OF ALL RACES) are mentally "stable", law abiding, responsible adults.

Think I might steal from your house lol

Go for it! Sorry, while I wouldn't be happy if you stole something from my home, I wouldn't feel the need to shoot and kill you for trying. Give that concept 10 seconds of thought. If you aren't comprehending why I said that let me help you.
If I had a gun and you tried to steal from me and I shot and killed you - I wonder if those who love you would have been happy I had a gun and shot and killed you or would have preferred that I didn't have a gun and didn't shoot and kill you.

P.S. While if you did steal something from my house, I'm confident I would have a bigger laugh at you for how you would be dealt with than you would have for being able to steal something out of my home because I don't own a gun.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

How would you determine who's stable and who's not

Not up to ME to determine.
Just like it's not up to ME to determine who should be allowed to obtain a gun to blow away some kids in a school classroom and who shouldn't be.
Who would and should be those determining? That's not a bad question but I would prefer someone of some authority determine BEFORE someone who is "mentally unstable" is "legally" allowed to own a gun as opposed to AFTER they have "legally" obtained a gun and blew away some people.

[randylahey]

Good point rainbows. It's not worth killing someone for petty theft. But if someone breaks into your home, you never have any clue what their intentions are. They could be willing to hurt kill rape or kidnap you or your family. And I do think those things justify shooting someone

Having a gun for self defense is to be used only if necessary though, and to have just in case. Just because someone breaks in doesn't mean you have to shoot them

[jfish26]

Good point rainbows. It's not worth killing someone for petty theft. But if someone breaks into your home, you never have any clue what their intentions are. They could be willing to hurt kill rape or kidnap you or your family. And I do think those things justify shooting someone

Having a gun for self defense is to be used only if necessary though, and to have just in case. Just because someone breaks in doesn't mean you have to shoot them

The problem is that too many people who drink from the same cup of poison you drink from, look at things like stand your ground laws as permission structures. When CAN I shoot people? And with what? And who do I get to shoot?

This is why your silly “but but but 99% of gun owners are responsible” nonsense is…nonsense. The 1% (or 0.1%, or 0.01%) can do so much more damage with AR-15s (etc) when behaving irresponsibly, than they could with handguns or other long guns.

And the marginal self-defense benefit of assault rifles (if any) simply doesn’t justify the consequences that arise from irresponsible use of the same.

[randylahey]

If someone has broken into your home, in the eyes of the law, you have every right to shoot and kill them.

I'm not saying you should. You shouldn't unless you absolutely have to. But if you ever find yourself in a situation like that, there isn't a lot of time to think about it

[randylahey]

Bottom line is dont break into people's homes

[ousdahl]

Pretty sure gun owners are more likely to accidentally shoot oneself than ever successfully thwart any bad guy.

Also pretty sure most gun deaths are self-inflicted.

[jfish26]

Bottom line is dont break into people's homes

Or knock on their door, or ask them to stop shooting into the air, or use your leaf blower, and on and on and on

[jfish26]

If someone has broken into your home, in the eyes of the law, you have every right to shoot and kill them.

I'm not saying you should. You shouldn't unless you absolutely have to. But if you ever find yourself in a situation like that, there isn't a lot of time to think about it

Again, people who share the same poison as you use these laws as fig leaves to allow them to shoot other people. They just do!

[ousdahl]

If someone has broken into your home, in the eyes of the law, you have every right to shoot and kill them.

I'm not saying you should. You shouldn't unless you absolutely have to. But if you ever find yourself in a situation like that, there isn't a lot of time to think about it

I remember one time growing up, I came home later than I was supposed to.

My dad came out pointing something at me, as if it was a gun.

He was all nervous, then relaxed once he saw it was me. And rather than explain he was gonna try to scare off some home invader by pretending the tv remote was a gun, he instead lectured me about interrupting his Letterman.

Point is, how often do perceived home invasions and the subsequent “make my day” gun owner moment, actually end up in accidentally shooting a loved one or somethin?

[jfish26]

Pretty sure gun owners are more likely to accidentally shoot oneself than ever successfully thwart any bad guy.

Also pretty sure most gun deaths are self-inflicted.

Yes. The stats bear out that having guns in the house increases, not decreases, the likelihood that someone in the house will get shot.

[randylahey]

I've never advocated for shooting people. I just advocate for people's right to defend themselves and to stand up against tyrannical government overreach

You guys post a lot of examples of government overreach and dumb citizens. Good evidence of why we need to protect gun rights

[jfish26]

I've never advocated for shooting people. I just advocate for people's right to defend themselves and to stand up against tyrannical government overreach

You guys post a lot of examples of government overreach and dumb citizens. Good evidence of why we need to protect gun rights

But what you continue to miss, on this and on other issues pertaining to living in a society, is that it’s not just about you.