New York is first, who is next???

True.... I just say if we do it, then do it all the way, don't half ass it. Give them the authority and hold them to it, make a ruling. We're going to burn this psychologist at the stake in order to hold somebody accountable for the Colorado event? Ok, but if we're going do to that, then make it law and create mental firearms black list or something. Dont hold this Psych accountable in this one situation, and then do nothing about keeping firearms out of the hands of similar individuals in the future.

 

I'm not a doctor... and I'm guessing you're not either... but I'm pretty sure those with paranoid delusions and those who might qualify as having hero syndrome are ill, and should be on medication. I don't think any rational people want these people armed. And if not people diagnosed with these conditions, then who is it that get's the crazy stamp, and ends up on the "no firearm" list?

Frank

 

I actually really agree with you. I don't want the doctor held for the shooters actions, just theirs. Just like any other case. I dont want to burn someone because I'm mad

 

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Don't use her as a Scapegoat. Which I kind of feel is what's happening with her at the moment amongst the general public.

 

Is the condition the problem or the medication? Is the condition THE cause of the action? Is the medication? Can we prove that, while many are on Meds and not shooting people? I don't know what should get someone on that list, mostly because I can't see depriving any group based on that.

 

It's any easy fix to our emotions.

 

This is much like the economy, no matter what choice you make theres going to be some unhappy people on the otherside.

 

I had to check back.
Wow, perfect.

 

I enjoyed getting in on this debate, and glad it stayed civil. I'm calling it quits for the night... Cheers to all

 

Funny, I really don't care about Canada's gun laws. Why do Canadians care about ours?

 

It must be nice not to have to worry about home invasions or people breaking in to do harm. My friends brother shot a home invader, another friend confronted a guy that had a knife and was standing in his kitchen, and a neighbor of a relative was killed by Richard Ramirez (The Night Stalker) Guess I'm just paranoid though.
Banning these rifles is nothing more than politically motivated feel good legislation that is being supported by emotional response rather than facts.

 

Sounds swell

 

...there was a time we didn't need guns?... maybe i missed that period, ...was it on the set of mayberry? one round in the pocket, ...not in the gun...

also, did you forget to read the OP about what happened in NY state? tell those folks, nobody's coming for them...

 

Some just want to keep track of what we do There is one or two that just likes to ,,,

 

...my AR-15 magazines are all "standard capacity"... (30rnds)

 

Welcome to cyberspace

 

HERE you go highland this is y I carry & y no one can take them from me http://youtu.be/APBDrjSjO0U?t=1m44s

 

Nope.

A "Regular" in colonial times was a militiaman, who was a private citizen who acted in the defense of his community.

Paul Revere did not say "The British are coming"... that would have been silly anyways since the colonists were primarily British.
He said "The regulars are out".

"Regulated" was also a term used to define "equipped"
Therefore, "Well regulated militia" could be read as either a "Well staffed militia" or "Well equipped militia"

It did not refer to regulation by the government.... the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee that we had the ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Yes, you got it right, the 2A is written in two parts. The first is a statement that a well staffed or equipped militia is needed to ensure the security of the state.
The 2nd part states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Infringed is a restriction, or regulation. Applying modern definitions to the first half creates a direct conflict with the 2nd half.

 

That is pretty much what Barrett did when California banned 50 cal rifles.
Barrett refused to do business with ANY California government agency... and developed the .416 Barrett so Californians would not be left out in the cold with nothing larger than the 30-06

 

Why not?

Aside from the impracticality of the expense, it is illegal to kill someone or to destroy their property.
I don't have a problem with sentence enhancements for crimes involving the use of specific tools or weapons, but it's already illegal to kill someone. The tool need not be banned.