|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CT: Mentally Ill Should Not Have Guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In an irrational rush to defend the Second Amendment, the Republican-led U.S. House and Senate voted this week to do away with a simple, reasonable rule that allows the Social Security Administration to inform the attorney general of severely mentally disabled people who, by law, are forbidden from owning or buying guns.
The rule is in perfect compliance with existing law, and getting rid of it to please the powerful gun lobby will be a mistake, as Connecticut can attest. It was written to protect society from the kind of violence that happened here in 2012, when a mentally ill young man used legal weapons to massacre 20 children and six women at Sandy Hook Elementary School. |
Comment by:
dasing
(2/17/2017)
|
FAKE NEWS ! |
Comment by:
Sosalty
(2/17/2017)
|
X's 2 |
Comment by:
AFRet
(2/17/2017)
|
Most of these people are not mentally ill. They are just old and nothing more. I wonder, why are we not having a crime wave now, based on the reasoning of this bill.
It's like a solution in search of a problem. Since they have firearms now, and we are not having any problem, WHY THE BAN???
Dam gun banners, any port in a storm. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|