|
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 |
I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|