|
|
|
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:
WA: Shootings: Guns are scapegoat for mental illness
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Recently CNN quoted Peter Ambler of the Giffords organization as stating: “It’s not mental illness, it’s hate and guns.”
I’m not sure, but I don’t believe hating something so much that one chooses to kill is an example of sound mental health.
Gun control zealots want to vilify all firearms and the hundreds of millions of people who own them. The overwhelming majority of these owners are law-abiding citizens who would never consider harming others, except for self defense. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/10/2019)
|
Good point, but "hate" and "intolerance" are not mental illnesses, and you've got to be careful going there. The Soviet Union committed and imprisoned thousands upon thousands based upon arbitrarily designating "anti-social behavior" as mental illness, and that encompassed any behavior the government didn't like.
Absent a current crime, there must be a documented history of violence that establishes probable cause upon clear and convincing evidence. If no crime has yet been committed and there is no history of violence, probable cause to issue a warrant simply doesn't exist. Rights cannot be suspended/denied based upon what a person "might" do unless it can be demonstrated that s/he has done it before. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
