• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Alien reptile cult murder

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
You're talking about robbing people of their rights in order to justify the safety of society. How many other nations have tried this with very bad results?

Why do the anti-gunners want to ban private ownership of guns, leaving only the military and the police with guns, but they also hate the military and the police? WTF?

The only people who would be 'robbed' of their right to own a firearm are people who can't passed a mental health background check. Is that why you're so opposed to such a law? Would you fail such a check?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
So why not ban private ownership of cars? You know, just to be safe? Why not force everyone to live under a curfew? You know just to stop criminal activity at night? At what point do you seek to limit authoritarian control over honest citizens just to satisfy your own fears?

Why would you want to do any of that? It's rather pathetic that you think that checking to make sure that mentally unstable people can't buy guns somehow equates to banning private ownership of guns.

And why exactly are you so opposed to making sure that people who buy guns don't have serious mental issues? Are you afraid that you wouldn't be able to pass such a background check? If not, why the heck are you so eager to make it as easy as possible for people who DO have serious mental issues to buy deadly weapons?
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
The only people who would be 'robbed' of their right to own a firearm are people who can't passed a mental health background check. Is that why you're so opposed to such a law? Would you fail such a check?

Blahaha... blahaha... blahahahahahahaha. :cool:
 

SugarOcean

¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
Or you know, trade it in for like a nile monitor lizard.
I'm familiar with Monitor's. A favorite is the Komodo Dragon. The world's contemporary version of Dinosaur, in my opinion.
Many years ago there was an old man who was a researcher on Komodo island. He'd been there living among the dragons for many years.
Then after a number of days his base team on the mainland became concerned he'd not radioed in for supplies.
A team was sent to check on things. He was never found.
An amazing lizard really. Their venom starts the process of necrosis immediately after they bite a victim. Then if the victim flee's the dragon will track them for days, as long as it takes, in order to feast on what remains.

Humans tend to have this idea we have dominion over everything that walks, crawls, or flies. Every now and then a reality check is a good thing. Humbling even.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
The only people who would be 'robbed' of their right to own a firearm are people who can't passed a mental health background check. Is that why you're so opposed to such a law? Would you fail such a check?
Okay, let's go with your idea and the idea of legal precedent to exercise rights. Are you okay with a mental health check to vote? To become a citizen? To log onto the Internet? Write a book?

I have no problem with better mental health care. Do you?
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Okay, let's go with your idea and the idea of legal precedent to exercise rights. Are you okay with a mental health check to vote? To become a citizen? To log onto the Internet? Write a book?

I have no problem with better mental health care. Do you?
False equivalence. Voting doesn't kill people, they already do screen immigrants for mental illness, internet doesn't kill people, when the last time a person as been murdered with a book?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'm familiar with Monitor's. A favorite is the Komodo Dragon. The world's contemporary version of Dinosaur, in my opinion.
Many years ago there was an old man who was a researcher on Komodo island. He'd been there living among the dragons for many years.
Then after a number of days his base team on the mainland became concerned he'd not radioed in for supplies.
A team was sent to check on things. He was never found.
An amazing lizard really. Their venom starts the process of necrosis immediately after they bite a victim. Then if the victim flee's the dragon will track them for days, as long as it takes, in order to feast on what remains.

Humans tend to have this idea we have dominion over everything that walks, crawls, or flies. Every now and then a reality check is a good thing. Humbling even.

You know of the extinct giant species from Oz?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Okay, let's go with your idea and the idea of legal precedent to exercise rights. Are you okay with a mental health check to vote? To become a citizen? To log onto the Internet? Write a book?

I have no problem with better mental health care. Do you?

Actually many states already have restrictions on mentally ill people voting and mental illness is already a factor in immigration eligibility. And since neither the Internet or books are deadly weapons, it would be just plain silly to restrict access to either to anyone based on mental stability.

If you'd bothered to read my posts, I started off saying that I'm all in favor of this nation finally doing something about the mental health crisis. Yet I'm still waiting to hear why you're so threatened by the idea of restricting deadly firearms to people who are mentally unstable.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
"44,000 Americans committing suicide every year" is only .01%(44,000÷327,200,000=.01%).
Its sad but it happens. Can we consider .01% to be a major health issue?
In the health care world and field in general and at large it's considered a significant problem.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
False equivalence. Voting doesn't kill people, they already do screen immigrants for mental illness, internet doesn't kill people, when the last time a person as been murdered with a book?
Disagreed. We vote for our leaders. If wasn't for voters we wouldn't have put GW Bush in the WH. Do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq? How about Trump? If we had a mental health check and an IQ requirement, don't you think we'd elect better leaders?

As for the Internet, I can see you've never heard the cases of cyber bullying resulting in murder or suicide.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Actually many states already have restrictions on mentally ill people voting and mental illness is already a factor in immigration eligibility. And since neither the Internet or books are deadly weapons, it would be just plain silly to restrict access to either to anyone based on mental stability.

If you'd bothered to read my posts, I started off saying that I'm all in favor of this nation finally doing something about the mental health crisis. Yet I'm still waiting to hear why you're so threatened by the idea of restricting deadly firearms to people who are mentally unstable.
Only adjudicated mental illness. They'd have to do something requiring legal action. Since there is no test, any wacko can vote....which apparently they did in the last several elections. :D

A firearm is just a tool. An inert piece of metal like a car or a shovel. It requires a human being to use it. Ergo, the guns aren't the problem. We could have guns lying all about the streets and they'd never do anyone any harm unless someone tripped over them. A better mental health care system and the legislation to back it up means you'd get what you desire: separating the mentally ill from guns...and also cars, shovels, hammers, axes, etc. Most mentally ill are more of a threat to themselves than others, hence why we have over 44,000 suicides each year but less than half of that murders, about 17,000.
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Disagreed. We vote for our leaders. If wasn't for voters we wouldn't have put GW Bush in the WH. Do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq? How about Trump? If we had a mental health check and an IQ requirement, don't you think we'd elect better leaders?

As for the Internet, I can see you've never heard the cases of cyber bullying resulting in murder or suicide.
When was the last time you stabbed someone with the internet?
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Are you denying people have been cyber bullied to the point of suicide or murder? Are you denying that people have been convicted of cyber bullying that resulted in the death of the bullied?
Since you put it that way maybe we should start screening people to see if they are too sensitive for the internet. Your argument won me over. The internet kills people. Damn that internet!
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Since you put it that way maybe we should start screening people to see if they are too sensitive for the internet. Your argument won me over. The internet kills people. Damn that internet!
Exactly my point. If we set up an Orwellian dictatorship with Ministries of Love, Peace, Plenty, and Truth, we can solve solve all problems by banning guns, in fact all private ownership, and euthanize the mentally ill, criminals and anyone else who doesn't love Big Brother. Peace would reign over the land!

hqdefault.jpg
 
Top