<Human Events> "Who Should Not Carry a Gun?" - Page 2

<Human Events> "Who Should Not Carry a Gun?"

This is a discussion on <Human Events> "Who Should Not Carry a Gun?" within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by adric22 Well, the good news is that most of the people who should not own guns have already lost their legal right ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: <Human Events> "Who Should Not Carry a Gun?"

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,558
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    Well, the good news is that most of the people who should not own guns have already lost their legal right to do so by committing crimes.
    Maybe. But they can still get or have them.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,248
    Thanks for all the input.

    Quote Originally Posted by Secret Spuk View Post
    I think it stinks of elitism. Who is he or anyone to pass judgment on any one of us. In sum and substance creating subjective criteria for a person to be allowed constitutionally protected rights. In my opinion a suggestion to reinstate "Jim Crow" laws. Some of it obvious... Of course Criminals shouldent have guns... and people who announce they want to do away with themselves shouldnt have guns... But who is to say a person is prone to road rage?... Or that a person is not smart enough to take instruction. I think it's a laughable artical...

    Spuk!
    This is essentially what I thought after I read the article - after I had time to sit back and think about what was actually written. It's funny how someone can come across with an intelligently written article which is easy to agree with... While the reader does not even understand the intentions of the writer and the absurdity of the "common sense" point they are trying to make.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    As someone who is in a family with a history of ADD and ADHD were is the magical line drawn?

    I can't even think of one person who only suffers from some form of ADD that isn't responsible enough as an adult to not handle firearms. If anything, having ADD helps you to learn to focus so you can succeed in life. It's just a harder journey is all. I'm betting that if I were tested for ADD I'd be diagnosed with it as well. I have all the classic symptoms assoiciated with it, as does my Father, and my brother has been diagnosed as having mild to moderate case of ADD.

    My cousin who had pretty bad ADD as a kid served this country in the Army and handled a gun without any problems.

    We have careers, homes, and have not committed any crimes. Well, ok, my cousin who suffered PTSD got into a domestic dispute shortly after leaving the military as he was receiving counseling, but that has nothing to do with having ADHD. That had to do with a career choice.

    I can name almost a dozen other people I work with who are diagnosed as having ADD and function within society with no issues.

    I think the author comes off as arrogant and elitist. Then again, he may want to take away my rights because I "might" be a problem. No thanks.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array JDE101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,734
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    We could say some very similar things about people who VOTE!
    I'm just sayin;...
    ++1
    Live to ride, ride to live. Harley Road King And keep a .45 handy Kimber Custom TLE II

  5. #20
    Member Array mwhich50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    53
    Although I agree with the author's basic principles of responsible gun ownership, I really dislike gun-snobs. Over the years I have met so many older men at the range that think normal citizens that do not live at the gun range cannot handle gun ownership. The bottom line is I want the opportunity, like gun-snobs, to protect myself and my family from being brutalized by criminals. It's that simple. Everything else is BS.

  6. #21
    Member Array chefjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    48
    Here's my issue with this guy's article...and it worries me that he's a psychologist...who defines the states of intellectual/attention deficit? Who defines "common sense"? Who defines "Hot under the collar". What an emotionally biased bunch of CRAP! To me it sounds like "If I don't think you should carry, you shouldn't carry". This is the same thing we're (2nd Am. advocates) trying to prevent the government from doing! The only thing we can do is quantify things like convictions and commitments and use those as LEGAL criteria. I don't think this guy should be a shrink...so he shouldn't be a shrink, right?

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by archer51 View Post
    While I can agree with him, there are people I don't think should own, or carry a gun. Until they do something to disqualify themselves, what can you do? Along the same line, there are people who have no business driving a car, but as long as they can pass the test, until they do something that justifies the revocation of that license, we're stuck with them doing it.
    This is pretty much how I feel about it. Even the stupid should have the right to own a gun until they do something to disqualify themselves.

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,248
    Quote Originally Posted by chefjon View Post
    Here's my issue with this guy's article...and it worries me that he's a psychologist...who defines the states of intellectual/attention deficit? Who defines "common sense"? Who defines "Hot under the collar". What an emotionally biased bunch of CRAP! To me it sounds like "If I don't think you should carry, you shouldn't carry". This is the same thing we're (2nd Am. advocates) trying to prevent the government from doing! The only thing we can do is quantify things like convictions and commitments and use those as LEGAL criteria. I don't think this guy should be a shrink...so he shouldn't be a shrink, right?
    Could you imagine the $$ the author would make if a psychological evaluation was required to obtain a weapons permit? I'm sure he would be first in line to plaster himself all over the media as an "expert" in the field of psychological evaluation of a persons mental fitness to obtain a weapons permit. After reading the article, I thought this guy had an agenda. Knowing he is a psychologist, it seems even more all the more obvious of his intentions...

  9. #24
    Member Array ranburr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    307
    He's basically saying that dumb asses shouldn't be armed. Good in theory. But, who decides who is a dumb ass or not?

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array DoctorBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    585
    Let's back up a minute...

    Does anyone agree with the concept that along with 'rights' there are attendant 'responsivbilities?' For example, the right to free speech does not free you to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander someone, or freedom of the press does not allow libel or publisning child pornography. Could it possibly be that the R2KBA does not allow for the potentially dangerous or minors, or paranoid schizophrenics to carry firearms? Is it appropriate for children to have access to firearms until they do something harmful with them or should they be limited a priori until the age of majority?

  11. #26
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,912
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorBob View Post
    Let's back up a minute...

    Does anyone agree with the concept that along with 'rights' there are attendant 'responsivbilities?' For example, the right to free speech does not free you to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander someone, or freedom of the press does not allow libel or publisning child pornography. Could it possibly be that the R2KBA does not allow for the potentially dangerous or minors, or paranoid schizophrenics to carry firearms? Is it appropriate for children to have access to firearms until they do something harmful with them or should they be limited a priori until the age of majority?
    Inadequate as background checks are, this (stuff in bold above) is why many states require them. Where we run into great difficulty is that many ill individuals not only do not recognize their own infirmity, but they do nothing which brings them into a data base which would be disqualifying.

    We also have the opposite problem, and that is unquestionably folks get adjudicated as mentally ill when they are not. I saw that a lot in the days when the state ran large holding facilities. I've seen a couple examples of it as moderator of another forum.

    Complex problems don't have simple answers. Our states effectively have experimented with everything possible from "constitutional carry" to "may issue," "shall issue," "won't issue." Dang if I think any of these many paradigms seem to make a wit of difference in overall crime statistics or overall incidence of random unprovoked violence.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    home office
    Posts
    2,355
    Unalienable rights endowed by our Creator include the right to life and self defense. Historically, the head of the family, the father, guides the decisions and teaches the responsibilities of the family members. When is junior ready to handle and shoot firearms safely? When should grandpa gracefully surrender the things of youth? To allow the government to infringe upon our rights, or turn them into lesser privileges, is to abdicate our first principles and enslave our posterity. Are we a society of civil laws that punishes the wrongdoer, or will we permit ourselves to be ruled by the elites and their purportedly beneficent restrictions that keep us safe from ourselves?
    paaiyan, Tzadik and Spidey2011 like this.
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,106
    Quote Originally Posted by gunthorp View Post
    Unalienable rights endowed by our Creator include the right to life and self defense. Historically, the head of the family, the father, guides the decisions and teaches the responsibilities of the family members. When is junior ready to handle and shoot firearms safely? When should grandpa gracefully surrender the things of youth? To allow the government to infringe upon our rights, or turn them into lesser privileges, is to abdicate our first principles and enslave our posterity. Are we a society of civil laws that punishes the wrongdoer, or will we permit ourselves to be ruled by the elites and their purportedly beneficent restrictions that keep us safe from ourselves?
    Well-said, sir.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  14. #29
    Member Array Snider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    192
    It boils down to elitism, in my opinion. I imagine a world in which there was a genuinely neutral, ultimately wise and fair entity that had the ordained power to grant us mortals the license to procreate, operate motor vehicles, possess firearms, technology and fire, would be likely a better place. Back here in the real world, no man-based institution can have that sort of authority on the front-end of our human process. Many folks wind up losing their rights as they fail to function correctly in society, but we don't have a screening process to earn these rights in the first place, and that is a very good thing by and large.

  15. #30
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorBob View Post
    Let's back up a minute...

    Does anyone agree with the concept that along with 'rights' there are attendant 'responsivbilities?' For example, the right to free speech does not free you to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander someone, or freedom of the press does not allow libel or publisning child pornography. Could it possibly be that the R2KBA does not allow for the potentially dangerous or minors, or paranoid schizophrenics to carry firearms? Is it appropriate for children to have access to firearms until they do something harmful with them or should they be limited a priori until the age of majority?
    Minors don't have full rights until they reach the age of majority. Period. So that really doesn't apply here. The same for the potentially dangerous. They don't have full rights after committing a felony. As for the mentally ill, like schizophrenics, I believe there are already laws in place that prevent them from being issued carry permits. I know MT has a law that allows a permit to be denied if a person has a history of mental illness. There are certain mental illnesses, however, that I don't believe should be a factor. Take PTSD for example. That's been a long debated issue, and one that became personal for my family, since my Dad was diagnosed with it after a car accident about 9 years ago. At this point in time, it is under control, but certain events can cause it to flare back up on occasions. He owns plenty of firearms, has a CWP, and even instructs shooting sports for the local 4H clubs. At no point has he endangered himself or anyone else due to his PTSD.

    The point I'm trying to get at is that just because a shrink or some pencil pushing government official thinks you might be dangerous, doesn't mean you are. We are all responsible for ensuring that we can handle the decision to carry. In the instance of someone who is mentally ill and TRUELY a danger to themselves or others, the family and friends of said individual have a responsibility to ensure that person gets the help they need.
    gunthorp likes this.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

adhd and paranoia carry gun
,

adhd ccw disqualified michigan

,
can i get a ccw with ptsd in michigan
,
can you be on adhd medication and carry a weapon
,
does having adhd disqualify me from owning a gun
,
everyone should not carry a gun
,
human events back up gun
,
human events page 3
,

medications you should not carry a gun

,
nc concealed carry disqualification
,
will being diagnosed as having ptsd prevent you from obtaining a concealed weapons permit in calif.
,
will having adhd deny someone of owning a gun?
Click on a term to search for related topics.