Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We need more surveillance when it comes to guns [View all]RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)24. Sure, he was mentally competent
I don't think so. Has there ever been one shooter who was found to be mentally competent? I'll wait.
There are some individuals who should not keep the right to bear arms. Surveillance of shooters is not an infringement of the people. But is good common sense and is good law enforcement.
Look, I get watched a lot due to my activities. It's ok. That's the LEO's job.
No one is going to take the people's arms. But we can and should take some individuals arms after they have been judicially deemed to not be able to exercise that right safely. First they have to be watched in order to make the case.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes. The mentally ill are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence.
Kang Colby
Jun 2016
#14
I'm not playing a game. Very rude of you to call gun rights supporters "gun enablers."
Kang Colby
Jun 2016
#68
"Also, a conviction for domestic violence should prohibit future firearm ownership by the abuser. "
beevul
Jun 2016
#85
Mandating government surveillance of private property touches on a few other bits...
TipTok
Jun 2016
#49
The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.
X_Digger
Jun 2016
#6
If the only requirement to make a law was 'provide for the general welfare', we'd be screwed.
X_Digger
Jun 2016
#21
Ah, yes- the "saving innocents" claim. It's an old and time honored political technique:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#91
Good luck. And oh... its surrounded by slightly less than a billion square miles of desert.
cherokeeprogressive
Jun 2016
#23
What kind of behavior surveilled on those roads would trigger an investigation?
Marengo
Jun 2016
#76
Controllers always assume that this stuff will only apply to the folks they are afraid of...
TipTok
Jun 2016
#52
You'll never convince a grabber. They think our rights are derived from the courts
Press Virginia
Jun 2016
#38
"Your denial of any lines is a foolish denial." It *would* be, if such a denial had been made.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#89
The gunners will throw Constitution BS at you, to point of sounding like right wingers.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#37
Yeah, that pesky constitution bs. If it weren't for that meddling document
Press Virginia
Jun 2016
#39
Gunners are a good example. They'll whine about clip vs. magazine, but can't comprehend
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#46
In the most simplistic form they are manufactured to let yahoos shoot people. Whether it's a clip
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#67
I grew up when the Constitution was used to discriminate. Now it's used to enable bigots,
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#66
The 4th amendment says "right of the people" too. Is that also a collective right in your view?
NutmegYankee
Jun 2016
#51