You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: Well, the term was hyperbole, some of the [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
texasdem99 Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Well, the term was hyperbole, some of the
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 10:24 AM by Pete Puma
people who feel passionately pro-gun would argue that the right is an inalienable right, and should be available to everyone, regardless of circumstances.

I'm just making a general statement, not singling out anyone here or anything.

I should have clarified. Although I should shut up, since I can't come up with a reasonable method of tracking such things. As you said, it can be somewhat subjective, and has the potential for tremendous abuse. My position is that people who have been medically diagnosed with, as you clarified, aggressive, anti-social behavior should be restricted.

When you talk about someone being diagnosed as being bi-polar, or clinically depressed, that's where, IMO, you are spot on in questioning, what, exactly, classifies as being "mentally deficient".
In such cases I don't believe you can categorically deny the right for certain individuals to own firearms.

As in, this hypothetical scenario:

1. Married woman seeks counseling for depression.
2. Diagnosed as bi-polar, informs husband.
3. Husband, hypothetically somewhat abusive anyway, becomes enraged and demands divorce.
4. Husband, angry about the breakup and jealous of new boyfriend, post divorce, threatens ex-wife with physical harm, stalks her at work, in parking lots, outside her house when the new boyfriend isn't around.
5. In this case, how can one deny the right of the woman to protect herself?

Before any of the pro-control "crowd" try and pick this argument apart as something that could never happen (not naming any names), let me head you off at the pass.

This is a real life scenario; the woman was and still is a friend of mine. Restraining orders. Court appearances. Guy didn't get the hint.

Then she informed her ex that she had applied for a concealed carry permit, legal in my state, and was packing heat, so he'd better back off.

Mysteriously, ex husband stopped harassing her. Was it out of the goodness of his heart? You decide.

BTW; Carol is a mouse. Never hurt a flea if she didn't have to...In fact, when I took her to the range, she wanted to leave after only 20 minutes or so. Hardly the epitome of some gun toting lunatic.

Oh, and lastly...For my detractors out there...What's that about how personal experience means jack shit when it comes to views on gun control...?

Ed. for grammar


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC