Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

Nope, you are the one who does not have it right. I bid you peace and farewell.

 

I do not oppose firearms being available to the general public, no more than automobiles that are sensibly regulated in the interests of public safety.

Certainly, the extraordinary level of firearm permissiveness in the US contributes directly to the suicide rate according to every study I have seen.

​

Firearms, of all means available, are the choice of most killers for killing, because they are more efficient at killing.

It did take Trump to make the ACA popular, and its becoming popular to the extent it did contributed to Trump and the GOP's impotence in fulfilling their vow to immediately repeal and replace it.

Nothing is irrevocable and, if the widespread public support to redress firearm permissiveness (far more popular than the ACA) should require reconsideration in the future, the democratic process allows for that.

 

That is incorrect. There is no compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles. The measure is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

So someone with depression should be denied 2nd amendment rights?

 

If by "the gun control movement" you mean the vast majority of Americans who support sensible firearm regulation, yes, they are very real.

Your desire that the firearm slaughter be allowed to continue aside, you have your extremist, absolutist, interpretation of the Constitution, and US courts, including conservative judges, differ.

 

Nice appeal to authority fallacy.

Upholding the Constitution is extremist?

Let the slaughter continue for now I guess. No new gun control until the violation of our civil liberties ends, and compensation is paid for past violations.

 

The nation's courts uphold the actual Constitution. Your extremest version of it is a harmless fiction with which you are free to pleasure yourself.

In the meantime, your firearm slaughter will continue.

 

SCOTUS will not uphold an externalist and extremist version of the 2dA.

The amendment's rights are not absolute.

 

Wrong again. I am referring to the actual Constitution. Your appeal to authority fallacies do not render my points fictional.

Good. Rightly so. Let the slaughter continue unabated until the violations of our civil liberties end and compensation is paid.

 

That depends on what you mean by externalist and extremist.

They are quite likely to uphold the actual Constitution.

I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.

 

So someone with depression should be denied 2nd amendment rights?

 

The courts have consistently ruled against you on the second amendment. Never had anyone said it’s an absolute. What has been shown is you can’t ban entire classes of firearms. The right to own a firearm is an individual right, I connected to militia service. They have also ruled that firearm restrictions can not be arbitrary or capricious. This renders every proposal you have made as unconstitutional.

 

If it's making him suicidal, yes. Suicide is rage directed inward, but it's still rage.

Do you people honestly think that having a gun will lift someone's spirits so much that he will forget about killing himself? Given what guns are for I really wonder how you conclude that people liking guns as much as you all seem to means they ought to have them

 

It is chilling that 2/3 of the US is being ignored that they want tough gun laws, and are being victimized with mass shootings.

You calling the cops being lazy by not being able to make a dent against this? lol
Really... what can be done. Every fruitcake is allowed to have a massive weapon.
There is no thought control. They can just pick a moment to show up with it and start shooting.

My source says something else.

Of cours there is...

The other western nations who got gunlaws much more tough prove otherwise.

You sure are showing me.

 

2/3 of the US doesn't want that other civilians to own them weapons. We're not talking about "just" the "left" here.

 

It is proper that their wishes are being ignored.

It is wrong for them to want to violate other people's civil liberties.

It is even more wrong for them to want to violate other people's civil liberties for no reason other than the fact that they enjoy violating other people's civil liberties.

No.

I question your term massive. These are just ordinary guns for the most part.

The Vegas shooter did use a bump stock. Those are now outlawed.

I think the Ohio shooter used an oversized drum magazine.

Other than that, just regular ordinary guns.

Your source is using a fraudulent definition.

Since semi-auto actions are not in any way responsible for these mass shootings, or for the severity of them, this does not provide any justification for banning them.

Nothing about those other nations proves that semi-auto actions are at all responsible for mass shootings, or for the severity of them.

Thankfully the Constitution overrules people who want to violate other people's civil liberties for no reason.

 

Except your 2/3 number isn’t pulled directly from your ass.

 

What if it's not?

No. Did I say something to make you think that I had a ridiculous opinion like that?

Literally ZERO gun advocates would say something so ridiculous! They OUGHT to have them because they have the RIGHT TO have them!

 

All depressives can become suicidal and suicide is generally done impulsively, Why take chances?

Yes, just about your entire post and this entire thread predicates itself on the idea that life is empty without firearms. You gunnies don't seem to realize how thoroughly that idea seems to imbue your lives.

The gun rights of possibly suicidal people are more important than helping them not to commit suicide?

 

What about a very minor form of mental health issue?

Do you want the 2nd Amendment repealed?

There's no way to know if they are going to commit suicide, obviously.

 

If you're taking prescription medication for it, it's not minor. Depression is a terminal disease if untreated

Yes, or at least reinterpreted in the way it was intended to be.

I already said that, why should we take chances? I am not talking about people who want to end intractable pain. nor even those who have considered the matter and come to what they see as a rational solution. These are a tiny minority of all suicides. The majority are done on sudden and very passing impulse, and this is based on the literally thousands of people who have had such an impulse but NOT had a gun handy to carry it out.

 

What about a very minor form of mental health issue that's NOT suicide?

DC v Heller determined exactly what it was intended to be.

Is a gun the only option for suicide?

 

Can you give us an example?

Until they reconsider.

It's generally the easiest and least trouble. Not in all cases but in most.

 

The united state supreme court has already ruled, in absolute terms, the second amendment is not subject to a judicial interest balancing test where its scope is weighed and measured against vague notions such as "public safety" whatever that may amount to.

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make? Why does it matter if individuals choose to use firearms for the purpose of ending their own existence?

Which does not answer the original question. Is the claim on the part of yourself, that if firearms simply were not available to the general public, the overall homicide rate would drop considerably overnight, and not simply continue unabated through other methods?

And if public support for the return of blacks being slaves devoid of constitutional rights grew strong enough, would such also be considered such nothing is irrevocable? Can the united states truly return to an era of where blacks are nothing more than property, and homosexuals can be put to death for being homosexual?

 

Why does the nation of Japan have a higher level of suicide than the united states?