Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Billybob" data-source="post: 2012820" data-attributes="member: 1294"><p>No my argument is that we shouldn't let Dr.'s illegally restrict someone's rights based on a subjective opinion because they can't manage their finances which has nothing to do with being a potential threat. </p><p>And that if (when) they try to expand those restrictions to all mental issues requireing meds which would seem logical to some those restrictions would then arbitrailly cover a large segment of our population without evidence of potential threats. </p><p>And if they wish to make that argument then it needs to be noted how many active duty troops (including those in combat) are on meds as well as many others in important positions in society. My point being that it would be hipacritical (and blatant backdoor gun control) take gun rights over mental issues(being on meds) while still letting them drive cars(potentially dangerous), serve in the Gov., be Dr.s's, teachers etc. because that appears to say that the gun is the potential threat not the person with mental issues which was their original argument.</p><p></p><p>Any clearer?.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Billybob, post: 2012820, member: 1294"] No my argument is that we shouldn't let Dr.'s illegally restrict someone's rights based on a subjective opinion because they can't manage their finances which has nothing to do with being a potential threat. And that if (when) they try to expand those restrictions to all mental issues requireing meds which would seem logical to some those restrictions would then arbitrailly cover a large segment of our population without evidence of potential threats. And if they wish to make that argument then it needs to be noted how many active duty troops (including those in combat) are on meds as well as many others in important positions in society. My point being that it would be hipacritical (and blatant backdoor gun control) take gun rights over mental issues(being on meds) while still letting them drive cars(potentially dangerous), serve in the Gov., be Dr.s's, teachers etc. because that appears to say that the gun is the potential threat not the person with mental issues which was their original argument. Any clearer?. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom