Should anyone who has been abused have the right to own a firearm?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

We have been told many times how common PTSD is for victims of abuse. Does it make sense to allow these "emotionally unstable" people to have access to firearms? Even if their former partner is threatening them, repeatedly violating restraining orders and stalking them, is it worth the risk to the rest of society to allow them access to firearms, regardless of their level of training. After all, if their former partner kills them it will be only one death maybe two if the abuser also commits suicide, as opposed to the number that might die if they suddenly snap and go on a shooting rampage. In addition should they really be allowed to drive, what if they suddenly snap while driving toward a crowded school bus stop and decide to plow over 20 school children at 60 mph. Clearly the solution is just to go ahead and imprison anyone who has been the victim of abuse, society just can't risk it. Better safe than sorry and all.


David

[divideandconquer]

1. Good reason for no civilian firearms

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. After all firearms are the only way for an abuser to kill their partner.

[derby378]

3. No, it's not...

...because then we're all at risk of abuse by the government. And that's not how it's supposed to work here.

[billybob537]

4. stop it you're making the left look bad!

[eqfan592]

5. lol, glad to see your on the ball, there, divideandconqure.

Let us know when you thing any other objects should be banned to help protect society from itself.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Looks like another drive by posting.

[divideandconquer]

19. Lucky it wasn't a drive by shooting

[SteveM]

20. I'm not worried. You missed (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Good thing you are really bad at it.

[rd_kent]

49. Always so poignant and full of great information.

You are such a FAIL!

[Deep13]

8. no really, no. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Another anti-union post from you...

[divideandconquer]

28. And what kind of professor are you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. A union one

I teach in the University of California system and the undergrad and graduate level. I am also a union member, which as I recall you are not.

[OttavaKarhu]

40. If you have tenure...

...you're a parasite, not a worker.

Pick one or the other--parasitic civil servitude or union membership.

To have it both ways proves you're not progressive.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. I intentionally chose non-tenure track

Though I have a graduate class this term, I prefer to teach at the 200 level classes where students are still figuring out what they want to do.

[divideandconquer]

43. Oddly I support unions and you support Toyota

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. Yet you rant against many things made by union labor

[divideandconquer]

47. Like what?

[paulsby]

32. riiiight

because we can't trust those pesky civilians with such power. why next thing you know, we'd be having a GOVERNMENT of the people, with protection of minority rights, and representation. and we can't trust people with privacy rights. why, then they could hide contraband and stuff in their homes. this is dangerous stuff. best leave the gun carryin' to us sworn law enforcement people. cause we can do no wrong. and we always get there in time.

:sarcasm:

[Deep13]

7. Yes, if he or she is otherwise qualified.

Otherwise, I can't see singling out those who have already been victimized when they haven't done anything wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. But it's for the children.

[Deep13]

15. Well, if they're supervised, I supposed.

My friend had a .22 rifle when he was 10. He was closely supervised until he was in high school.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. :spray:

[Jamastiene]

9. Just to be clear...

You are being sarcastic, right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. Yes, I thought I layed it on thick enough to not need the tag.

[divideandconquer]

22. A mass shooting a day keeps the tyrants away

Funny actual tyrants Bush/Cheney didn't cause gun nuts to go crazy buying guns and ammo but Obama's election did. Things that make one wonder.

[eqfan592]

23. Probably because Bush/Cheney didn't have...

...things like renewing the AWB as part of their platform, not to mention the Dems really poor history on this issue.

[divideandconquer]

29. Actual tyrants don't scare the gun huggers

but more important, tyrants aren't the least bit scared of the gun huggers.

[eqfan592]

30. Wow, and off of what do you base your conclusions?

Gun owners didn't complain about Bush/Cheney going after their 2a rights because they didn't try to (at least not directly). Many of us however DID complain about Bush/Cheney for all the other crap they pulled. You forget that not ALL gun owners are Republicans.

So now I'd like to know your proof for your assertion that the "tyrants" aren't the least bit scared of the "gun huggers." If Bush/Cheney had succeeded in a military take-over of our nation, I might be inclined to agree with you, but in spite of all the damage they did, they were only able to go so-far.

We'd be stupid to toss away that one big check that we have to their power.

[divideandconquer]

31. Yeah, they only went after all the other rights cause your guns didn't scare them

Australia did away with guns and they're have the highest quality of life in the world while ours continues to stagger toward third world status. Why don't gun nuts move to Somalia where they can shoot all the "bad guys" they want?

[Katya Mullethov]

45. Cant we find a way to compromise ?

In the traditional sense of the word relating to the issue at hand , this would entail that I do nothing , and you move to Australia .

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. So you are saying that liberals should buy more guns. Great we agree.

[paulsby]

33. the sad thing is that for many statists

that sort of sarcasm isn't even detectable

[slackmaster]

10. Only if they are legally blind and already own a set of grandfathered lawn darts

:hide:

[Wickerman]

13. there will be no grandfathered lawn darts on my watch. n/t

[beevul]

25. ROFL!!!

Omg thanks for the laugh.

[taurus145]

27. JARTS!

They're killers I tell ya.

[old mark]

14. What you are asking is should anyone who may actually need one

be denied the right to posess a gun to defend themselves.

Anti gunners are just fucking ignorant and have no business dictating to other people what choices they may make.

mark

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. I guess I did need the sarcasm tag.

[BigBluenoser]

50. No... No you didn't...

People should read who posted the OP... I always do... from there on it is 99.5% predictable for pretty much all of us. I liked the humor.


I suggest however, that we allow female sufferers of PTSD to keep their guns, but they are not allowed within a 100 yards of any child under the age of 10. This will prevent unnecessary drownings, suffocation, and neglect. Men with PTSD from abuse are not allowed to have guns because they tend to act out violently. Problem solved!

Your post points out the incredible hypocrisy of some liberals who masturbate at the thought of denying rights to those evil aggressors and oppressors - especially when they know how much gun-rights mean to a lot of .mil retirees, but would scream holy hell if a group people they perceive as victims had their rights removed.

[msongs]

16. guns for everyone, serial killers, 5 years olds, nut cases - constitutional rights ya know nt

[TheWraith]

17. And forced abortions, too! Forced abortions for all females 4 and up!

See how ridiculous a complete bullshit strawman argument sounds coming from the side you disagree with?

[PavePusher]

18. Cite, please? n/t

[SteveM]

21. Another mud-splattering hippo fart (nt)

[JonQ]

48. Well yeah, constitutional rights do generally apply to everyone who has not committed a crime

and then for criminals they are not taken away lightly.

You don't really get to choose what rights others have based on your preconceived notions about whether they are "acceptable" or not.

[ManiacJoe]

26. A one-size-fits-all generalization does not solve the problem.

For each individual case, if the abused person meets the requirements to be disqualified from firearms ownership, then that one person should be prohibited. In that case the abused will need prior planning to find other ways of defending himself should the need arise.

If the abused person does not meet the requirements for disqualification, then society needs to give him the same rights and responsibilities everyone else gets.

The problem with these cases tends to be that family and friends of the abused choose not to get involved which leads to folks not getting disqualified when they need to be.

[paulsby]

34. society does not give people rights

it RECOGNIZES rights. if you think in terms of rights being given, then we are merely subjects.

[ManiacJoe]

35. We seem to be on the same page.

[OttavaKarhu]

39. Don't liberal Dems believe we've ALL been abused and traumatized?