Yes boys and girls not everyone should have a gun

[Tahuyaman]

Attachment 33059

Naturally, let’s violate people’s rights. No.... you leftists don’t want to take guns.

Not from average citizens.

If you had your way everyone would be disarmed. Except agents of government.

[DGUtley]

I think what Crepitus means is that if you're not a convicted felon and you haven't been found to be a violence risk because of mental health issues, then confiscation isn't justified; but if someone does fall into one of those categories, firearms confiscation is only rational.

I don’t think that’s what he meant. He should’ve said that if that’s what he meant. I think he said what he meant by indicating that someone who carried concealed into a grocery store or who talked about the prospects for a Civil War should be disarmed.

in Ohio, it is legal to carry into a grocery store and some people carry as a matter of course. I don’t because I go into government buildings but I know a lot of people that do. He is suggesting that they be disarmed. That is dangerous thinking by a leftist. Similarly, we watched great American cities be attacked, torched, and parts occupied/destroyed this past summer by leftists. The leftists talked about the coming Civil War.

Some of our great newspapers warned us that if trump won, election gaming had indicated there would be a Civil War. Some of our members talked about it. He again is suggesting that those people should be disarmed. That is very very dangerous in my opinion. I am confident in saying that he would like to determine who is “average” when he says only average people get to keep their guns

[Cotton1]

Not from average citizens.

What's the criteria for an "average citizen" badge?

Do tell.

[Standing Wolf]

I don’t think that’s what he meant. He should’ve said that if that’s what he meant. I think he said what he meant by indicating that someone who carried concealed into a grocery store or who talked about the prospects for a Civil War should be disarmed.

in Ohio, it is legal to carry into a grocery store and some people carry as a matter of course. I don’t because I go into government buildings but I know a lot of people that do. He is suggesting that they be disarmed. That is dangerous thinking by a leftist. Similarly, we watched great American cities be attacked, torched, and parts occupied/destroyed this past summer by leftists. The leftists talked about the coming Civil War.

Some of our great newspapers warned us that if trump won, election gaming had indicated there would be a Civil War. Some of our members talked about it. He again is suggesting that those people should be disarmed. That is very very dangerous in my opinion. I am confident in saying that he would like to determine who is “average” when he says only average people get to keep their guns

Okay, fair enough - you're right. I went back and re-read Crepitus's first post in the thread, and he does single out the "second civil war" fanciers and the everyday carriers for confiscation. What I would say to someone who feels that way is that when you begin allowing the State to target large categories of citizens simply because of their politically-based fears or because they choose to exercise a legal right others may not, you open the door to having your own Second Amendment rights revoked, so to speak, when someone or some group comes to power who consider you to be the "nut".

[HawkTheSlayer]

Not from average citizens.

Well that excludes democrats. Lol.

[montana]

Not from average citizens.

lol who decides average? Leftist fools maybe? Surely not one like yourself?

[hanger4]

Not from average citizens.

Who, what determines average Crepitus ??

[Standing Wolf]

Even in the case of keeping firearms out of the hands of people with mental issues, the devil, to coin a phrase, is in the details. What constitutes having "mental issues"? In many states, a court must find the individual to be mentally incompetent, but in other states that isn't strictly necessary.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...tally-ill.aspx

So-called gun control advocates seem to be forever attempting to stretch the pertinent definitions. Several years ago there was a mass shooting and it came out that the shooter had recently been seeing a university counselor for reasons that I don't recall, and the response of some advocates was, "Why weren't his guns taken away?"

[DGUtley]

SW - Very well said in both posts.

[CaveDog]

Yup, anybody who's in the internet slobbering over the (extremely remote) possibility of a civil wars should be disarmed immediately.

Which person in that video was advocating for civil war? I seem to have missed it.

Likewise people who are paranoid enough to carry firearms to the grocery store.

If you can prove with absolute, 100% iron clad certainty that the person carrying in a grocery store cannot in any way encounter a situation where they would have to defend life and limb I will agree with you. If you can't (which I don't see how you could) then saying they're paranoid isn't a fact. It's just your opinion. No matter how small, some level of threat exists. That, conversely, is fact. I may not see it as necessary but if they do, they're acting on a fact. If your meaning is they should be legally disarmed, you're just arbitrarily enforcing your opinion over actual fact on someone else.