NJ Senators On Guns: "Confiscate! Confiscate! Confiscate!"

Obviously, just saying "fuck it" isn't going to fly.

But incremental infringement of the 2nd Amendment is going to do nothing to alleviate the situation.

The left doesn't like the idea of identifying and putting constraints on the mentally ill or putting armed security in sensitive spots, but those will help the problem without infringing anyone's liberty.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

But the left who read that will scream bloody murder that you are violating the rights of the mentally ill...............

Also you're turning America into an armed camp! You big meanie!

Also, talking about "the left" as a monolithic group, as has happened repeatedly throughout this thread, is fallacious.

I'm quite happy to say "confiscate" and "repeal the 2nd amendment".

Not sure how you conclude that isn't an infringement.

Also, talking about "gun owners" as a monolithic group, as has happened repeatedly throughout this thread, is fallacious.

People with gun rights are many, the mentally ill are few. And there is no debate between the right or the left whether the mentally ill should have guns: the left wants no one to have guns, and the rights wants the mentally ill to keep messing it up for gunowners.

Now now, if you say that, then clearly demiurge, Diacanu, and I are all in lock-step agreement.

How do you conclude it is?

Why do you feel compelled to make this a left-right issue? It is quite a bit more complex than such simplistic distinctions.

Mandating armed guards in certain settings makes me less comfortable in those settings because I have no guarantee regarding the guard's qualifications. It makes me less free to enter those settings.

No.

He's honest in his intentions.

You're the liar. So is Demi.

And I don't think Diacanu is on anyones side.

Total bullshit.

Feel free to mentally substitute "gun rights advocates" for "the right" and "gun prohibitionists" for "the left;" in practice, you'll find that the correllation is very high.

But maybe you're right and I should make it non-partisan.

Who here wants to argue that the mentally ill should NOT be restricted from owning, possessing, or having unsupervised access to firearms?

Total bullshit.

That would be me. And you Paladin. Along with other gun owners on this board who refuse to accept our role as monitors of other gun owners.

Nice try. You have no right to be "comfortable." If you disagree, give me a description of this right and be prepared for how other people will exercise it.

How do you know the qualifications of a police officer? Might that make some people uncomfortable? Or do you think there has never been a bad cop?

Finally, you always have the choice of NOT visiting any venue where such guards would be employed.

I don't know that anybody wants to make that argument, but aren't you compelled to do so just the same?

When have you ever posted anything else?

Ah, so you're siding with the gun-lubbers now and attempting to lump the rest of us into one monolithic opposition group.

See, gul, this is why we need to let them keep spouting their paranoid delusions. It keeps them in a perpetual FOX-fueled tizzy so they never know what's really going on.

And it's fun to watch, in a Warner Bros. cartoon sort of way.

Ooh!! Ooh!!

Freedom of assembly and speech would cover this under most circumstances, so I think I'll continue to claim this right.

If I think it will help and you think it's a good idea (or at least won't argue against it), can't we agree on that?

Nope, try again.

Nothing paranoid about it. Rick, being the good old wanna-be dictator is honest that he would like America to ban guns.

The rest of you are liars. "We don't want to take your guns away!" Then when you think no one's looking: "Confiscate! Confiscate! Confiscate!"

Again, where is this right to be "comfortable?"

I'm not "comfortable" with a lot of things, too, but something tells me you're not willing to acknowledge my "right" to be free of them.

I'm not comfortable that people can drink and then drive. Alcohol should be banned.

Even if it only saves one child it is worth it.

I've bolded the paranoid part for you.

By your own statements, you consider individual gun ownership a right that cannot be infringed. How do you then turn around and infringe for some people? I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here, I just want to understand how you draw the line when you decide to draw it. If I can understand this, I might have a better shot of figuring out where else we can compromise.

No one gives a fuck what makes me comfortable.

I'm not comfortable that corporate conglomerates have so much control over our news and movies, and do everything they can to crush the little indie guys.

I'm not comfortable that we have so many religious yahoos running around trying to sabotage science education.

I'm not comfortable that Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil exist.

Millions of dumb muthafuckas disagree with me.
Millions.
They're comforted by that shit.
It's a safe cozy little fuckng world to them.

You're right. You're absolutely right. You're concerned about exactly the correct things. Keep operating out of your fear. Stay hyperfocused and vigilant at all times.

This isn't about me. Whether I'm hypocritical or not is irrelevent. But, for argument's sake, let's say that I am. I advocate that the mentally ill should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights (with certain legal safeguards, of course).

Now, do you disagree with me or not?