ChrisL

This is incorrect, as my own experience clearly indicates. Read my posts from earlier in the thread. Simply having a medical doctor (emergency room) commit you to an involuntary 72 hour inpatient "observation" will cause your firearm rights to be revoked without ever having been examined by any mental health professional and without any adjudication in a court by a judge. The legal prohibition does not expire when the 72 hours are over regardless of the result of said observation. Its permanent. It took me years and a lot of money to have restored what should never have been taken away in the first place. This is how it works in Pennsylvania and many other states. I didn't hear this from a legal wuffo or my friends brother. Its not a myth. This happened to me because I accidentally put my arm through a window one night while I was drunk and the ER doc thought it was possible that the injury was self-inflicted. It was not. In the course of fighting this I met many others that had the same experience. It was not a fluke or a rare, isolated circumstance. __ My mighty steed

"Mentally unstable" covers a HUGE range of afflictions. Do you propose that anyone that has ever displayed any sign of any kind of mental instability at any point in their lives be preemptively denied their 2nd amendment rights? This is a serious question, not a sarcastic comment. If you do honestly believe this then I guess theres no room for debate, but if not then I'd be curious to hear what you think would be fair to everyone __ My mighty steed

It doesnt specifically mention his legal status with regard to firearms, but given his criminal history I would bet that he was NOT legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm prior to this event, and did not walk into a store and purchase it legally. That renders this incident irrelevant with respect to the original subject of this thread, what was whether or not people with a mental illness should be denied the right to bear arms. __ My mighty steed

The fact that they didnt practice what they preached doesnt change what it was supposed to mean. It was a grand idea. Its too bad we humans suck at implementing it. __ My mighty steed

Really, you can speak for all Americans? I'm speaking for the ideal that the founding fathers tried to incorporate into our Constitution, not for each individual citizen. Obviously not every person shares the same sentiment. The usage was merely a response to your own (snide) reference to us as "Americans" A distillation of this "ideal" can be found in the Declaration of Independance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not meat to apply only to US citizens, but we have no say in how other countries treat their citizens (although sometimes we try to) __ My mighty steed

A deliberate misinterpretation on your part, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. How very....Canadian However, we "Americans" believe these rights apply to all humans regardless of where they live, but the USA has no jurisdiction outside the USA so we can only apply them to citizens of the Unites States. __ My mighty steed

Oh man. You mean I got a form letter? __ My mighty steed

I'm pretty sure he was responding to me __ My mighty steed

I haven't tried to deny anything

True, but driving a car and piloting an aircraft are not constitutionally protected rights. I'm thinking that revocation of a constitutional right should be handled with a lot more care and consideration than whats is used when suspending someones drivers license. Unfortunately thats often not the case. People that should not have access to firearms still do, and sane, rational people are denied the same right because the whole process is handled with no more care or consideration than the DMV uses with regard to a drivers license. __ My mighty steed

Please do. I'd like to see what you had up there... __ My mighty steed

I hear you. Having someone dismiss everything you went through to arrive where you are like it was pure luck is irritating as hell. Like you tripped walking down the street and just fell into a good life by random chance. I know the feeling. I'd like to see someone stuff a Clydesdale into a C182 __ My mighty steed

I'm very glad to hear that they are not going to try and capture or kill the bear. Its a tragedy that someone was killed, but momma bear was just being momma bear. __ My mighty steed

Good on ya. Enjoy yer life. I make a decent living too. Its good to be us. So why are you ranting? __ My mighty steed

I hold no such opinion. My comment "I'm certain thats true, but most of them would probably hold opinions that are driven by fear and/or anger." was a direct (and accurate) response to your own previous remark about those victims, "The dozens that were killed by Cho and Loughner might disagree" The implication of my own use of the word "would" clearly mirrored your own usage, which was to say "this would be the case had they survived" I'm not really sure what I did to earn your enmity or cause you to so deliberately misinterpret my words, but I think its safe to say that, given your responses, there is nothing to be gained by responding to any more of your comments. You obviously don't want to actually have a meaningful dialogue. cheers __ My mighty steed

too late.. take 2 mirrors and check your back.. you've been painted You mean I've been inked

You can turn it around pretty fast when you are jumping from 16 feet 2 inches. __ My mighty steed

Thats how it seems to you, eh? If so then you've missed 75% of what I said in this thread and grossly misinterpreted the rest. You are a teacher/professor are you not? I Hope your students pay better attention to what you say to them than you've done with me. This is really what you took away from my posts? Really? I'm surprised. __ My mighty steed

I'm certain thats true, but most of them would probably hold opinions that are driven by fear and/or anger. I would not expect victims of violent crimes to hold objective, rational opinions on issues that directly relate to the crimes committed against them. Would you? __ My mighty steed

Inaccurate. I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment and I think its nothing more than a funny joke. Its funny I'm not even a republican Dont paint us all with the same brush. Actually, dont paint me at all. I dont want to be painted

Yep. I chose that word intentionally. Nobody would be foolish enough to think that it actually works that way all the time Still, the attempt by some to operate according to that principal probably does prevent some injustices from happening. A similar sentiment should be adhered to in any situation where we contemplate depriving a person of their rights. ANY of them. __ My mighty steed

Experts on mental health should make the final determination. Not ER doctors or the courts and definitely not the police. None of them are qualified to judge a persons sanity. Medical doctors, courts, and police should be limited to imposing temporary restrictions for emergent situations, until those more qualified make a more through assessment. The courts only involvement should be to make a legal ruling based on the findings of those mental health experts. Any legal disabilities imposed without the benefit of that expert assessment should have a built-in expiration date. __ My mighty steed

The criminal justice system is supposed to operate on the presumption of innocence. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to prison. When mental health, rights, and the law are concerned we are frequently presumed nuts unless proven sane. Better that 10 sane people lose their rights than allow one nut job access to firearms (with which he may or may not commit a violent act) A lot of people would support this idea until they are one of the 10 that lost their rights __ My mighty steed

Like shooting a couple dozen people (Cho, Loughner). RIIIGHT. Cho and Loughner were both identified well in advance of those events as being mentally unstable, perhaps dangerously so. This information was never acted upon in any meaningful way and it directly lead to loss of life. That side of the process is broken. I have first hand knowledge of a situation where the erroneous removal of a persons 2nd amendment rights directly lead to loss of life, therefore that side of the process is also broken. People can cite reasonable examples of both sides all day long. The reason this can be done is that both sides are right, and their respective goals are NOT mutually exclusive. As long as people persist in their belief that it must be one way or the other nothing is resolved and everyone loses. __ My mighty steed