posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Trustfund
If they are schizophrenic or some other type of dangerous mental illness then no, they shouldn't have guns.
And that my friend should not be a decision for nameless bureaucracy to make. Last I heard we still had a Constitution that guaranteed 1st, 2nd, 4th
and 5th amendments.
Remember that pesky thing called "presumption of innocence" or how about "due process"
That means if someone is to lose rights then they should have their day in court judged either by their peers or if they agree in front of a judge
with proper legal counsel. That is the proper format and those accusing must be ready to prove their claims including medical professionals.
Anything else and we're going down the road that Stalinst Russia used to institutionalize, minimize or discredit its political opposition.
My personal opinion is there are certain political classes in the US that are downright afraid of anyone who knows how to fight and wield weapons and
are painting those that do as boogymen. There is ample evidence of this fear with Gun Running by the government, lots of questions on latest mass
shootings being false flags operations pointing towards a concerted attack on second amendment in general from every angle that can be had - none of
it direct, most in the progressive format of "piece at a time" which is the true danger to this countries longevity and stability - those people
should be adjucated as dangerous to society and watched every moment.
I trust the vets one hell of a lot more, especially Oathkeepers, than my current government thats for sure.
edit on 5-12-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)