Since everyone wants to talk about taking away gun rights again...

🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱  
@hansw@mastodon.social Great I think that will giveus a foundation to work with. So Now ill provide some data, let me explain a bit how the grange...

@freemo No. They want to take away automatic weapons from people with mental issues.

People like you and me will be happy owners of the needed rocket launchers for personal defense against bears.

@pthenq1 No, what the hell are you talking about... automatic weapons have been illegal since the 70s.

@freemo They said nothing about "taking away gun rights again". But if you are going to twist what they said, why could I not twist what you said? 👀

@pthenq1 yes they did, they are talking about banning certain types of guns, therefore taking away our right to access to those guns.

@freemo okay. I support the right of get weapons.

Still, nobody can get always the guns they want. Today, for example, I would like portable small atomic bombs. You know, the ones handy to blow up 1 or 2 blocks.

They do not let us put our hands on that... and other weapons.

@pthenq1 Its even illegal for nations to have nuclear weapons, even the ones that have it arent allowed to as they were required to disarm ages ago and didnt... so no, bad example buddy.

@freemo same story. When/If they declare some weapon illegal and you have it, you will have to surrender it.

Other than that, perhaps someone wants a semiautomatic to defend himself from bears.

I want a nuclear mini-nuke to combat field mices. We are all tuned against dangerous environments... :awesome:

@pthenq1 @freemo the constitution bans ex post facto laws. since guns are property (and not under some 'license' shitbaggery like the losers in canada) it can't be "bought back" without basically violating the constitution.
@pthenq1 @freemo our combination of having an absolute right to keep and bear arms has been quite a thorn which is why they spend so much effort on scare tactics and "extreme risk warrants" to find ways to seize them without having to admit to seizing them.

@icedquinn

If they actually played by the rules they would just make a new amendment, legal, no problem.. oh wait.. they cant get the votes! So instead they try to erode it in other ways.

@pthenq1

@freemo No. They cannot. It is just about banning weapons on mentally impaired people..

@icedquinn

@pthenq1 @freemo The amount of mentally impaired people doing shootings is very small. And some number of those appear to be instigated by government terrorists (FBI.)
@pthenq1 @freemo the problem with any attempts at "reasonable" anything is

- it's an enumerated, inalienable right, to which any argument is literally attempting to alienate it
- reasonable things are just gateways to more

@icedquinn should be enumerated. Almost all the massive shootings were done by those 2 types of personalities (psychopaths and psychotics). Those mind conditions can be easily diagnosed.

@freemo

Follow

@pthenq1

you just ignored all the concerns raised and reiterated your point... so your basically telling people that if they are found to have a condition they loose rights and thus are punished for seeking medical treatment if they feel they have a mental disorder... worst suggestion ive ever heard.

@icedquinn

@freemo No Freemo. You do not get psychopathy or Psychotic: you are born like that. Or your are not (and you are called neurotic) and you can go to the mental institution and all good.

those conditions describe how is mechanically your brain wired. It does not change with medical treatment.
@icedquinn

@pthenq1 @freemo high functioning psychopaths exist. indeed, most psychopaths also don't commit violent crimes.
@pthenq1 @freemo the reason there are no exceptions is because exceptions are exploited.

under this regime, everyone will just start being classified as "mild autism."
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.