Originally Posted by
zimonami
I forget about that 'invisible line' Bandy. God, that's is a good point. I tend to think of our problems as problems common to any man... but that's not true.
GY has some excellent points that are no-brainers... like certain assault weapons, and other classes of weapons should be forbidden to a normal citizen.
If a citizen wants to bear arms, they sure as hell have a responsibility to learn how to handle it safely, and to understand the consequences of discharging it.
A lot of good points about family, and core ethics.
There are sick people out there. They'll find a way to hurt others, if that's their agenda.
Here's something... We now have the technology to accurately identify psychotics, manic depressives, schizophrenia, etc. by simply mapping the brain... almost like an MRI. Various areas of the brain show up as a certain color when normal, and have other colors when a chemical imbalance, an excess or deficiency of chemicals, exists. For example, Schizo's have a deficiency of lithium in their systems and it is clear as a bell in a brain scan. This is an exact science.
So, your little Bobby is in 8th grade and it's time for all children to get their scan. Bobby comes home with a letter telling you that he's psychotic and will, forever more, not be allowed certain privileges, like ever owning a firearm.
Is this a violation of our personal rights?
How do you resolve personal rights and the rights of others to know who might dangerous.
"Did you hear? Bobby Smith down the block is a Psycho"
What percentage of Psychos ever perform an act dangerous to others? probably damned few. But, the possibility exists... so, do you have the right to brand someone because of a possibility?
Lots of questions and no way to find exact answers without effecting the rights of many innocents.