11-30-2010, 10:48 AM
Bob asked:
What exactly is Hawaii proposing that prompted this whole discussion?
Bob you make a good argument in some cases and fall short in others. I’m not trying to say that mentally ill people should have the right to bear and own firearms. I understand the Hawaii argument and agree with much of it. But to agree with it 100% means that we must consider the possibility of disposing all that have a disability, physical along with mental from firearm ownership and that includes anyone that lives in their residence.
With this mind set one would have to agree that if a police officer’s wife was deemed to have misused her legal prescription by another police person the first officer’s right to own a firearm will be revoked. Sounds pretty stupid doesn’t it but that’s the way these laws are written, simply to take away our rights.
Now in my case my wife has had a police report filed against her without any medical professional signing in on it. Unfortunately Hawaii State law don’t give a crap, they have a report. Now Bob even if this was true {and it’s not} why is it that Hawaii can penalize me and any other member of that household from gun ownership?
Bottom line it that Hawaii is a liberal state and liberals do not believe in gun ownership period. This is an injustice and an infringement upon my rights. I, Tom Lackey do not have a mental history of anything and to use this situation as a “reason” to curtail me of any firearm ownership is definably a maneuver to take the guns out of the hands of the public. You can not look at it any other way.
Bob Orts said:
By their application of mental illness in firearm cases, one can say that a person who wears eye glasses is blind and the driver’s license of any family member living with them should be immediately revoked and their cars confiscated to prevent the “blind” person from driving the car.
Thank you Bob I rest my case, because this is what is happening to me and I can only image how many
others.
The Lack
The Lack Toons
What exactly is Hawaii proposing that prompted this whole discussion?
Bob you make a good argument in some cases and fall short in others. I’m not trying to say that mentally ill people should have the right to bear and own firearms. I understand the Hawaii argument and agree with much of it. But to agree with it 100% means that we must consider the possibility of disposing all that have a disability, physical along with mental from firearm ownership and that includes anyone that lives in their residence.
With this mind set one would have to agree that if a police officer’s wife was deemed to have misused her legal prescription by another police person the first officer’s right to own a firearm will be revoked. Sounds pretty stupid doesn’t it but that’s the way these laws are written, simply to take away our rights.
Now in my case my wife has had a police report filed against her without any medical professional signing in on it. Unfortunately Hawaii State law don’t give a crap, they have a report. Now Bob even if this was true {and it’s not} why is it that Hawaii can penalize me and any other member of that household from gun ownership?
Bottom line it that Hawaii is a liberal state and liberals do not believe in gun ownership period. This is an injustice and an infringement upon my rights. I, Tom Lackey do not have a mental history of anything and to use this situation as a “reason” to curtail me of any firearm ownership is definably a maneuver to take the guns out of the hands of the public. You can not look at it any other way.
Bob Orts said:
By their application of mental illness in firearm cases, one can say that a person who wears eye glasses is blind and the driver’s license of any family member living with them should be immediately revoked and their cars confiscated to prevent the “blind” person from driving the car.
Thank you Bob I rest my case, because this is what is happening to me and I can only image how many
others.
The Lack
The Lack Toons
