like republicans

I think, as with any generalization, there are probably many exceptions to be found there

Its just a right in the constititution for everyone to have a fire arm. I think lifetime bans are a bit much.

when you give government the ability to restrict your freedom, they arnt going to create exceptions to permit more freedom to you

That depends. There are ways to circumvent that statement

Which is the meat and potatoes of the video

If the elected officials that comprise the government are corrupt and don't have the citizen's best interest at heart

for the longest period of time where we have had law in our sociaty the method we default to in order to restrict the rights of people is either A. create flat regulations that prohibit certain behavure, or B. make exceptions based on actions they have commited which are themselves covered by A. your suggesting we introduce C. to make exceptions based on thoughts they have shared which are now covered by A.

No king rules forever

personally i think the method of removing peoples rights in society we already have is good enough, its called criminal justice. you have to actually do something wrong in order to be punished rather than just potentially being able to do something wrong due to characteristics of your psychology

Eventually corruption will have its turn

Which is why libertarians are mostly right because it lessens the damage

Arch fiend has the right idea. We have to accept nothing is perfect

The way it is probably fits human nature best right now

so when you say that we should only prevent firearms from being in the hands of the mentally ill what you should say is we should only prevent firearms from being in the hands of our social and political opponents and sometimes if we feel atruistic we might also prevent people with violent tendencys from having them too but more often than not that will be ignored for the other 2 groups

@Arch-Fiend I strongly encourage you to volunteer at a center for behavioral health, (especially the violent ones) to observe these pathologies first hand, I think you will be able to reform your world view, after that experience

because your position is untenable if you had actually observed some of those patients first hand

Its hard

Also proof of that

The apa has masculinity as a diagnoses for mental illness

No, when I say those with violent mental illnesses, I mean it

So therefore masculine people cant have a gun

Those aren't the type of mental illnesses I am referring too

I know man. I can trust you. Its someone else's judgement i dont trust

look sxtynien all im saying is all republicans are violent so they shouldent be allowed to have guns. its a mental illness and people who have mental illnesses are a threat to our society if they can access firearms

wait you dont agree with that?

There is no way you can verify that "all republicans" are violent

toxic feminity culture?

im talking about politics

So therefore masculine people cant have a gun

politics doesent care about ideology, politics cares about power

knowledge = power

I suggest you get some more of it

power for me not for thee

Im mea. If someone keeps showing violent tendecies, keep guns away from them. I think if a person hasnt committed a crime or shown great mental improvement in several years, then allow them to have guns

yes you think that, how about putting that power into the hands of someone who doesent think the way you do

More than 1 person can diagnose a mental illness.

But i agree with both of you

your not going to create a perfect system, id prefer a system im not completely safe from my fellow citizines than one where im not completely safe from the monopoly of violence

it the hope of every social architect that their system is less wrong than the one that came before it, there is nothing wrong with improving things

There might be.