Are you saying  there is no line between certain "high risk groups" and "Americans in general?"

Being in a "high risk group" does not justify denying peoples rights. The individual has to be specifically shown to have done something wrong before you can take away their rights. The government has to justify each and every instance when they take away someone's civil rights (there may be very limited exceptions).

Do you think the USA was right to put Japanese Americans into internment camps because they were considered higher risk?

Enjoy!

Do you think they might be hesitant to support the NRA and gun rights given that conservatives weren't exactly lining up to support them when they wanted to marry? They might think we are just using them as pawn pieces.

Do you think they might be hesitant to support the NRA and gun rights given that conservatives weren't exactly lining up to support them when they wanted to marry? They might think we are just using them as pawn pieces.

The OP never mentioned the NRA. I am not sure why anyone here would attempt to get anyone from the LGBT groups to support the NRA? I know I certainly would not. I don't recall the NRA taking any sort of stance on gay marriage. So I don't understand how you are relating the NRA to this subject? I don't understand why you even brought it up? I spent most of my life not supporting the NRA until I came to my senses.

With that said you do bring up a good point due to most LGBT are not conservatives. But I do know a lot of LGBT and they are gun owners. So I believe we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Besides, if we are sincere and we make them feel welcome to join us we just made a bunch of new friends. 

Being in a "high risk group" does not justify denying peoples rights. The individual has to be specifically shown to have done something wrong before you can take away their rights. The government has to justify each and every instance when they take away someone's civil rights (there may be very limited exceptions).

Do you think the USA was right to put Japanese Americans into internment camps because they were considered higher risk?

Try telling that to the law makers!!

In places where medical marijuana is LEGAL, you are still denied the right to own a gun if you have a MM card.  Partly, that's due to the feds still classifying you as an "addict" and marijuana as a schedule 1 drug (along with heroin).

So, yes, by simply having a condition that you treat with MM, you CAN and DO have your 2A rights denied without being charged with any crime.

Try again.

In our current situation, we need psychologically balanced people owning guns. 

This statement made me ponder:
It's ironic how guns should be in the hands of the peacekeeper, the most morally sound individuals. 

This statement made me ponder:
It's ironic how guns should be in the hands of the peacekeeper, the most morally sound individuals.

"Peace through strength" is an ancient phrase and concept that implies strength of arms is a necessary component of peace.

The OP never mentioned the NRA. I am not sure why anyone here would attempt to get anyone from the LGBT groups to support the NRA? I know I certainly would not. I don't recall the NRA taking any sort of stance on gay marriage. So I don't understand how you are relating the NRA to this subject? I don't understand why you even brought it up? I spent most of my life not supporting the NRA until I came to my senses.

With that said you do bring up a good point due to most LGBT are not conservatives. But I do know a lot of LGBT and they are gun owners. So I believe we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Besides, if we are sincere and we make them feel welcome to join us we just made a bunch of new friends. 

I mentioned the NRA as sort of the face of gun rights, I didn't mean that NRA took a particular stance. I don't know who made the graphic at the bottom of the last page. Sorry for the confusion.

Try telling that to the law makers!!

In places where medical marijuana is LEGAL, you are still denied the right to own a gun if you have a MM card.  Partly, that's due to the feds still classifying you as an "addict" and marijuana as a schedule 1 drug (along with heroin).

So, yes, by simply having a condition that you treat with MM, you CAN and DO have your 2A rights denied without being charged with any crime.

Try again.

'

You are comparing two different jurisdiction's laws. Medical marijuana is not legal under federal law, thus it is not a high risk category, it is a breaking the law category.

I noticed to didn't answer my question about Japanese Americans being put into internment camps.

'

You are comparing two different jurisdiction's laws. Medical marijuana is not legal under federal law, thus it is not a high risk category, it is a breaking the law category.

I noticed to didn't answer my question about Japanese Americans being put into internment camps.

According to you, no one is a criminal unless they have been arrested, charged, tried ,and found guilty.

"innocent until proven guilty"

Is your new position that you are a criminal just for breaking the law without actually having a record?

According to you, no one is a criminal unless they have been arrested, charged, tried ,and found guilty.

"innocent until proven guilty"

Is your new position that you are a criminal just for breaking the law without actually having a record?

It is a safe assumption that if you go and get a medical marijuana license then you are using marijuana. Yes, there may be no actual conviction, but has this withstood legal challenge? There are certainly constitutional questions to such decisions. But you will notice that I originally said there may be a few exceptions to the rule.

I'll note that you are avoiding answering the question about Japanese Americans being put into internment camps. I can only suspect that you feel it is justifiable.

Hope you never find yourself to be an a higher risk group because you are basically making the case for your own rights to be taken away based on the risk assessment of the group.

It is a safe assumption that if you go and get a medical marijuana license then you are using marijuana. Yes, there may be no actual conviction, but has this withstood legal challenge? There are certainly constitutional questions to such decisions. But you will notice that I originally said there may be a few exceptions to the rule.

I'll note that you are avoiding answering the question about Japanese Americans being put into internment camps. I can only suspect that you feel it is justifiable.

Hope you never find yourself to be an a higher risk group because you are basically making the case for your own rights to be taken away based on the risk assessment of the group.

Yes, I'm avoiding your attempt to once again sidetrack this discussion on an unrelated tangential direction.

You've been accused several times of that, and this is a perfect example of it.  Interment Camps have nothing to do with the LGBT question.  Just because you want to draw a straw-argument parallel doesn't make it tangential.

It is a safe assumption that if you go and get a medical marijuana license then you are using marijuana. Yes, there may be no actual conviction, but has this withstood legal challenge? There are certainly constitutional questions to such decisions. But you will notice that I originally said there may be a few exceptions to the rule.

I'll note that you are avoiding answering the question about Japanese Americans being put into internment camps. I can only suspect that you feel it is justifiable.

Hope you never find yourself to be an a higher risk group because you are basically making the case for your own rights to be taken away based on the risk assessment of the group.

How can you even believe that?  If I'm ever declared non compos mentis, diagnosed with psychological problems or addicted to drugs, you can bet I'd want my right to own guns revoked!  Do we not keep throwing around the phrase RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER?  How responsible would it be to refuse to give up your right to have guns when you may not have clear and responsible judgement due to disease or intoxication?

How can you even believe that?  If I'm ever declared non compos mentis, diagnosed with psychological problems or addicted to drugs, you can bet I'd want my right to own guns revoked!  Do we not keep throwing around the phrase RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER?  How responsible would it be to refuse to give up your right to have guns when you may not have clear and responsible judgement due to disease or intoxication?

Being diagnosed with serious psychological problems is an entirely different situation than just being a member of the LGBT community which has a higher rate of suicide than the rest of society.

Being diagnosed with serious psychological problems is an entirely different situation than just being a member of the LGBT community which has a higher rate of suicide than the rest of society.

You said if I was ever in a higher risk group [.......]

I have a much higher chance of finding myself in one of the situations I described than in the LGBTQ group.  I mean, you can be in any group you want, and it doesn't bother me, but I'll have to pass on that one!  If you say it's different being in that group, I'll have to take you at your word this time!

You said if I was ever in a higher risk group [.......]

I have a much higher chance of finding myself in one of the situations I described than in the LGBTQ group.  I mean, you can be in any group you want, and it doesn't bother me, but I'll have to pass on that one!  If you say it's different being in that group, I'll have to take you at your word this time!

Legally taking away an individuals rights has to do with the actions and articulatable facts of that individual. You cannot deny a right to a person because they are a member of a group that as a whole suffers from a higher rate of problems.

Legally taking away an individuals rights has to do with the actions and articulatable facts of that individual. You cannot deny a right to a person because they are a member of a group that as a whole suffers from a higher rate of problems.

You should learn to read better.  I stated earlier:

If studies show LGBTQ communities have a higher instance of mental health issues, maybe that doesn't need to be an immediate disqualifier.  Maybe it can be a flag to require a more indepth background check, including friend and family interviews, and a professional psych eval versus simple records check?? 

If you make me repost everything I type, we're never going to get anywhere!

You should learn to read better.  I stated earlier:

If you make me repost everything I type, we're never going to get anywhere!

And how are you going to better screen gay people who want to buy guns? You have trouble even justifying denying their rights longer than all those who are not gay.

And how are you going to better screen gay people who want to buy guns? You have trouble even justifying denying their rights longer than all those who are not gay.

We do it all the time.  FBI NICS Background checks have a 3 day limit for a response, but Hawaii requires you to wait not 3 days, but 14.  Is that not delaying your rights?  In that amount of time, the request can be denied pending a more thorough investigation NOT for being Gay, but for being in a group identified as higher risk for mental health issues.  The LGBTQ group would not be the only ones in that "extra scrutiny" category.  They can cry discrimination as usual, but it won't change the truth.  Certain groups should be allowed their rights once their INDIVIDUAL risk is evaluated.  I believe that should also include nonviolent felons.  Some of them are more in need of self defense due to the limited choices they have on where they live.

To avoid a little extra scrutiny because you feel discriminated against will not help solve the mental health issues as they relate to firearm ownership. 

You keep saying "denying".  What is it about you that refuses to read the words on your screen?  I'm not typing it a third time, Troll Man!! 

Just for a little historical perspective: The Parker v. Washington DC case was the case that eventually morphed into Heller and subsequently the SCOTUS case affirming an individual right to own a gun regardless of one's militia "status." Parker had several plaintiffs, all except Heller were found to NOT have standing and "their" cases were thrown out and Heller emerged as the only one with standing. One of the original plaintiffs was Tom Palmer, a gay man that alleges that he used a 9mm handgun to defend himself against a "gay bashing" incident. He states that he produced his gun (that was, incidentally, carried illegally...) when a group of men who had been verbally harassing him threatened physical harm. He did not have to fire a shot as the men dispersed, rather quickly, once he drew his handgun.

The point is that any person, regardless of race, color, creed, political affiliation, or sexual orientation, should be allowed to determine what, if any self-defense tool he wishes to use irrespective of the statistical possibility that they "might" have a psychiatric condition. And that distancing ourselves from potential allies because of that potential could be counter productive. After all, soldiers (airmen, sailors, and marines) returning from deployment have a much higher rate of suicide and PTSD. Are we trying to distance ourselves from them or are we trying to get them the help they need while preserving their god given rights and liberties as we try to do the same for ourselves?

Just for a little historical perspective: The Parker v. Washington DC case was the case that eventually morphed into Heller and subsequently the SCOTUS case affirming an individual right to own a gun regardless of one's militia "status." Parker had several plaintiffs, all except Heller were found to NOT have standing and "their" cases were thrown out and Heller emerged as the only one with standing. One of the original plaintiffs was Tom Palmer, a gay man that alleges that he used a 9mm handgun to defend himself against a "gay bashing" incident. He states that he produced his gun (that was, incidentally, carried illegally...) when a group of men who had been verbally harassing him threatened physical harm. He did not have to fire a shot as the men dispersed, rather quickly, once he drew his handgun.

The point is that any person, regardless of race, color, creed, political affiliation, or sexual orientation, should be allowed to determine what, if any self-defense tool he wishes to use irrespective of the statistical possibility that they "might" have a psychiatric condition. And that distancing ourselves from potential allies because of that potential could be counter productive. After all, soldiers (airmen, sailors, and marines) returning from deployment have a much higher rate of suicide and PTSD. Are we trying to distance ourselves from them or are we trying to get them the help they need while preserving their god given rights and liberties as we try to do the same for ourselves?

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment.  The difficulty comes from seeing the same factors leading to violence.  Drugs, Islamic Terrorism, repeat offenders in the courts, domestic abuses which have been slowly escalating in severity, people on psychotropic drugs.  The others want to point to one comonality, guns, while ignoring the true causes.  They are okay with stripping away that right, then scream bloody murder (figure of speech) that any other "stereotyping" is against civil rights.

There has to be a way to flag high risk people for extra screening without making it a discrimination claim.   Would it be reasonable to subject all applicants to the same additional scrutiny requirements?  Maybe?

Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about it.  The same applies to mental illness.