Or ppl who are falsely diagnosed to fit an agenda, or folks who are just going through a rough patch and just need a little help and counseling. All of the sudden they are a danger for no real reason. Very slippery slope.

Agreed 100%

That's absolutely correct. All vets know that we better not answer those questions truthfully.

Agree 100% The mental health 'experts' who are the deciders are more often than not the same ones who want to outlaw guns. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS SLOPE!!

ignorance at 100%.

How many times do we hear the left yelling that Trump has a mental disorder and so must his followers?

This....The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with muskets, 100 round drums, or bump stocks. It is simply there for every citizen of this country to defend their right to liberty from tyranny...by any damn means necessary. If the government or the sheriff's department can roll up to my house in a tank, then I should be able to meet them in the yard with a Bradley M2 of my own.

Muskets were the weapons of war when it was written. So yes it allows so called weapons of war!

I can tell you where all of this is eventually going to head. It may be years and years away, but it’s coming. Instead of burden of proof as to mental condition being on an external entity proving one is unfit to own a firearm, it’s going to FLIP and the burden of proof is going to end up in the lap of the prospective gun owner for them to prove they are in fact mentally fit to own one. And the jury/associated criteria will be whatever is in vogue at the time.

I think Trump Derangement Syndrom should preclude and liberals from owning guns..or their bodyguards from carrying guns.

so you're ok with "common sense" gun control? What other constitutional rights are you in favor of giving up?

Not ignorance so much as logic.

Take that premise that the second was created so that a citizenry can stand up to a tyrannical government to it's logical conclusion for a moment. I won't argue that it was the reason for the second,which I believe it was.

With today's armament however,does anyone think citizens would be suddenly weakened in their attempt to resist if 100 round mags were banned? If we take that thought of resistance to tyranny as a basis ,then citizens definitely need more powerful weapons like tanks and fighter jets,at the least we need gas and explosive hand grenades.

Now does anyone here want one of these mass shooter nuts to get his hands on that kind of weaponry? I wouldn't think so.

Is then the reason not to ban certain things about resisting or not resisting tyranny, or more about the fear of someday not being able to resist tyranny?

The government would just shoot you from a drone, or drop a bomb on your house. No way a citizen can defend themselves from the government, unless the military is in the civilians side

Just common sense. I spent 22 years in the army and can see no reason for 100 round drum In society.

Ignorance is curable. This is pure stupidly.

Then you of all people should understand that there is little tactical difference in a 100rd drum mag and 3 or 4 standard 30rd mags. With even the tiniest bit of practice, you can swap mags in less than 2 seconds. Magazine capacity debates are asinine.

Ask the British how that thought process worked out for them.

Not a citizen, but a majority of the citizenry armed and the government would stand no chance.

Nope and neither did the government at the time either. Think long and hard about that. If they ban a 100 round mag, the 30 will go right behind it, then the 10's and then the semi-automatic weapon itself. I agree with Gomer, I'd much rather have 4 30's than a single hundred. Try clearing it and getting it back running if that 100 develops feed problems. With the 30s you just toss it and slam a fresh one in.

You can't fix stupid, Gomer. And you can't convert a Lilly livered liberal coward.

so what magazine capacity is common sense?