> He loved guns. Of course he's not going to have documentation of mental illness. Those two rarely if ever go hand in hand.

> Like I'm friends with a few arms dealers. Ones got a lot of integrity in what he does but is also suffering from depression and anxiety. Can't talk to a doctor to get meds and he can't smoke weed or even CBD products or he'll lose his license. Like it's frustrating because he's able to talk to friends and get some minor support from us but he should be able to get actual professional help without having to lose his entire business.

Another example of gun regulations actually causing the reverse of their purported intent. A lot of American combat vets are in the same boat. If they talk about their ptsd and depression, they lose their gun rights; so they don't talk about it

Learn how to shoot back. All the active shooter training you'll ever need

> How would one prevent continued harassment in your system?

Probably depends on the form the harassment takes. In this case, you can report bullying to whatever social media platform you're using. Minors in particular have extra protections.

People don't have a right not to be bullied, but they do have the right to choose their associations and to choose the situations in which they place themselves.

For instance if you are a member of a gym and are getting bullied at the gym, you can complain to the owner. The gym owner can remove the bully. If the gym owner refuses to do anything, you can take your business elsewhere.

> All legal experts agree that the protection of free speech in the Constitution cannot be absolute, because that would allow people to give false testimony in court.

Government cannot compel people to testify in court.

>There have been many legal cases where free speech stood at the core of the argument, and there is plenty of jurisprudence that makes it clear that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Verbal bullying isn't included in any of that.

>In general, the right to free speech means that citizens can publish their opinion without interference of the government, but not that citizens can bully, threaten, and/or deceive, other citizens with impunity.

Threatening may be illegal, perhaps, but bullying and deception are perfectly lawful.

Keep in mind, just because some men with guns grabbed this woman off the street does not mean that the state is behaving lawfully. There's a difference between unlawful and illegal.

>If you say specific negative things about him that are factually not true, that is slander (libel when written). You might get sued in civil court.

This isn't a civil case. The state arrested this woman for saying mean things. And just because we've gotten to the point where the state can legally destroy people financially for the things they say doesn't make it lawful (or should be anything that any rational person supports).

>If you threaten his life because you don't like him, the FBI will come knocking. because that's something for a criminal court.

All that says is government is capable of using violence in order to inflict its will on the people, yet does nothing to speak to the lawfulness of its actions. No one denies the fact that this woman was arrested for she things she said, but what is in contention is whether the state had the lawful authority to do so

>She was charged with stalking, which likely means she made threats of harming someone.

The fact that the article is unspecific about the charges makes it seem like they want us to believe that the verbal bullying of children is a chargeable offense

> Would you care to explain why you think this?

Obviously on 1st amendment grounds. People have the right to say cruel and hurtful things, even to children. Why do you think the state should intercede in such matters?

Seems hard to imagine that charging someone with bullying would be constitutional

> All social media should be banned on these devices. > > Use it on your personal crap not your government issued crap!

But let's create multiple government agencies to police these bans

Looks like a martini shaker

> That's a false equivalency, less guns certainly equal less people shot. Let's use Australia as a case study.

Australia is a poor case study for a several reasons. Homicide rates in Australia have always been pretty low compared to the US. Gun regulation have done nothing to change overall homicide rates.

Additionally, Australian gun buy-back and confiscation schemes received a 20% compliance rate - meaning that 80% of Australian gun owners have refused to comply. With so little cooperation, it's relatively impossible to tell whether confiscation has accomplished any positive benefits.

Another important problem with your thesis is that Australia and the US represent two entirely cultures - with entirely different histories and traditions. Comparing these two cultures is absurd on its face; it's the socio-engineering equivalent of attempting to jam a square peg into a round hole

> Some people think the answer is more guns, we are fucked.

Other people think the answer is taking guns from peaceful people, we are doubly fucked

> Can we have gun control yet?

Start with the bangers who have no qualms about shooting at women and children. Just go door to door and tell them you're there to collect the guns

> I'm not the one making the distinction. You did. You said this was gang violence and so we shouldn't care whether or not a few criminals died.

Nope. I said that criminals shooting people with illegal / stolen firearms has nothing to do with the 2A or individuals exercising their rights, as you originally suggested.

>Should a person who stole a pack of gum deserve death? Or should a woman who decided not to wear a hijab in Iran anymore deserve death? What crime removes my right to have my day in court?

Not sure how this has anything to do with the previous conversation, but it's interesting that you mention Iran within the context of you questioning the right of individuals to bear arms. If the Iranian citizenry were armed, the Iranian government wouldn't be getting away with a fraction of the crap it's pulling right now

> I’d there a reason we’re making the distinction?

As the one making such a distinction, you should direct that question towards yourself. Peacefully exercising one's rights isn't a form of gun violence, as you originally suggested.

>Or does their skin color matter to you that much?

Skin color must matter a lot to you, as you felt the need to mention it

>I guess we’re going to ignore all the other non gang related gun deaths?

You don't have to ignore them, per se, but maybe it would be helpful if you stop suggesting that the violence committed by gangbangers in possession of illegally-obtained firearms is somehow related to the lawful exercise of rights enshrined in the constitution.

> Why would the gerrymandered Republican Pennsylvania legislature do that?

Demanding that peasants get permission from the state before they can legally carry firearms is a bipartisan phenomenon

> I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.

Just a countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to. Call it even then ...?

Apparently the Founding Fathers were silent on the question of gang funerals

> Where were all the good guys with guns?

The state of Pennsylvania disarmed them and said police were sufficient to protect people

> A subway doesn't drag anyone.

NYC: "The subway did it"

>Half the issue is the ease and proliferation of guns in the USA. The laws need to change, gun ownership is too easy

If you think about it, the refusal of police to act in defense of others is the best argument for individuals arming themselves. As US courts - including the SCOTUS - have ruled time and again, the police have no legal obligation to protect person or property (not that that has ever really been possible to begin with)