Everybody should not have the option of getting a gun

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


OP, at some point in everyone's life, they would fall under one or all of your criteria.

Even me.

So basically, you'd be eliminating firearms completely.

Or was that your point from the begining?
edit on 5-4-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 

I guess I should have said attempted to have been invaded. And the main reason that a british mainland invasion has never been successful past few centuries is because there were many Americans with guns willing to help defend it.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: misspelling



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.

Do you have any idea just how many kids are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD? These pills are being prescribed like candy by most doctors. And by your logic, once this person is an adult, having been forced on medication his entire life by his ignorant parents, he should never be able to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself? I don't see how this is practical in the least, but I do see it as unconstitutional.


2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense

Now which drugs are we talking about? The ones that the doctors are prescribing like candy to anyone that feels sad, or those being grown by our military in Afghanistan? If a person ever drinks a single beer in their life should they not be able to ever protect themselves?


3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.

Again, which criminals are we talking about here? Those that dared to light a plant on fire or those that the "justice system" let walk out of the prison because they thought they were safe to be in society?


4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties. The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties (especially when they are not very intelligent, which often (not always) uneducated people tend to be) , which could lead desperate people to criminal world. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally). Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?

So only the rich and those that are determined "smart" by the Government should ever be able to protect themselves? Those that had to drop out of school to provide for their family are lumped into the "idiot" group because of your idea of what a person must do to be considered intelligent? I'm confused.


Recheck every couple of years is needed.

And what happens if the person decides not to bow down and beg Government for permission to protect themselves? Will they be thrown in a cage? I'm sure this is something Thomas Jefferson would be in favor of.


I personally do not believe these are even "strict" rules.

They're not "strict", simply unconstitutional.


After mental, criminal, educational and addiction records are evaluated any person can get a firearm. Criminals and people with mental issues/addictions should never have an option of obtaining a fire-arm legally..

Or you could, you know, simply buy a firearm yourself instead of living in constant fear of an inanimate object while pushing draconian laws on the rest of us that aren't... so paranoid.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Bioshock because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
People in this discussion (including the OP) seem to be blissfully unaware that most of the proposed "reasonable" gun possession laws that the OP proposes have already been in place at the federal level since LBJ's 1968 "Gun Control Act". Look it up on Wikipedia. The Act states, in part:

"... It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence...."

The only proposal of the OP which has not been put into effect is the one concerning financial means and IQ testing. Those proposals would almost certainly be found unconstitutional because they would fail the "equal protection" requirement. You can't pass a law that directly benefits only rich, smart people. (If you want to have laws that benefit only rich, smart people, you have to do it indirectly--like through capital gains tax breaks).

Anti-gun people are often heard to complain that "the U.S. needs reasonable gun laws".

We do have "reasonable' gun laws and have for quite some time.

We have a pattern of passing ever stricter firearm laws in knee-jerk response to horrifying public displays of firearm violence, totally forgetting that we passed laws 20, 40, 60, or 80 years ago that were supposed to fix the problem.

The first National Firearms Act in 1934 outlawed fully automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns of the types favored by Machine Gun Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. That was a response to gangsters.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 and related actions was a response to the perceived breakdown in society that was manifesting itself in the assassinations of the Kennedys, MLK, race riots, draft resistance, etc. That period saw the regulation of "destructive" weapons ( greater that .50 caliber, explosives, etc.)

If "reasonable" gun laws would make gun violence disappear, it would already have disappeared. We are at the point where only "unreasonable" laws are left to be tried. By "unreasonable" I mean laws that result in outright confiscation and are therefore unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nuclearphysicist
 


The laws that you have shown and the ones the OP suggest are both different though. Yes, the law says that you can't sell to drug addicts, but how can a gun dealer know for sure? You can ask someone, "Hey, are you on drugs?" People aren't going to say "Yeah, I love to do crack, smack and sometimes coke." He is talking about drug tests before a firearms purchase which is total bull.

Same goes with mentally impaired people. Of course you aren't going to sell someone a gun in an insane asylum. So how would you really know if they have psychosis and are taking meds for it? And since a good bit of the population is on antidepressants, antianxiety, SSRI's, etc. The OP is in favor of not allowing anyone on any kind of crazy pills to purchase a firearm. Personally I think these drugs are dangerous and overprescribed, but some people with chemical brain imbalances they really do help.

I own two rifles and a shotgun. The shotgun was passed down to me from my grandad and is an antique, even though I do take it squirrel hunting sometimes. Both rifles I bought at gun shows and there was no kind of screening or checks of any kind. Granted this was several years ago, maybe it has changed some since then. I have bought and sold pistols and rifles in the past from friends and relatives. There is no kind of background checks when purchasing firearms this way, you just need some cash. I don't think stricter gun laws are going to help solve the problems of violence in society today. And if these laws have been implemented and this is the first that me and several other poster in this thread have ever heard of it, that should tell you just how effective they really are.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
I am not saying guns should be banned or something like that, simply I believe there should be some rules that have to be met before getting a gun permission:


we already have a "gun permission", it's called the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.


unnecessarily strict....ADD is not an anger management issue....your ignorance is showing.

the only times mental illness should be considered, in regards to firearm ownership is if the person in question has been involuntarily committed to an institution, and even then, the circumstances, and reasons would need to be fully evaluated, before judgement is rendered.

the other is if the person in question is taking psychiatric drugs. they are known to have side effects that can lead to tragic events. despite this though, in the event a person is on psychiatric drugs, as long as they are under the care of a doctor, and are being observed for signs of instability, their right to keep and bare should not be infringed.



2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense


so cigarette smokers, and java junkies should be barred from owning guns? nicotine and caffeine are drugs....sure, the idea sounds crazy now, but if a law like that was passed, that very argument could be used against we the people...i'm SURE you're talking about street rats, hooked on meth, and whatnot....i'm pretty sure they're not packing, seeing as how they'd sell their own mother for a hit.. and i highly doubt they'd pass a background check anyway...



3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.


again, too much...so if you have parking tickets, speeding tickets, maybe a vandalism charge for keying someone's car....this should be enough to deprive you of your right to own a gun?

again, it might sound crazy now, but think about the future....



4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties. The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties (especially when they are not very intelligent, which often (not always) uneducated people tend to be) , which could lead desperate people to criminal world. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally). Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?


and this is just as idiotic as them running credit checks on you when you apply for a job....i have no credit history, because i deliberately avoided credit cards, loans, etc....i don't exist as far as the credit score people are concerned...i'm sure this is one of the reasons i have trouble finding work now.....it's certainly not for lack of education, or experience..

your credit score is none of a perspective employer's business, it's none of your current employer's business, and it's none of the federal government's business, and should have goddamn NOTHING to do with someone's right to own a gun...EVER.



Recheck every couple of years is needed.


um....no...



I personally do not believe these are even "strict" rules. Rather soft to be true. After mental, criminal, educational and addiction records are evaluated any person can get a firearm. Criminals and people with mental issues/addictions should never have an option of obtaining a fire-arm legally...


these measures are authoritarian, not well thought out, and completely unconstitutional. there are a VERY limited, and EXTREMELY specific set of circumstances, under which it could be considered reasonable, and even sensible to deprive a citizen of their second amendment right to keep and bear....your list goes way outside that list, and so do current measures in place, and so do the proposed new measures...
edit on 5-4-2013 by Daedalus because: winning



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin

I do not know US system that well.


which means you are not a citizen of these united states...so why would you even bother wasting your time starting a thread about a system you have no stake in, no exposure to, and no experience with?

why is it that people from other countries always feel it necessary to try and tell us in the U.S. what rights we should and shouldn't have..... it's different here, get over it.



Originally posted by Cabin
To be honest most countries do not get it, as constitution and rights are not taken that seriously in most countries. To be honest, I have never even read the constitution here and do not know what rights I have . I simply take things logically, basically all of my rights and no-rights are simply a matter of common (moral) sense. If I might be dangerous for the society, then I would not fight for my right to own a gun, even if the constitution said otherwise...


you can't be mad over losing rights you never knew you had in the first place.... you are a fool.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Daedalus because: moar winning



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Cabin

I do not know US system that well.


which means you are not a citizen of these united states...so why would you even bother wasting your time starting a thread about a system you have no stake in, no exposure to, and no experience with?

why is it that people from other countries always feel it necessary to try and tell us in the U.S. what rights we should and shouldn't have..... it's different here, get over it.



Originally posted by Cabin
To be honest most countries do not get it, as constitution and rights are not taken that seriously in most countries. To be honest, I have never even read the constitution here and do not know what rights I have . I simply take things logically, basically all of my rights and no-rights are simply a matter of common (moral) sense. If I might be dangerous for the society, then I would not fight for my right to own a gun, even if the constitution said otherwise...


you can't be mad over losing rights you never knew you had in the first place.... you are a fool.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Daedalus because: moar winning


I have every right I need.Overally speaking US people have less rights than we have, so...

About the gun thing: I just stated my opinion.

The nation where I am originally from is a peaceful small nation, that is why nearly nobody has guns. Even when getting out under Soviet Union, this was the only country where nobody died. How we got out: hundreds of thousands of people came together and sang national songs. In many other countries people would have taken guns and started war. We were smart enough to not get any of us killed, we chose the peaceful way and it worked. Not even a drop of blood was spilt and I am proud of it.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Having read the Op's statement the following can be stated:

1) People with mental problems should never bel allowed to get a gun. The problem with that statement is, and shall be, under what criteria would be used to determine if a person has a mental problem? How does one tell, if a person appears to be normal you really can not tell if a person is or is not playing with a full deck. Even most professionals take several sessions just to get a base line on what is and is not normal for a person. We are all different in that aspect. And do you trust the government to come up with the criteria? I don't as they can not make up their mind as to what is and is not healthy, ultimately, going to be effective in the long run. They change their minds, yesterdays good thing is todays bad thing. I don't trust the government to make that determination, they tend to cherry pick the data, or fully ruin the entire experiment.

2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun. Really, and who exactly does that entail and how can you tell? After all anyone that over the age of 30 who has had some form of physical problem, chances are they are on some kind of drug, and this more true the closer you get to being the age of the baby boomers. To make matters worse, some over the counter medicines can have the exact same effect as an illegal narcotic, and in some cases, such as diabetes, a lack of medicines can give the appereance of a person being on something. So that would not be able to be feasible, unless you are stating that a person should be drug tested, it will not make a difference.

3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun. Seems like the last few major shootings, that I can recall, the people who held the weapon, pulled the triggure, did not have a criminal record. In fact most laws, in state and federal guidelines all state that a felon is not allowed to own a firearm, and even when they pass the 7 to 14 year mark, have to apply to get the right to vote and to own a firearm.

4) Rich people can not be criminal in what they do? I be Bernie Maddoff would love that argument. How does financial background play into this? Does a person being poor or in financial difficulty automatically mean that they are going to be predesposed to comitting a crime? Is this something where they wake up automatically and say today I am going to commit a crime all cause I am poor and the other guy is richer than me? Do we not offer opportunities in this country to those less fortunate, do we not seek to have a level playing field, that now that you would put a class disctintion on a group who is not so fortunate or who is careless with money that they are forbidden from owning a firearm all due to a lack of common sense? If that be the case the argument could be made of a prejudicial nature in that aspect. And the statement sounds way too much like the Calvinist point of view.

The other aspect of this, is who is going to pay for all of this. Is it fair to ask the tax paying citizen to pay for these kinds of programs, or do you pass it along to the person trying to aquire a firearm? Course it would mean that they would become financially unstable in the course of trying to meet all of the requirements, after all Dr. visits are not cheap, nor is drug testing, combined with that of the cost of the firearm and ammunition, could be cheaper to just take the time and make our own firearms and amunition.

The problem with all of this talk about restricting firearms, is that it dances around the central issue of controlling human behavior and trying to legislate it. How is that war on drugs working out? Seems like the government for all of its laws, and penalties is not making a dent. And ultimately a criminal is going to go through and committ a crime, no matter what you say, and come up with the reason for doing such. The problem is more of a societial one, rather than that of the government trying to dictate what is and is not acceptable in the way of behavior. Perhaps if they were to start at say the neighborhood level, getting parents and the neighborhood involved in cleaning up the community, incidents such as shootings will become less and less. Not taking away rights or taking up a problem cause it is the flavor of the day, the new smoking issue. Cause once guns are restricted what is next, knives, rocks, bats or any number of common everyday items that could be used in the comission of a crime or used to kill someone?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I own weapons and have since I was about 14 years old. I do not like the NRA and there current stance on gun ownership. Nor do I believe that we need to post armed guards in our schools. If we go that route, where does it stop? Do we post armed guards in our grocery stores, shopping malls, local play grounds, etc, etc, etc?

I believe we can all agree that there are those among us that should never be allowed to own a weapon. Some people are simply born without a self-regulating gene, aka psychopaths (sp?).

This is where it gets sticky. Who gets to decide who should not be allowed access to weapons? The only logical answer is background checks. And NO, stealing a pair of sox from Wal-Mart is not the type of offense that should or would preclude someone from buying a weapon. But if you have proven to society through your previous actions that you are a danger to yourself or others, why would I want you wandering the streets with a Concealed Carry Permit?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Im from the UK and am strongly anti monarchy. What your saying is, I'd be viewed with the equivalent disdain as the gun grabbing liberal in America for not supporting the monarchy?


When did I ever support abolishing the monarchy? If you read the thread, you would know I am advocating revoking the Royal Prerogative only. If you live in the UK, and don't know what this is, I recommend you read up on it before you respond.

I don't want to thread-jack here, that's why I referred to my other thread for those that want to take this discussion elsewhere.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


never said you didn't have the right to say your piece, i asked why you would waste your time talking about a subject, you don't have much knowledge on....

if you have no idea how the laws here work, why would you talk about them?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nuclearphysicist
 


Great post great info. Maybe Obama should look to this considering some of the points hes been talking about.....gun laws already on the books.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
either you are a citizen of the united states who upholds and defends the constitution or you are a second class slave to the rest of us. everyone has the right to firearms inherent to being an american - those that are deemed unfit to exists as citizens should be punished and reeducated until there are again ready to be part of the population - true mental ilness being the only exception.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Well to start off, in looking at your idea one has to wonder if you believe firearm ownership is a right granted under the Constitution. In defining the word "right", one must understand that a "right" is granted to you by your creator, and thus can not be taken away or regulated. So I actually take issue with the very first sentence in your post.

Originally posted by Cabin
I am not saying guns should be banned or something like that, simply I believe there should be some rules that have to be met before getting a gun permission:


If owning a firearm is a "right", then you do not need permission. If something is your "right" you already have permission, from the creator.


1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.


The intent of the Second Amendment was all about defending yourself from a tyrannical Government. So you are suggesting people trust the Government and having that same Government grant permission? This point reminds me of the Fox guarding the Hen house, and instead of checking on the Hens yourself- you ask the Fox for permission.


2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense


Would this include prescription drugs? What about people who did drugs an a teenager, and then stopped? What exactly defines an "addict"? What about legal drugs such as Sugar? Caffeine? Nicotine? A habitual smoker for all intents and purposes has a problem with addiction. Also, who would decide the criteria?


3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.


The US has the highest prison population in the world. That number does not take into account any arrest. Fact is, if you have been arrested- you have a "criminal record". Even if you were found not guilty or the case was dismissed, you have a "criminal record" that will list what you were arrested for. It will remain on your "record" until you have that record expunged. However, having your record expunged simply means "sealed"- but it is still accessible by Law Enforcement and Government Officials. We live in a Country where people have been arrested for the crime of feeding the homeless. Using chalk on a sidewalk. Dancing in public. Using a broad term such a "criminal record" is not common sense at all.


4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties.

Not true. Prove your claim please.


The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties..

Can you prove this? Ted Bundy was educated. The Virgina tech Shooter was educated. The Colorado Movie Shooter was educated.


At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally).


So successful people who only have a GED and no history of crime should also be excluded from ever owning a firearm because they may fall on hard times?



Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?


Oh I get it now. Pre Crime? You want a crystal ball that can look into the future and tell you who will commit a crime and who wont?

Let me fill you in on something. I do not have a higher education. I do have a criminal record. I have done drugs. I have recently and am still going through some hard times, I would describe my financial situation right now as "treading water- barely", and I own a firearm. The only thing I have considered picking up, is not my firearm, but a second job. Which I start next month. So I will go from working 40 hours per week, to 70 hours per week. I have been struggling for a few years and in August of 2012 I hit the bottom. I was broke, unemployed, and had nothing left. Not a dime to my name. Not once did I consider picking up my gun and committing a crime, but you would take my gun from me due to your unreasonable fear?
edit on 5-4-2013 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
double post. Sorry
edit on 5-4-2013 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
That is why they have something called Background Checks....



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Well to start off, in looking at your idea one has to wonder if you believe firearm ownership is a right granted under the Constitution. In defining the word "right", one must understand that a "right" is granted to you by your creator, and thus can not be taken away or regulated.


Technically, you are right. And I wish that is how the system operated. The problem is though, that is not how the government and those in authority operate. They can legislate and "suspend" your rights at will. Looked at in that context, every single peice of gun legislation is unconstitutional. All of them.

What we actually have here in america is a list of temporary privileges that can be taken away by those in authority. They are not rights if they can be taken away.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
What Part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do you not understand?!

Just because I'm suffering from depression I should have my guns taken? the only person I MAY take it out on is my self even then I would not use a gun but a NOOSE.

No I'm not suicidal I'm just saying there are always methods people intent on killing oneself or others to carry out that desire, be it knifes, gas, bombs or guns.

The 'Ban guns for people with mental illness' is a slippery slope, our rights will degrade from there, there is too much that can define a mental illness.

I wouldn't harm a fly unless it was in self defense.

Don't thread on me...



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
How we got out: hundreds of thousands of people came together and sang national songs.


So if someone breaks in my house I should sing him a song? Why didn't I ever think of that?!

America, we don't need to learn how to protect ourselves! The answer is so simple! Just sing songs!





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join