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
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
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.
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
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