elohiym
Well-known member
You're being obtuse and obnoxious.
Gun control with brains
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
You're being obtuse and obnoxious.
Look who's talking.
You're equating claw hammers with guns. That's asinine and idiotic on its face. So, seriously. Do yourself a favor and figure out a better comparison.
Unless you think we equip Marines with hammers.
jzeidler
New member
Gun control with brains
Honestly it sounds like they have the background check down good. the only thing I would ponder adding to that would be the psych evaluation. This would be basically the same evaluation that you receive at a job. That's it. I would add this because psychos do not have a moral compass this this evaluation would help to see if they are unstable.
Also, I want to make it very clear that I do not want the federal government involved in this at all. I want this to be state and local run.
Honestly it sounds like they have the background check down good. the only thing I would ponder adding to that would be the psych evaluation. This would be basically the same evaluation that you receive at a job. That's it. I would add this because psychos do not have a moral compass this this evaluation would help to see if they are unstable.
Also, I want to make it very clear that I do not want the federal government involved in this at all. I want this to be state and local run.
When you say "background check" I assumed you were talking about speaking with previous employers, friends and family. The background check that is currently done is checking to see if you're a felon.
I believe there might already be stipulations involving mental health when it comes to purchasing a gun (I know that they ask if you were ever in a mental health facility when getting a concealed weapons permit).
Do you see the abuse that it could cause though? Who is to decide who is mentally unstable and to what degree?
Again, it goes back to rights and when they can be taken from you (there is no due process in a mental evaluation).
jzeidler
New member
That's the exact background check I would propose.
And I agree with your point 100%
And as for defining mental health I think it cannot just be the left who has a say on it but a wide and diverse group so that our rights could never be infringed on.
"Don't tread on me!" Am I right
So your right to keep and bear arms should depend on what other people say about you or did I read you wrong and you're fine with a felony conviction background check?
Remember the due process clause: rights can't be taken from you without first being convicted of a crime.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law
jzeidler
New member
You read it wrong. I like just the felon check.
And I agree with you. Due process is a must.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I am going to surprise people buy disagreeing with OP by saying that background checks in the current environment are pretty much a waste of time.
If there are 300,000,000 guns in circulation and they are freely available to buy by virtually any adult, anyone who wants a gun will be able to get a gun via the black market whatever background checks are done.
Successful gun controls works on the idea of reduced supply, unless you deal with the supply of weapons. Unless you gun control solution addresses supply most of the anti gun control arguments stand up quite well.
If there are 300,000,000 guns in circulation and they are freely available to buy by virtually any adult, anyone who wants a gun will be able to get a gun via the black market whatever background checks are done.
Successful gun controls works on the idea of reduced supply, unless you deal with the supply of weapons. Unless you gun control solution addresses supply most of the anti gun control arguments stand up quite well.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
jziedler …
I greatly appreciate that you're at least giving the issue the serious consideration that it deserves. Many, here, aren't bothering to do that. They're just mindlessly spouting off their political party propaganda without even questioning it. Thank you for not doing that.
It will be obvious to anyone with any sense at all that some sort of regulation is needed, and that what we are doing now is not working. So the question becomes what kind of regulation, and who will be responsible for this regulatory oversight? And I think you hit on the crucial factor in that the goal here is not to stop people from owning firearms, but to stop people who are likely to misuse firearms from getting access to them. Firearms are deadly, but that doesn't make them 'bad' or 'evil' in and of themselves. They are just tools that can be used well, or badly. So whatever system of oversight and regulation we set up, it needs to focus on identifying the people who are most likely to misuse firearms, and then stop those people from gaining access to them, while helping everyone else who wants to own and use firearms do so, responsibly.
This being the case, there are a couple of things we can know about what we need to do:
1. The system has to be nation-wide. The problem is nation-wide, and so the solution will need to address it that way. No 'states rights' arguments or special exceptions can be allowed. And all the information regarding eligibility/ineligibility and licensing has to be available and enforceable in all states via a national data base.
2. Firearm function and design varies widely depending on the intended purpose of the weapon. So that the criteria for determining ownership eligibility should also be varied, and also depend on the intended firearms owned and used by the applicant. A hunter that only wants to own long guns for hunting would not need to be screened, trained, and tested to the same degree of complexity and scrutiny as someone who wants to own semi-automatic handguns for self-protection in the home or at work. And we would want to insure even further expertise if they intend to cary such weapons among the general public.
3. The scrutiny needs to be ongoing. Just because someone takes the requisite training and passes the requisite tests to gain a license to own and carry firearms in public today, doesn't mean they will still be equally qualified and responsible carrying firearms in public five years from now. Especially if in the interim the licensee has shown himself to be socially irresponsible in other ways (received a DUI, been involved in domestic disputes or disturbances, etc.). Or perhaps there has been some physical deterioration, as we are all getting older. The point is that if the right to own and use firearms is to be genuinely overseen and properly regulated, it will have to be both proactive and ongoing.
4. And as an addendum to point #3, the right to own and use firearms must be predicated on the subject's overall mindfulness of their social responsibility. The biggest factors in predicting who will be likely to abuse a firearm is a person's general disregard for themselves, for others, and for the peace and order of society as a whole. People who abuse intoxicants, both legally and illegally, are showing themselves to be unmindful of their own health and safety, and of the health and safety of others. People who drive recklessly; drive too fast, fly into a rage behind the wheel, and disregard traffic signs and signals also show themselves to disregard their own safety and well-being, as well as that of everyone else on the road. People who can't manage to get along with other people; those who are intensely self-righteous, controlling, intolerant, and adversarial, also tend to be those who have little regard for the rights or well-being of others.
These are the kinds of people who when pushed to extremes by drugs or alcohol, or by relationship problems, or by economic instability, tend to use firearms to kill themselves, their family members, or friends, or coworkers, or strangers. And so these are the kinds of people we need to be on the lookout for when determining who can be reasonably expected to own and use firearms responsibly, and who cannot.
I greatly appreciate that you're at least giving the issue the serious consideration that it deserves. Many, here, aren't bothering to do that. They're just mindlessly spouting off their political party propaganda without even questioning it. Thank you for not doing that.
It will be obvious to anyone with any sense at all that some sort of regulation is needed, and that what we are doing now is not working. So the question becomes what kind of regulation, and who will be responsible for this regulatory oversight? And I think you hit on the crucial factor in that the goal here is not to stop people from owning firearms, but to stop people who are likely to misuse firearms from getting access to them. Firearms are deadly, but that doesn't make them 'bad' or 'evil' in and of themselves. They are just tools that can be used well, or badly. So whatever system of oversight and regulation we set up, it needs to focus on identifying the people who are most likely to misuse firearms, and then stop those people from gaining access to them, while helping everyone else who wants to own and use firearms do so, responsibly.
This being the case, there are a couple of things we can know about what we need to do:
1. The system has to be nation-wide. The problem is nation-wide, and so the solution will need to address it that way. No 'states rights' arguments or special exceptions can be allowed. And all the information regarding eligibility/ineligibility and licensing has to be available and enforceable in all states via a national data base.
2. Firearm function and design varies widely depending on the intended purpose of the weapon. So that the criteria for determining ownership eligibility should also be varied, and also depend on the intended firearms owned and used by the applicant. A hunter that only wants to own long guns for hunting would not need to be screened, trained, and tested to the same degree of complexity and scrutiny as someone who wants to own semi-automatic handguns for self-protection in the home or at work. And we would want to insure even further expertise if they intend to cary such weapons among the general public.
3. The scrutiny needs to be ongoing. Just because someone takes the requisite training and passes the requisite tests to gain a license to own and carry firearms in public today, doesn't mean they will still be equally qualified and responsible carrying firearms in public five years from now. Especially if in the interim the licensee has shown himself to be socially irresponsible in other ways (received a DUI, been involved in domestic disputes or disturbances, etc.). Or perhaps there has been some physical deterioration, as we are all getting older. The point is that if the right to own and use firearms is to be genuinely overseen and properly regulated, it will have to be both proactive and ongoing.
4. And as an addendum to point #3, the right to own and use firearms must be predicated on the subject's overall mindfulness of their social responsibility. The biggest factors in predicting who will be likely to abuse a firearm is a person's general disregard for themselves, for others, and for the peace and order of society as a whole. People who abuse intoxicants, both legally and illegally, are showing themselves to be unmindful of their own health and safety, and of the health and safety of others. People who drive recklessly; drive too fast, fly into a rage behind the wheel, and disregard traffic signs and signals also show themselves to disregard their own safety and well-being, as well as that of everyone else on the road. People who can't manage to get along with other people; those who are intensely self-righteous, controlling, intolerant, and adversarial, also tend to be those who have little regard for the rights or well-being of others.
These are the kinds of people who when pushed to extremes by drugs or alcohol, or by relationship problems, or by economic instability, tend to use firearms to kill themselves, their family members, or friends, or coworkers, or strangers. And so these are the kinds of people we need to be on the lookout for when determining who can be reasonably expected to own and use firearms responsibly, and who cannot.
Unless you think the Founding Fathers were prophets, then the documents they gave you do not come from God.
Quetzal
New member
It will never happen. Look how loudly they cry, scream, and kick their feet when we suggest less-intrusive ideas. I can only imagine the temper tantrum they would throw if we suggested to reduce supply.
As is it stands the temper tantrums are coming from the left.
Unless human nature can be changed a way do commit murder will be found.
Try and take our rights away and you'll see a temper tantrum (if you want to call an armed revolution a temper tantrum).
"The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!"
George Washington
Quetzal
New member
It is a circular argument, isn't it?
Firearm Tragedy Occurs
v
Left suggests legislation to regulate firearm purchases
v
Right buys "don't tread on me" bumper stickers and would rather do nothing than try anything.
v
Arguments take place for about 2-3 weeks
v
Everyone stops caring and forgets
Rinse and Repeat
A plethora of legislation is already in place. I believe in legislation and regulation of firearms.
In the meantime people are being murdered by various means as has always been the case.
Quetzal
New member
Correct, but it is in the hands of the state. I do believe we could benefit from a federal mandate. Will bad things still happen, sure. But it might stop one or two. Who knows? I mean, in my mind, it is worth a shot. Seat belts don't always save your life but I buckle up anyway.
PureX
Well-known member
Because the country is already flooded with guns, the solution will have to be licensing people to own them, and then imposing strong punishments on people caught with them, without a license. Starting with confiscation. So the immediate effect will be that people who own guns illegally will want to keep them hidden away, or risk both losing them and paying a high price in fines or incarceration, besides.
And in time, the number of illegal guns will decrease as the number of licensed, legal guns increases.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
In the case of the 2nd Amendment: To make things perfectly clear that American citizens have a God-given right to keep and bear arms.
PureX
Well-known member
The current laws are a toothless mess. One state has no access to information from other states. One state's laws restrict sales while the state next door does not. Gun shows are exempt from most regulation. And background checks are useless if the information isn't there, or doesn't preclude sales.
And this is why current "regulation" isn't working, at all, except for the gun manufacturers, who use it as an excuse to argue against any and every new regulation.
We need to wipe the slate clean and start over, with a national system of firearms regulation that honestly and effectively addresses our nation-wide problem with guns. But this will NEVER happen so long as gun manufacturers can bribe both state and federal legislators to do or not do whatever they want. Because the gun manufacturers don't care how many of our children are murdered in their schools, and churches, and homes, and streets. All they care about is selling more guns.