Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

I thought it would be better to move the gun debate out of the other thread and leave that one for the well wishes.

As far as the current laws governing firearms are concerned, I don't think there needs to be a ban or that any of the current laws need to be drastically revised. I do believe that there are some areas that need to be addressed between the states and the feds though.

One of those areas deal with mental health issues and the records we are allowed access to. My post in the other thread detailed the problems we are facing in that area. When the shooting happened, I told the officers here, "watch and see if they don't find out that the shooter had mental problems and sought treatment on his own." Again, those are the types of people I can't ask about their prior history and if something isn't done to make sure we are alerted to those types of people, we are going to see an increase in these types of shootings.

Privacy issues should not come into play here. I don't need to know about a person's entire history, but I do at least need to know if their judgment is impaired so much that you shouldn't be allowed access to firearms.

I think they should make gun restrictions as tight as possible. Full background checks and waiting periods should be required to purchase a gun.

You shouldn't be able to walk into Walmart today and walk out with a gun and ammo. I think that's just ridiculous.

Good idea Lady Brave. I agree that some more disclosure from the government would be a good idea. If that keeps even ONE mentally ill person from buying a gun, I'm fine with it.

I would think it would be a win-win for everyone. The 2nd amendment folks still get to buy their guns and we still get to keep them out of psycho's hands.

Lady Brave,

Thank you for moving this topic to its own thread. Good call

Excellent call Lady Brave!

i think legalization of guns is stupid, the whole reason of the second amendment was to keep a militia to stop tyranny of the government. Sure if everyone had a gun, maybe that guy wouldn't have killed so many people in VTech, but people who are instable are getting guns.

i think legalization of guns is stupid, the whole reason of the second amendment was to keep a militia to stop tyranny of the government. Sure if everyone had a gun, maybe that guy wouldn't have killed so many people in VTech, but people who are instable are getting guns.
I'd say more instable people are out killing people in cars than by guns.

I'd say more instable people are out killing people in cars than by guns.
When was the last time you heard of someone buying a car to kill someone. There are more car accidents than with guns, but people using cars as a deadly weapon isn't even close. Grasping for straws already?

I think they should make gun restrictions as tight as possible. Full background checks and waiting periods should be required to purchase a gun.

You shouldn't be able to walk into Walmart today and walk out with a gun and ammo. I think that's just ridiculous.
Waiting periods used to be mandatory. I'm not sure why that changed federally, but individual states can impose it. Here in NC it's up to the Sheriff in each county if they want to impose a waiting period. Guilford County is five days and the statute says we can take up to 30 days if needed, but the county I live in (Randolph) will process your application on the spot. It's ridiculous.

I just read that Cho had been committed by his parents because they were worried about his mental health. If that's the case then NICS is going to be all over this one. People keep talking about investigating the school for their failure to react appropriately. What they should be concerned about most is why the VA state police wasn't aware of his prior commitment. My guess is that they are like NC in that they only automatically check metal health commitments for concealed carry applicants and not permits to purchase.

I may continue to ramble here and there in this thread. Forgive me, but this just hits too close to home for me. I mean, I was in NICS class this past Thursday listening to the frustration of the NICS reps talking about this very issue and then the shooting happened. It's a prime example of what we were discussing that day and it just upsets me. Our NICS rep told story after story about people like Cho and said, "How many officers do I have to lose? How many people have to die before the government realizes how serious this is?"

I'd say more instable people are out killing people in cars than by guns.

The differences being that: (1) car deaths are almost always accidents; (2) the economy doesn't rely on guns for transportation; and (3) guns has few other socially useful benefits.

IMHO, it's one thing to say we have a constitutional right to bear arms, but it's another to thing to dismiss the harms caused by guns and suggest that they have some significant benefits to society.

As far as the right to bear arms is concerned, I don't put the "right to launch a small projectile at a high speed out of a metal tube" on par with the right to free speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press, etc.