Obama accuses gun control opponents of fighting to allow ‘dangerous people’ to own guns

The Daily Caller ^ | 9-22-2013 | Neil Munro

[1010RD]

Given that Democrats worked to empty our insane asylums, poison our kids minds with ideas and psychotropic drugs, and work hard to free prisoners or keep the violent out of jail, how can Obama say this?

[ColdOne]

Dangerous people....hmmm like the 3 so called Americans at the Kenya mall that I have no doubt Big Sis let in to this country?

[Dead Corpse]

Dangerous people will ALWAYS be ARMED.

Making it more difficult for good people to be armed in self defense does more to help the bad guys.

[supercat]

Any man too dangerous to own a gun is a man who is too dangerous to walk free.

I don't quite agree with that. There are many people who shouldn't be trusted with a gun, but pose no danger to society, because they recognize their inability to handle the responsibilities associated with firearm ownership and thus make no effort to acquire one. I would thus suggest a more accurate statement would be: A person who cannot safely be trusted with a gun, but would be inclined to acquire one anyway, is too dangerous to walk free.

[supercat]

People who push for "background checks" should be asked whether there should be any penalty for government personnel who would use them to deny firearm ownership to someone who has never been accused (much less convicted!) of having committed any crime nor alleged to have any particular mental incapacity. It would be interesting to hear such people's response, since many of them in fact push for the use of background checks for precisely that purpose.

[cripplecreek]

Thus the point that restrictions and registrations are pointless. Up until the 1920s we were still handing weapons back over to inmates upon release from prison here in Michigan.

Its important to note that serious crimes like armed robbery, rape or murder carried terms of 20 years and up in those days.

[supercat]

Thus the point that restrictions and registrations are pointless.

Indeed they are. I think it's important to be cautious when making blanket statements, however, because many liberals are inclined to hyper-focus on any possible counter-example. If one simply says "Background checks are pointless because those who can't be trusted with firearms, can't be trusted in free society", liberals will regard the existence of people who are harmless but could be dangerous if someone handed them a firearm as contradicting that point. They wouldn't notice that such people are harmless precisely because they're disinclined to acquire firearms; thus no background checks are needed to keep them from doing so.