Is what good enough? Do you mean the background check as it exists today or your statement of background and position? Perhaps the answer to either is “it depends”.
As far as “let the FBI see my internet activities”, I'm not so sure I'd be happy with that everything considered these days. They aren't going to find anything criminal so far as I know, but they might find some political views to disagree with. Anyway, the words I responded to didn't limit it to the FBI.
“If you want to give a weapon to someone like Cruz after seeing his posts, go for it.”
I don't want to give a weapon to someone like Cruz, but it's not just based on his posts. Actually, I only know about the one in which he said he wanted to be a professional school shooter. If that and a few posts like it were all I had to go by I'd want to know more. If it's one post: was he just having a bad day? Was he being facietious or sarcastic? Was he playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion? All the other stuff known about him makes a difference.
“I am for the 2A but it is not a license for suicide.”
Agreed.
“Either you believe there are some people who should be institutionalized or you don’t, which is it?”
Some people need to be institutionalized. Some people need killing. The question is which ones and why and can we trust the ones who set the criteria and make the decisions. People who need killing are people like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and anyone who is trying to murder me or mine. The people who need to be institutionalized comprise all of those who disagrees with me. They're nuts on the face of it. (Dear FBI: That was a joke. But there are people who feel that way.)
” So if a person is a danger to society, then he or she should not be walking around.”
“Danger to society” is a matter of disagreement among the members of society. Too many seem to think that the NRA and all it's members are a danger to society. They might also think you are a danger to society since you, as admitted on the internet, purchased a firearm.
We are pretty much in agreement, I will clarify one thing. About an interview where one’s internet activities would be reviewed with someone in the position of being able to refer your application for a firearm to someone who would give you a “due process” hearing regarding whether you were mentally stable enough to be armed. At this moment, the only thing that is checked is a national mental health registry that many states do not support and a criminal check which Cruz passed because his local police and sheriff and school never gave him a criminal record.
As I said earlier, this is a serious step because if you were judged to not be capable of having a firearm, then you were also in need of institutionalization and care. (Cruz fits this bill, lots of people with some aspect of mental health under treatment would not be so referred.) The problem here is that there are lots of people who are mentally unstable but have convinced their parents that they really are OK or convinced their school counselors that they are OK, but their fellow students and online audiences may see it very differently. In the case of Cruz, my understanding is that he posted photos of animals he had abused as well as a table full of weapons, and himself doing target practice in his backyard — which might be alright or might be in violation of local ordinances.including handguns which are not legal for him to have (at his age — and I know it is a relative thing, but happens to be Florida law.) So I believe he would have triggered a higher review — remember he did convince a “social worker” that he was not a danger to himself or others. But she (I always suspect a social worker is a she) was not likely aware of his online posts. and Yes, he also posted that he was a professional school shooter but that was not likely seen by the social worker either. The question for us is how can this review process be changed so that it is not going to crush the lawful acquisition of firearms and will still nail this guy and others with the same mind set.