Posted on 09/05/2007 3:59:47 PM PDT by processing please hold
I fail to see how an instant background check is a penalty. BTW, all my answers are honest.
"People who are said to have mental problems can also obtain weapons."
Not in the commercial market, and that's the point of this law. They'll have to steal, purchase stolen, or find a negligent person that's willing to sell to a psychopath.
So, who will this law really hurt?. Will it hurt the criminal?.
How can you rationally ignore the history of the gun grabbers?
Criminals and insane people will not be deterred by this law, but honest, law abiding citizens could be denied their rights on the basis of a so called evaluation.
Even if the law ‘merely’ sets that standard high, a subsequent bill can ‘merely’ change that to a much lower one.
Forget the NRA, why are trusting the snakes that are pushing this bill?
Criminals are already covered. This law effects those adjudicated a danger to themselves, or others by reason of mental defect. Fundamentally, it means proven psychopaths will not be able buy guns as if they were competent, responsible citizens.
I ignore nothing in general. There is simply no valid complaint that can be raised in opposition to this law.
"Criminals and insane people will not be deterred by this law"
Deterance is not a component of this law. Prevention of proven psychopaths from engaging in the legal gun market is.
"but honest, law abiding citizens could be denied their rights on the basis of a so called evaluation."
BS. This law doesn't address evaluations whatsoever. In order for an evaluation to be made, as is relevant here, the person generally commits a crime, folks note that the person is wacked and the judge forces an evaluation by med pros. Then the judge acts on the results of the evaluation by med pros.
So, if someone can't refrain themselves from committing crimes and otherwise acting like a psychopath, then they should not be treated with the respect that law abiding, responsible citizens enjoy. Keep in mind also, that this law provides for a remedy if they clean up their act.
"a subsequent bill can ‘merely’ change that to a much lower one."
No. Such legal determinations can not be addressed in this, or any similar gun related bill. They must apply to the general population, regardless of any particulars and would have much wider consequences.
"Forget the NRA, why are trusting the snakes that are pushing this bill?"
The bill stands on it's own. It is what I said, and I see no logical reason to go negligent and allow proven paychopaths to obtain a clean background check and purchase guns as a competant, responsible citizen can.
So, you said proven psychopaths will not be able to to buy guns. Why can’t they?. Oh, I forgot, they can’t because that would be illegal and we all know they wouldn’t break any laws.
They won't be able to engage in the legal market, because their background check will be stamped denied.
"Oh, I forgot, they can’t because that would be illegal and we all know they wouldn’t break any laws."
Ridiculous.
Who is talking about the legal market?. They won’t even try that route. Do illegal gun dealers require a stamp of approval?.
I posted them and you failed to address the specifics.
I saw rationalizations, not specifics worthy of rebuttal.
Also, they are not gun control databases. The relevant database entries this paritcular law is concerned with are records of folks adjudicated to be a danger to themselves, or others, due to mental defect.
And where in the 2nd is the power to prohibit arms to folks "adjudicated"? -- You've made up that 'power', -- it's an infringement.
I see no legitimate reason to allow paranoid schiz patients to possess dangerous items, such as guns.
I see no legitimate reason to allow doctors/judges to decide who is a "paranoid schiz", thereby giving them the power to prohibit possession of so-called "dangerous items", such as guns.
BTW, your comment on what is "irrelevant" and "dangerous" is a classic 'tell'.
seemoAR asked:
"So, he wouldn't have been able to buy guns and ammo legally. Do you really think that would have stopped him?."
That's right, he wouldn't be able to buy any "[dangerous]" guns through commercial channels.
That's the point of including all the records. The rest is irrelevant.
44 by spunkets
Gotta love the concept that 'records on dangerous items are what's relevant'.. Oops..
The law addressess specifics and has a specific purpose, all else is irrelevant.
Thank you for parroting the gun grabbers line.
You are either incredibly naive to believe that crap or you are a tool of the gun grabbers.
You are trusting gun grabbers to do the right thing. That is insane.
If the people that you suggest are so dangerous, they should be locked up and not left to roam the streets because they do not need a gun to do their damage. However, it the meantime, I guarantee you that the law will be misused and misapplied and harmless law abiding citizens will be adversely affected.
Please tell me that you just left off a sarcasm tag to spur discussion. You can’t be this naive.
People won't be able to purchase weapons except in the commercial market, -- that's the point of these laws.
They'll have to steal, purchase stolen, or find a negligent person that's willing to sell to a psychopath.
61 by spunkets
There you have it folks, defacto gun control, 'California style', where its a crime to buy or sell a gun except through a licensed dealer.
Waiting in the wings is making it a 'crime' to buy or sell ammo except through a licensed dealer. - Total control at the "stroke of a pen".
A more laws, bigger infringement on liberty bump...
Only if htis law passes and closes that route, else they'll use it like Cho did.
"Do illegal gun dealers require a stamp of approval?. "
Yes, cash. Otherwise they could care less about being criminally negligent, selling stolen property to psychopaths, ect...
I deal in reality. One of the symptoms of insanity is a failure to grasp reality, which GOA frequently demonstrates.
"If the people that you suggest are so dangerous, they should be locked up and not left to roam the streets because they do not need a gun to do their damage."
Could be that some will be locked up for that very reason. Some certainly are. In general though, they don't need to be locked up, but it would be grossly negligent to sell them a gun. That's a simple concept. Try to grasp and understand it.
"However, it the meantime, I guarantee you that the law will be misused and misapplied and harmless law abiding citizens will be adversely affected."
Your guarantee is worthless, because it's grounded in ignorance and fantasy.
The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition.
-- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others.
Ridiculous. All laws are not the same and this one is specific regarding incompetents only. Congress has the right to regulate inteerstate commerce and they've chosen to deny access to this particular commerce to dangerous mental cases. It does not in any way infringe on a competent person's rights at all.
"Waiting in the wings is making it a 'crime' to buy or sell ammo except through a licensed dealer. - Total control at the "stroke of a pen"."
Nebulous hyperbole.
And the true shame of it is that hunting season on these morons is closed. I bet some of them not only believe that the government has their best interests at heart, but also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus...
Yah, forgot to mention the infinitely dense imbeciles that insist gross negligence in the form of allowing psychopaths to possess and purchase guns is justified, because somehow it's their inalienable right to do so.
And the true irony is this quote on his/her about page:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C. S. Lewis
Astounding... but I would guess that he/she’s content with his/her smoke pole and being a member of the NRA, which never met a gun-right it couldn’t compromise away, is plenty enough to ensure his/her credentials as a Second Amendment champion.
Explain how a background check amounts to tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.