Here is what is wrong with this "responsible, gun-safety legislation." John Doe receives a death threat from the rapist whose ass he kicked the day before while protecting a teenage girl from having her innocense stolen. He, out of fear for his life, as well as his family's lives, wants to buy a simple rifle (not even a handgun). The system messes up, and it is going to take 72 hours for this man to get his weapon (a rifle, not an "evil handgun). 65 hours later, a man bursts through his front door and kills him, rapes his wife, and molests his little girl. Now is that responsible or safe? Didn't think so.
Or, in this case; same senario, they updated the system so well that it brings up the time, 16 years ago, he and a few buddies on leave from the military, got into a bar room scuffle. He plead guilty, even though he didn't start the brawl, in order to get back on base without being court martialed for the unbecoming behavior, without ever knowing that the "delayed" consequence would be a loss of his constitutional rights 16 years down the road. Again, 65 hours later, a man bursts through his front door and kills him, rapes his wife, and molests his little girl. This could have been avoided if only he had been able to read the future, 16 years earlier, when using a legal manuever in order to get his troubles over and behind him.
The sad thing is that liberal President Bush won't veto this when it comes to his desk.
the truly sad thing is this guy should get a better door.
the problem with hypotheticals are well, hypotheticals and the second amendment is very clear... shall not be infringed... mental states do not enter in to it.... who defines unfit is the problem, personal responsibility for ones actions in defending oneself is the answer... yes the looney may be able to carry a weapon, and if i shoot him defending myself or others i will take the responsibility for my actions... just as i will when the gov't comes to take away my guns.