1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

Discussion in 'House of Debates' started by Bunz, Jan 30, 2008.

  1. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ok Folks,
    Pretty simple question. Who should not be able to buy firearms, and why?
     
  2. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my opinion, convicted violent criminals have given up their constitutional right to bear arms. Everyone else who passes a psych test should be allowed to buy guns.
     
  3. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Interesting, so you would like to see everyone who is not a violent criminal should require a psych test?
     
  4. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes to a certain degree though, I think it should be relatviely low-intensity. That's not a good phrase to describe it but what I mean is that the psych test shouldn't make it impossible for 50% of the population to buy guns. It should aim to weed out the few people who (a) do not have a compelling or consistent reason to buy the gun in the first place or (b) have a psycholigcal mindset and history that makes them very likely to fly off the handle.

    When you look at the facts, the far far majority of gun crimes are committed by people who obtained their firearms illegally. Making it harder for people to buy guns isn't necessarily going to stop people from having them.
     
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Convicted Felons ( for violent cases ...)
    Anyone who has used a gun in a crime ( should be covered by most above, but just in case)
    Those who have been found mentally not stable before, such as the V Tech guy who was not able to stand trial do it it already....
    Those who are actively using Anti Depressants should be looked at a bit closer, but they are so rampant for so much stuff these days I would not say that's a out.

    also age limits 16 for shotguns/Rifles, 21 for pistols , seems to make sense
     
  6. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep

    I would agree except for people using anti-depressants. THOSE are the people getting treated, not the ones you need to worry about.
     
  7. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    yea but look what happens when they get off them....you get 5 dead, and 16 wounded at the next school shooting as we just saw. ( I am not sure those numbers are 100%)

    Also those on antiDepressants are actually very prone to suicide...even though they are suppose to help.
     
  8. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,891
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Who shouldn't be able to buy guns? Anyone with a criminal history, and anyone who hasn't passed a gun safety course. Anyone who has a history of hunting from vehicles, or shooting at noises in the brush. Anyone who likes to carry a gun to "shoot snakes", ie, go blasting away at a harmless snake while bullets bounce at random everywhere. Anyone with a history of mixing alcohol and gunpowder.

    There are probably more categories, but not every drunken redneck in the country should have a firearm.
     
  9. numinus

    numinus New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone who isn't a member of the armed forces shouldn't have guns.
     
  10. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New England
    Convicted felons should not be able to own firearms. Everyone else should be able to.

    Speaking of which...it's nice out, I think I'll see if my uncle wants to go shooting today. I want to shoot his elephant gun. :D
     
  11. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Convicted felons. The severely mentally handicapped. Those suffering from overt psychopathology.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Intersting replies so far and thanks to those of you who took the time. It seems to me the consensus is that the current federal laws against the mentally ill and felons owning guns is adequate in principal while there are certainly flaws in the practice of the law as is seen in the public massacres America experiences all to often.

    Numinus, we disagree based on what you posted. I think the second amendment covers quite well the legality of ordinary citizens owning firearms.
    I am curious as to why you think only those in the armed forces should have them? As an otherwise law abiding citizen and resonsible gun owner should the actions of a few cause me to lose that right?
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As a drastic simplification, I think the inclusion of the right to bear arms was meant to protect the people from an overreaching government.

    Pidgey
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Hi Pidgey, I would certainly agree with your statement on the reasoning behind some of the intention of the 2nd amendment. While that may have been practical throughout much of the first decades of American history. The government is much better armed than its citizens.

    As a side note, I will also point out that a well armed citizenry makes for a very difficult situation in terms of an invasion etc. While I dont think America need worry about a foreign army making an invasion in the forseeable future, I think the lessons learned through actions in Iraq for example which has a quite well armed poppulation makes for a tough time on an occupying force.
     
  15. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New England
    Tyrants prefer unarmed victims.
     
Loading...

Share This Page