From what I gather, the real issue here is that in the FBI background checks, they ask if anyone’s ever been found mentally ill or mentally defective or something along those lines, but the actual data on that kind of thing is apparently kept by local health authorities in the interest of personal health information instead of being relayed to the FBI for better background checks. In other words, the actual part of the background checks that should weed out the loons and wackos is handicapped by a lack of the correct data.
The issue isn’t to play asshole 3rd grade teacher and say that if one kid can’t handle something, then nobody gets to have it, but rather to better identify which kids can’t handle something, and prevent them from having it.
I"m not really happy with any of the choices in your poll, but do support some restrictions. (Permanent disenfranchisement for violent felons comes to mind.) Though of the ones in the posts so far, Lumpy’s and aruvqan’s come closest to my own views.
An incarcerated person, or someone on probation, should not be allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Once they’re out of prison and their probation is over, all of their rights (including the right to bear arms) should be restored. Even for felons.
A person should not need a license or permit to buy, sell, own, or possess a firearm or ammo.
A person should not need a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon.
A person should not be required to fill out a form to purchase a firearm.
Any business should be free to sell or manufacture firearms without government involvement.
Citizens should be free to purchase fully automatic weapons and suppressors.
There is no point in having these polls on the SDMB…it brings out people who normally never post, but will jump in to ensure they have the right to arm themselves and have more and better weapons in their garage than most third world countries have in their entire arsenal.
Go ahead and shoot up a bunch of Kindergarteners…we can rationalize that and prove it has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control - and how dare you imply this!
Nope - no point.
Go ahead and let another 20, 30, 120, 130, 1,200 or 1,300 kids be shot in a special needs school or at St. Jude’s Hospital or wherever…won’t make a lick of difference.
Just keep them guns coming, keep ‘em legal and too fuckin’ bad if shit happens. Them’s the breaks.
Why should I have to go shoot schoolkids/mallrats/whomever? I am not nuts, I simply believe that I should not be restricted in what I want to own because I have not broken any laws.
Think of it this way - You may not buy any book written by JK Rowling unless you fill out a passel of forms, wait 14 days and demonstrate that you have never committed a crime and are not nuts.
As far as I am concerned a gun is a tool, I [used to] hunt with it, target shoot with it, perhaps defend my home with it. I don’t feel the need to go out and shoot anybody. If I was raging mad, I still wouldn’t go out and shoot someone, take them to court and have the judge bend them over and pull all their money and valuables out of their ass to pay me for something, or put someone in jail, yes. Shoot them, no.
Our bill of rights says guns OK, so I say guns OK. I don’t subscribe to the mental illness / felon exclusion - they have just as much right to defend themselves as I do.
However, I am fully in support of getting rid of our right to bear arms enumerated in the bill of rights. Once we’ve fixed that, then we’re open for discussion on how to fix the issue overall. Registration, restrictions on what can be purchased and owned, all good with me. And I’m a fan of Chris Rock’s solution - guns can be cheap, but bullets cost $5,000 each.
My little brain is not working this one out. I’m pretty far to the left socially speaking, but I’m all for gun-ownership. Am I a freak in this regard or is this poll just looking to sniff out the right leaners who aren’t into guns?
I grew up around guns. My dad isn’t a big time collector, he owns probably half a dozen handguns at any given time of various calibers, one that belonged to his father, and maybe a rifle or two. He used to be a part time dealer (who did everything required by law in order to do so, TYVM). He showed me how to stand with one, how to aim it, and how to handle them in general. I’ve enjoyed target shooting multiple times as an adult. Not a hunter, never plan to be one. I’d rather the hamburger just be ready to throw on the grill when I get it.
I own one gun: a .357 5-shot revolver that he gave me for my birthday. It’s for home protection but it also has a sentimental value that cannot be replaced. I don’t expect that I’d hold off the army with it or anything, but it’s mine. You can’t have it. Sorry.
I think he was just pointing out that I am a freak and then inviting me to take part in the poll. My feelings are hurt–so just to be a dick I’m writing in my own option: guns for everyone, and free healthcare for all so more nutters can get help instead of shooting up the kids.
Eh…3. I’m not really all that passionate about it, although I think banning guns is a bandaid that ignores the underlying causes of gun violence. But looking after the mental health of a nation would be hard work.
I’d love to take all the handguns away. Melt them down. Take all the automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Melt them down. Maybe we can’t do that politically. But whatever we do will be better than nothing.
You what I think when I hear “Guns are too well entrenched in American society politically to ever be able to do anything about them”? I think that so was slavery about 1800.
For the past 100 years, though, we’ve been looking back and asking “Was the whole of humanity crazy? Thinking somehow that enslaving another human being and his family in perpetuity made ANY sense at all? Just because the fucking Constitution said it was okay?”
Ah yes - that was exactly what the Founding Fathers meant and wanted - for every American to have a personal arsenal.
Just out of curiosity, assuming I could create a cute little nuclear bomb in a very shiny, portable case, that would only blow up, say, about 3 square miles or so, would having these nuclear arms also fall into the category of the “right to bear arms”? I mean, come on now -there is absolutely no limit to this verbiage, right? The right to bear arms is a cover all for every weapon, right? No exceptions whatsoever. Written in stone. Correct?