Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40

The others I agree with.

Thanks.  I agree with those too. 

But I go a step further.  I think if you have shown to have substance abuse problems, you don't get to have guns.  I think weapons should not be housed under the same roof as the people who are prohibited.  Otherwise it is too easy for the prohibited individual to transfer the gun to a spouse or other occupant and still have the gun.  The Sandy Hook shooting would have been prevented if that were the case. 

I think all the gun fails are prime candidates to lose their guns.  Accidentally discharge your gun while cleaning?  You are too stupid to own a gun and a threat to the public.  Left your gun where a kid got hold of it?  You are too stupid to own a gun and a threat to the public.

This fricken maniac: http://www.wsmv.com/story/20559778/tn-firearms-instructor-gains-attention-from-youtube-rant
is too stupid to own a gun and definitely a threat to the public.  Probably too psychotic to be allowed to walk freely down the street.

Setting aside our individual preferences for who should and should not have guns, if someone is found to be inelligible and they already have guns, are you okay with confiscating those guns?  Suppose you were diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Should your guns be taken away?  If so, how would that happen?

...but a database could lead to registration, which could lead to confiscation or prohibition.

I think there are too many "coulds" in your reasoning.  Sure, that could happen.  But I think it is extremely unlikely.  I do not think the government actually has anything to gain by a mass gun confiscation. 

For one, between the military, the national guard and the militarized police forces, there is no way gun owners actually represent a threat.  Even if the founding fathers intended the 2nd ammendment to be an insurance policy against tyranny, that horse left the barn decades ago.[1]

For two, It would be much more trouble than it is worth. 

For three, they can still have all the tyranny they want or need without taking guns.  I personally think the time to revolt was when congress passed the Patriot Act.  But that didn't happen.  Gun guys had their opportunity, but didn't shoot anyone.  Most of them actually agreed with it.  We didn't mind losing half our constitutional rights.  The only right gun owners seem to care about is owing guns.  They seem to think the only way a government could possibly be tyrannical would be if it took away their guns.  I've written about this at length here and posted a lot of links.  Take a look.

That said, I am totally for a database and registration.  Register every single gun.  Make posessing an unregistered gun a felony.  You should be able to trace ownership of every weapon.  This is how you ensure background checks are made.  If someone who already has guns - like Adam Lanza's mother - goes on the "should not have" list, this is how you know they should turn in their guns and what they should be turning in.  It is how you find out how people who should not have them got them. 

 1. I find that to be a highly dubious claim. I cannot see why the people starting a new government would even suggest that anyone unhappy with it had license to violently revolt against them.
Changed Change Reason Date
DumpsterFire Great stuff, 'tape. April 25, 2013, 09:38:20 AM