-
If you are having trouble with your password change please click here for help.
We got ‘til 1am on the HPA/SHORT Act🚨
- Thread starter bd762
- Start date
Used to go to a little store near the farm and buy Kent’s for my uncle . Yep. Bought cigarettes at that age !
Ya Know, "Them"
Yeah last I checked we had lots of folks with gender dismorphia walking around bothering the rest of us. And I KNOW that in the not to distant past that was listed in the DSM as a legit psychological disorder. But there ain't nowhere to send them now so I guess it doesn't matter.
According to many congresscritters, many veterans are mentally ill.
New law, only white people can have guns.
They get a C word pass.
Choot em.
TL; DR There's no simple answer to your question, but I think, as a community, we can agree that mentally unstable individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others should not be able to possess a firearm. This would include a history of crimes such as domestic violence, violent felonies, terrorism, etc. and a history of mental instability.
Main post below:
I'm in total agreement with
BIKER13
's posts; not everyone should have a gun. However, this begs the question you ask: who gets to choose? This is the crux of the issue and, for context, I used to be completely anti-background check.A little while back, out of sincere curiosity, I looked up the reason behind why certain legislation was passed and enacted surrounding firearms. Apologies for what likely sounds likes a boring history lesson and is likely information everyone here knows, but I'll get to my point momentarily.
Pertaining specifically to the background checks and why we can't buy guns through the mail anymore, it is because of both the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The former was enacted by President Clinton, the latter by President Johnson. President Clinton's legislation created the first "real" law about background checks and created NICS. President Johnson's legislation stopped allowing gun purchases through the mail due to a rise in assassinations; I believe Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his gun through the mail that (allegedly) killed JFK (don't get me going down that rabbit hole), which is what sparked the legislation to be brought to light and passed. This same legislation also brought forth serial numbers on guns and a plethora of other regulations that I am used to, but many here may not be.
Point being to all of this, there is the law and the spirit of the law in which something was enacted. I was born in the early 90s, so I was not familiar with LBJ, but I like to believe the spirit behind the passing of such legislation was done benevolently and was not a hostile infringement on the 2nd Amendment; in fact, I believe the GCA of 1968 was passed in memory of JFK. Call me naive, but I understand why such legislation was enacted and, while as a law-abiding citizen I may find myself annoyed and disagreeing that I should have to go through hoops for firearms, I can also respect the intentionality behind it and the effort to (seemingly) make acquiring firearms by bad guys more difficult. As for gun laws that keep attempting to be passed or that have passed in the past 25-30 years, especially in states such as New York and California, I believe there is major hostility and infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, especially with preventing ownership of so-called "high-capacity" magazines and certain firearms.
In a perfect world, the 2nd Amendment would reign totally free and bad guys would never be able to buy a gun and the rest of us would go to the range, firing machine guns and having a heck of a time, but because we live in a broken world, we unfortunately need legislation in place that requires background checks on individuals because we don't know who is a psychopath and who is an average Joe. Does this mean it's perfect? Of course not; the guy that police say bought a gun and ammo in Canton from a gun store and went and killed a bunch of massage workers passed his background check! In a sad, ironic twist, not a single news post I saw on that coverage mentioned stricter gun control laws or background checks because the gun store followed the law and he passed it.
Does this mean we need to have even more thorough background checks much like what the NFA requires? No, but I do think it reveals the fact that there will always be issues and that more legislation won't fix it, but thoughtful rewriting and even repealing of current legislation could as well as responsible, up-to-date reporting by government agencies on unstable, dangerous individuals, which, once again, goes back to the original question asked: Who gets to be the judge of that and the premise behind it? Red flag laws have shown that anyone could be labeled to be a dangerous person because of he-said, she-said, so by what rod do we measure? I think it's by agreeing on those who should not own a firearm, ever, because they lost their right to through either mental instability or being a criminal, either of whom is a danger to themselves or others or has committed a crime that was violent in nature.
