Who should be denied the right to own guns?

[Sam1911]

Actually, from two recent threads on guns and mental illness, it is revealed that the mentally ill are FAR more likely to be victims of violence than to perpetrate it.

And are really less violent than "average" society.

I wouldn't have guessed that.

 

[316SS]

Actually, from two recent threads on guns and mental illness, it is revealed that the mentally ill are FAR more likely to be victims of violence than to perpetrate it.

I've been saying for some time that the mentally ill have been scapegoats as well as victims.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I work closely with individuals with disabilities, wide ranging in nature. The only generalization that I can say with certainty is that very few generalizations about this population are accurate.

 

[guitarguy314]

Absolutely no one.

In a truly free society, you should be able to do (or own) whatever you want so long as your actions do not infringe on others rights, or harm them.

The problem with any other answer is that people who should be able to own guns can fall under whatever "shouldn't own them" category you choose. There are plenty of nonviolent felons. There are a million ways to become a "sex offender". Are you mentally ill if you see a shrink for depression after your mom dies? I'm pretty sure you're a controlled substance user if you've ever had surgery. And so on down the list.

 

[tomrkba]

Nobody if they're not in prison. If they can walk around free, then they should have the right to defend themselves. If not, keep them behind bars.

The government has been using crime as an excuse to restrict our rights. The Lautenberg Amendment is a prime example of revoking the right to keep and bear arms for increasingly minor offenses. "Mental health" is the next way they'll restrict our rights.

Let's return the RKBA to the way the Founders intended. The right should not be encumbered with conditions.

 

[Kynoch]

Absolutely no one.

In a truly free society, you should be able to do (or own) whatever you want so long as your actions do not infringe on others rights, or harm them...

And when they do there are consequences. Often grave consequences.

 

[Kynoch]

And why should such people not have the RKBA? Do you think the mentally ill are somehow more prone to violence than the general population?

That's axiomatic.

So you personally trust "such people" with the right to vote, but not the RKBA?

Sure. A single whack-job can't kill someone with a voting machine.

 

[Magoo]

Sure. A single whack-job can't kill someONE with a voting machine.

Malarky.

But I'll grant you that a mass killing would be pretty hard to pull off.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Who do you think should be denied the right (perm./temp.) to own guns?

Joe Biden... it's obvious he is a buffoon and totally ignorant. His babbling mouth should be registered as a deadly weapon.

Deaf

 

[316SS]

That's axiomatic.

Well, no. It's prejudice with no basis in fact.

Sure. A single whack-job can't kill someone with a voting machine.

OK there, Nurse Ratched.

 

[lobo9er]

Banned individuals that want a weapon for evil will get one.

 

[Fremmer]

Maybe the resources should be applied toward recognizing, intervening, and effectively treating the mentally ill, rather than a bunch of new laws that won't accomplish anything good.

 

[Bexar]

And when they do there are consequences. Often grave consequences.

Yep...I had a friend that was in WW2 in the Pacific and he said it was very common to have Marines and Navy personnel get in fist fights trying their best to beat each other to death. This while wearing side arms or having weapons only feet away. Never did he see anyone reach for or touch a weapon during these fights because he said that every one knew that doing that would result in swift and determinate punishment. Unfortunately the threat of punishment won't effect today's criminals. Many violent criminals today simply look at prison time as three hots and a cot and warm and fuzzy showers. I propose that for violent crimes these pukes don't get a meal ticket and vacation from life but get ten lashes with a cat-of-nine tails then sent home where their impressionable neighbor kids can be real impressed. Our Father didn't try to reason with us or send us to bed hungry. He lit our backsides up and my Brothers and I grew up thinking if we were tempted to break the rules of family, school and society not how much fun it would be but instead thought of how badly our Dad would beat our backsides. No need to rehabilitate...re-educate or argue...we simply didn't risk the belt.

 

[Bruno2]

As biased and political as the world has become I cant think of anybody that should be trusted with making that kind of decision.I sort of feel like the severely mentally ill should be prohibited. However, if we go along with it anti gunners will try to deviate and include more people by expanding the definition.

Violent criminals/felons? How many of them were innocent , but went along with a plea bargain to be sure they wouldnt go to prison for 10 years because the DA might do a better job of lying than your attorney. Who wants to gamble with that??

People lacking citizenship or permanent residence? Do any of you like the idea of going to Iran or even Mexico and not having the right to keep the best tools necessary for personal defense? How about Captain Phillips and the pirating of the Maersk Alabama? He couldnt keep a gun on the ship b/c it would violate the laws of certain countries while sailing in their waters or ports.

Anybody that isnt locked up in some kind of facility should have the right IMO. If they shouldnt have guns they shouldnt be living among us.That goes for the mentally ill also.

Here is the clincher: How do we keep the people we dont want having guns from getting them? Until someone figures that out I just dont want anymore of my personal freedoms and liberty taken away or my fellow countrymen's .

 

[Twiki357]

As far as I’m concerned, only those CONVICTED of a violent felony and those determined by a COURT to be a danger to others.

Although it doesn’t affect me, my pet peeve is with restraining orders and/or accusations of domestic violence. It should only be a prohibiting category if the threat of violence is determined by a court that was heard both sides. Not just because of an accusation.

 

[Muskyman]

Anybody that isnt locked up in some kind of facility should have the right IMO. If they shouldnt have guns they shouldnt be living among us.That goes for the mentally ill also.

So we just start rounding up mentally ill people and locking them in cages? Whether it's right or wrong, do you have any idea how much money that would cost? Do you want to pay for it?

 

[Kynoch]

Maybe the resources should be applied toward recognizing, intervening, and effectively treating the mentally ill, rather than a bunch of new laws that won't accomplish anything good.

The laws are pretty much already on the books -- and have been for a very long time.

 

[Kynoch]

So we just start rounding up mentally ill people and locking them in cages? Whether it's right or wrong, do you have any idea how much money that would cost? Do you want to pay for it?

I think the "if they ain't locked up, they should be allowed to exercise their RKBA" "argument" stems largely from the obviously ludicrousness of "no one should be banned from exercising their RKBA."

People realize the latter is utterly ridiculous so they soften it up to the former without considering the ramifications.

 

[Kynoch]

As biased and political as the world has become I cant think of anybody that should be trusted with making that kind of decision.I sort of feel like the severely mentally ill should be prohibited. However, if we go along with it anti gunners will try to deviate and include more people by expanding the definition.

Violent criminals/felons? How many of them were innocent , but went along with a plea bargain to be sure they wouldnt go to prison for 10 years because the DA might do a better job of lying than your attorney. Who wants to gamble with that??

People lacking citizenship or permanent residence? Do any of you like the idea of going to Iran or even Mexico and not having the right to keep the best tools necessary for personal defense? How about Captain Phillips and the pirating of the Maersk Alabama? He couldnt keep a gun on the ship b/c it would violate the laws of certain countries while sailing in their waters or ports.

Anybody that isnt locked up in some kind of facility should have the right IMO. If they shouldnt have guns they shouldnt be living among us.That goes for the mentally ill also.

Here is the clincher: How do we keep the people we dont want having guns from getting them? Until someone figures that out I just dont want anymore of my personal freedoms and liberty taken away or my fellow countrymen's .

There are very few countries in this world (I'm not aware of a single one but I suspect there is a handful) where an American could CCW based on some sort of reciprocal agreement or simply because permission is not required.

 

[Mike J]

GCA, Lautenberg, et al. should be repealed. Those not locked up should have the right. The way things are now is just a way to create a class of citizens without rights.

Gun Control Laws are a dual purpose tool for politicians. The make the politicians appear to be doing something about crime when they aren't really doing anything effective & they give them another tool to use against the masses. Most of the politicians that are all out for gun control are the same type that want to raise taxes on cigarettes, limit how many sodas someone can buy etc. It ain't about guns-It is about control. Any politician that pushes gun control laws is the enemy of freedom & liberty.

 

[Bexar]

The 1968 "Gun Control Act" was LBJ's way of making sure that blacks did not have a ready access to guns. At least that's what I've been told. LBJ knew that blacks were the key to a constant voting block for the democratic party but secretly he feared them. At least that's what I've been told.

 

[Kynoch]

The 1968 "Gun Control Act" was LBJ's way of making sure that blacks did not have a ready access to guns. At least that's what I've been told. LBJ knew that blacks were the key to a constant voting block for the democratic party but secretly he feared them. At least that's what I've been told.

the GCA was largely in response to RFK and MLK both getting popped.

 

[Kynoch]

GCA, Lautenberg, et al. should be repealed. Those not locked up should have the right. The way things are now is just a way to create a class of citizens without rights.

Gun Control Laws are a dual purpose tool for politicians. The make the politicians appear to be doing something about crime when they aren't really doing anything effective & they give them another tool to use against the masses. Most of the politicians that are all out for gun control are the same type that want to raise taxes on cigarettes, limit how many sodas someone can buy etc. It ain't about guns-It is about control. Any politician that pushes gun control laws is the enemy of freedom & liberty.

Thank goodness the gov't is taxing tobacco! Maybe one day fewer will get hooked on it saving THOUSANDS of lives and BILLIONS in health care costs. Tobacco should be taxed as heavily as possible without spurring heavy black-market trading by the underworld.

This poll has absolutely nothing to do with the GCA or the LA by the way...

 

[happygeek]

I think the "if they ain't locked up, they should be allowed to exercise their RKBA" "argument" stems largely from the obviously ludicrousness of "no one should be banned from exercising their RKBA."

It stems from 1967.

This poll has absolutely nothing to do with the GCA or the LA by the way...

Then the poll is flawed from the get go. The 68 GCA is what brought us the whole premise of the 'prohibited person' and the FFL system. It's the reason why posters keep mentioning that landmark piece of federal gun regulation. I'm not sure you can even have a discussion of prohibited persons without bringing it up.

 

[Mike J]

Sin taxes are an old concept Kynoch. I personally believe they work as well at getting people to stop addictive behavior as prohobition did & the war on drugs has. Laws like this don't stop anything they just give the government an excuse to tax, confiscate property, etc.

Kynoch I don't want to get in trouble with the mods here but lets just say I believe your attitudes about things are of a more liberal nature than mine. I tend to think the less interference by the Government into my personal life or how many guns I own the better. I suspect you have a very different world view than I. Bless your heart maybe one day you will be awakened to the truth.