Obama Says All Gun Buyers Should Face Checks

[lx43]

ht tp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324461604578188680585236550.html


President Barack Obama on Wednesday said all gun buyers should be subject to background checks and that he would push "without delay" ideas for remolding the nation's mental health and gun laws, setting up a potential fight with gun-rights advocates.

"This time words must lead to action," Mr. Obama said from the White House, offering his most specific proposals yet in the wake of the shooting spree at a Connecticut school. "The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing."

What in the hell is wrong with this country? People should be able to buy guns whenever they want it without a waiting period or background checks.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And Lanza used his mother's guns so if Obama is trying to capitalize on Friday's tragedy, his point on background checks is moot.

[VIDEODROME]

Umm.... I bought a .22 Remington and waited in the store for it to clear. Didn't seem like a big deal.

I mean do we even want convicted felons to be able to buy guns?

Yeah, I know there is the black market, but at least this was law abiding citizens can still purchase.

[sailingaway]

this simply isn't his jurisdiction.

[sailingaway]

Umm.... I bought a .22 Remington and waited in the store for it to clear. Didn't seem like a big deal.

I mean do we even want convicted felons to be able to buy guns?

Yeah, I know there is the black market, but at least this was law abiding citizens can still purchase.

Obama already said those who have a medical marijuana prescription shouldn't be allowed to own guns. What next, only abstainers from alcohol can? It is how he ratchets down on the universe of who can own guns. I'm for common sense, but they have long since overstepped that.

[fisharmor]

I mean do we even want convicted felons to be able to buy guns?

Hi, welcome to the party.
Read this book, then get back to us.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355950096&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

[Dr.3D]

And Lanza used his mother's guns so if Obama is trying to capitalize on Friday's tragedy, his point on background checks is moot.
Seems he is just trying to use this event to get more legislation regardless of it being of any help to stop future events like this from happening again.

[jbauer]

I guess I don't have a problem with a background check for firearms. They do a whole lot more for a whole lot less in other areas. It seems to me that if you want to stand your ground on gun laws you should find a way to look as responsible to the anti-gun people as we (gun owners) can. Waiting 15 minutes to run a check isn't a big deal.

On a side note, we should go after the left and ask for drug and background checks for some of their pet projects like food stamps and section 8 etc.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1-86qBJm8

[Philhelm]

Umm.... I bought a .22 Remington and waited in the store for it to clear. Didn't seem like a big deal.

I mean do we even want convicted felons to be able to buy guns?

Yeah, I know there is the black market, but at least this was law abiding citizens can still purchase.

Regarding convicted felons, what was their felony, and is it relevant to firearm ownership? Should a convicted felon that served prison time be denied his right to self defense once released? If not, why should he be released in the first place if he simply cannot be trusted at all?

[tod evans]

Regarding convicted felons, what was their felony, and is it relevant to firearm ownership? Should a convicted felon that served prison time be denied his right to self defense once released? If not, why should he be released in the first place if he simply cannot be trusted at all?

But, but they say on the TV that....................

[RickyJ]

...ideas for remolding the nation's mental health and gun laws...

Mental health laws?

I can see it now, they are going to declare all those that don't trust the government "nuts" and make laws that say they cannot own firearms.

[VIDEODROME]

I guess I don't have a problem with a background check for firearms. They do a whole lot more for a whole lot less in other areas. It seems to me that if you want to stand your ground on gun laws you should find a way to look as responsible to the anti-gun people as we (gun owners) can. Waiting 15 minutes to run a check isn't a big deal.

On a side note, we should go after the left and ask for drug and background checks for some of their pet projects like food stamps and section 8 etc.

Yeah this is where I'm coming from.

I don't want to be so inflexible on an issue that no discussion takes place. I want to explore it and find solutions.

[tod evans]

I think the goals the politicians are after will be achieved through federal taxes on ammunition..

That's just seat of the pants reasoning, nothing to back it up..

[VIDEODROME]

Regarding convicted felons, what was their felony, and is it relevant to firearm ownership? Should a convicted felon that served prison time be denied his right to self defense once released? If not, why should he be released in the first place if he simply cannot be trusted at all?

Hmm.... I realize I can't set the standards of what the judge hands down or how long these things stick to a person's record.

I mean this could expand into all possible restrictions placed on Felons or people on probation. It seems there are also restrictions on travel or even the right to vote. I guess in this way the system does continue to punish a person, but I suppose it's what we have instead leaving them in jail forever.

[VIDEODROME]

this simply isn't his jurisdiction.

This is an interesting point. I almost wonder if the Commerce Clause could apply but in a very limited way.

For instance, if a person goes to buy a gun in another state because of different gun laws in different states. Maybe there should be something that supports the interaction between these state laws.

Just tossing that out for consideration. I do think the furthest role the Fed can have is being supportive of the states not running the whole show. Yeah I know, give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile, but just trying to think of answers to this issue.

[sailingaway]

Mental health laws?

I can see it now, they are going to declare all those that don't trust the government "nuts" and make laws that say they cannot own firearms.

I saw some headline that the new DM whatsis creates vast new areas of 'personality disorder' to the point where HAVING a personality becomes a disorder, essentially. I didn't read the details, but they were heading that way even before.

[sailingaway]

This is an interesting point. I almost wonder if the Commerce Clause could apply but in a very limited way.

For instance, if a person goes to buy a gun in another state because of different gun laws in different states. Maybe there should be something that supports the interaction between these state laws.

Just tossing that out for consideration. I do think the furthest role the Fed can have is being supportive of the states not running the whole show. Yeah I know, give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile, but just trying to think of answers to this issue.

The talk was of him doing it PERSONALLY by executive order, per Reuters. It absolutely isn't HIS jurisdiction.

[thehungarian]

What does a background check consist of? Is it just to see if you have previous felonies or more extensive? Would getting a DUI five years ago disqualify you? Asking for a friend.

[VIDEODROME]

The talk was of him doing it PERSONALLY by executive order, per Reuters. It absolutely isn't HIS jurisdiction.

That's to bad. I didn't really get that from the quote box highlight which referred to the Laws being changed.

[TheGrinch]

I'd be all for it if I thought there was actually a sound way to determine who will use the firearm responsibly, but as highlighted above, more gun restrictions will almost assuredly restrict just as many if not more of the "right" people from having access to them, and be able to defend themselves from the wrong ones who don't necessarily follow the law to obtain a weapon.

[VIDEODROME]

I actually consider the idea of treating semi-auto differently.

I mean for home defense that would still allow a pump action shotgun which is still intimidating and deadly. I also happen to like my single action Colt revolver.

It would also allow for hunting unless you claim to need a full clip to get an animal.

So what if there was free but required training or background checks for the semi-autos? I mean the 2nd amendment says well regulated but not infringed. Could that allow for holding it to some standard but not infringing with a cost so it must be free?


As for the spirit of guns pushing back tyranny well.... if the army came I don't see ranks of civilians soldiers with semi-autos doing much against trained soldiers with armored vehicles. It would probably come down to marksmanship and precision strikes picking off people.


I want to emphasize here I'm not suggesting a ban on Semi-Auto but holding it to a high standard like a permit and once you're cleared the permit is free and the course must be free.

EDIT: kind of going off on my own tangents I think lol. But it just seems like a real discussion could be happening while the rhetoric and language in Politics and the Media remains on "Assault Weapons" and "Gun Control".

[CaptainAmerica]

what easier way for Obama to create his enemy combatant list.

[nobody's_hero]

Who would decide what constitutes disqualification? If it is the family psychiatrist, that's one thing. If it is some government goon in a business suit who knows nothing about mental health, then, well, the answer is "hell no", and I tend to believe that will be the case.

Your right to bear arms would probably be decided by some bureacrat's office secretary who works a part-time job putting papers in filing cabinets.

[kahless]

Who would decide what constitutes disqualification? If it is the family psychiatrist, that's one thing. If it is some government goon in a business suit who knows nothing about mental health, then, well, the answer is "hell no", and I tend to believe that will be the case.

Your right to bear arms would probably be decided by some bureacrat's office secretary who works a part-time job putting papers in filing cabinets in the day time and watches MSNBC and CNN at night.

Added that for you.

[ghengis86]

Anybody bought a gun at a store before? Or tried to buy one in another state? One already needs a NICS background check, and you can't buy a gun in another state and transfer it yourself to your home state; must be transferred from/to an FFL.

Private, resident state sales in some states don't require a NICS check. That's the so-called gun show loophole.

But what class of people don't follow laws? Criminals.
And what class of people do follow the law and will thus be affected by gun laws? Law abiding citizens.

The anti-gun lobby fails at simple logic.

[The Free Hornet]

EDIT: kind of going off on my own tangents I think lol. But it just seems like a real discussion could be happening while the rhetoric and language in Politics and the Media remains on "Assault Weapons" and "Gun Control".

Why think about a "real discussion"? Have you swallowed the illiberal media talking point? A real discussion would involve children that learn to take care of - and defend - themselves.


“You look at Columbine and every single child killed in the library that morning,” Crane told ABC News. “They were all sitting down. ... Why were they there five minutes when they had five minutes to do something else?"

www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alice-program-trains-students-fight-back-article-1.1222827 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alice-program-trains-students-fight-back-article-1.1222827)


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1222652.1355848039!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alice-3-1218.jpg (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alice-program-trains-students-fight-back-article-1.1222827)

[fisharmor]

I don't want to be so inflexible on an issue that no discussion takes place. I want to explore it and find solutions.

All you've said here is that you are willing to sell out our 2nd Amendment rights.
If the right to keep and bear arms is a negotiable item, then we simply don't see things the same.
It is not negotiable with me. I'm not going to sit down at a table and "flexible" my way into having my rights restricted.
I realize now that you absolutely will. And I'm ok with that.

What I'm not OK with is the fact that you're OK with sending masked men to my house to kill my animals and potentially murder me and/or rape my wife and/or take my children away because I don't see things the same way as you.
Every law needs enforcement. If you're not to the point yet where you realize that the enforcement is vastly worse than legalizing whatever they're enforcing, then you really are new to the party.

[pcosmar]

I don't want to be so inflexible on an issue that no discussion takes place. I want to explore it and find solutions.

There has been discussion. in 1934, 1968, through the 70s,80s, 90s.

There has been entirely too much discussion,, and there already was a solution.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
There is no debate.

[Anti Federalist]

Hi, welcome to the party.
Read this book, then get back to us.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355950096&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

Honestly. +rep

Makes me wonder why we should even bother sometimes when our "own people" are saying dumb shit like that...SMH.

[Anti Federalist]

Ummm, why I am to be treated like a child?

Why do my rights hinge on what somebody else does, or might do, wrong?



I actually consider the idea of treating semi-auto differently.

I mean for home defense that would still allow a pump action shotgun which is still intimidating and deadly. I also happen to like my single action Colt revolver.

It would also allow for hunting unless you claim to need a full clip to get an animal.

So what if there was free but required training or background checks for the semi-autos? I mean the 2nd amendment says well regulated but not infringed. Could that allow for holding it to some standard but not infringing with a cost so it must be free?


As for the spirit of guns pushing back tyranny well.... if the army came I don't see ranks of civilians soldiers with semi-autos doing much against trained soldiers with armored vehicles. It would probably come down to marksmanship and precision strikes picking off people.


I want to emphasize here I'm not suggesting a ban on Semi-Auto but holding it to a high standard like a permit and once you're cleared the permit is free and the course must be free.

EDIT: kind of going off on my own tangents I think lol. But it just seems like a real discussion could be happening while the rhetoric and language in Politics and the Media remains on "Assault Weapons" and "Gun Control".

[phill4paul]

Fuck you. My line in the sand was drawn with health care. I won't participate in that and I won't participate in a gun grab.
I'm done with it. I tried to be reasonable. Reason don't work.

[Confederate]

Background checks mean you're guilty before proven innocent. You are forbidden to buy a firearm until you prove yourself to be "eligible" to exercise your 2nd amendment "right."

[Natural Citizen]

Mental health laws?

I can see it now, they are going to declare all those that don't trust the government "nuts" and make laws that say they cannot own firearms.

People should really focus on this. It's the nuts and bolts. Do you see how everyone is going nuts about gun laws? They're completely falling for the means to enable them to go after them by leaving the front door wide open. Focus needs to be on pharmaceutical industry and complicit psychiatrists. But it's not. As such, you'll get what you ask for.

SA was correct in the notion that they now say that every human emotion is a mental disorder. Every one. It's big business too. Again, these notions come from complicit psychiatry. And the msm is running interference for these industries and their minions who sponsor their cable programs. Damage control is being done on behalf of these industries by the msm and at the same time they are selling the notion to people that they should demand mental health evaluations. Nothing like creating your own demand for what will certainly remain another government run market. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Guess how they'll keep track. Any guesses? My bet is either the rfid tattoo or whatever other device he references in his corporate scribbled healthcare bill.

The longer people play along with the narrative by only pissing and moaning about the sensationalised propaganda and memes happening over gun control on cable news instead of focusing on exactly how it's going to go down through the pharmaceutical industy and complicit psychiatry...and representatives...then the easier they make it for them.

The sudden outrage over gunsis nothing more than fear porn. It keeps the less attentive busy while the industry moves right through the front door and get the #1 job done unchallenged.

[phill4paul]

"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." I've been skirting the edges my whole life. Don't make me choose.

[Keith and stuff]

I mean do we even want convicted felons to be able to buy guns?

They is no way to stop them. The 2nd Amendment covers all people.

Anyway, it is a felony according to some cops to pass a joint to someone else.

More to your point, if someone is such a danger that the person cannot be trusted with a car, truck, knife, stick or gun, then the person might still need to be in jail.

[Confederate]

I mean do we even want convicted felons to be able to buy guns?


Once you've served your time all rights should be restored. Should someone who has gone to prison also lose their 1st amendment rights?

[kcchiefs6465]

Umm.... I bought a .22 Remington and waited in the store for it to clear. Didn't seem like a big deal.

I mean do we even want convicted felons to be able to buy guns?

Yeah, I know there is the black market, but at least this was law abiding citizens can still purchase.
A .22 Remington rifle perhaps, after an ATF background check. A .22 pistol? Nope. (at least not in my state as there's the 3 day waiting period) All firearms are deadly, that is their purpose. It is one legislation after another to further regulate and dissuade legal owners from purchasing guns. Incrementalism, period. I am not in favor of more restrictions. Look at what happened with hemp with the Marihuana Tax Act. (No stamps were given, thus it became illegal to produce hemp) This is the same 'slippery slope' (which I am myself getting tired of hearing-lol) First they regulate so and so, then restrict the legalities, ('Well, you can have a pistol, it just can't have more than ten shot magazines.') and pretty damn soon after there's the banning of certain weapons, brought about by sensationalized tragedies to sway popular opinion. (Goddamn I hate a democracy when your peers are more likely to watch scripted Kardashian drama over CSPAN) They are becoming all the more ready to regulate bullets etc. We need to regress gun laws, (i.e. these damn gun free zones :mad:) not progress them.

[Carson]

All politicians that fail to uphold their oaths of office should repent.

Wow it's come to that! I've never uttered such words before.


repent
 
re·pent
1 [ri-pent] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often followed by of ): He repented after his thoughtless act.
2.
to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.
verb (used with object)
3.
to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to repent one's injustice to another.
4.
to feel sorry for; regret: to repent an imprudent act. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repent)


And stop counterfeiting.

Oh there. I'm back.

[Natural Citizen]

People should really focus on this. It's the nuts and bolts. Do you see how everyone is going nuts about gun laws? They're completely falling for the means to enable them to go after them by leaving the front door wide open. Focus needs to be on pharmaceutical industry and complicit psychiatrists. But it's not. As such, you'll get what you ask for.

SA was correct in the notion that they now say that every human emotion is a mental disorder. Every one. It's big business too. Again, these notions come from complicit psychiatry. And the msm is running interference for these industries and their minions who sponsor their cable programs. Damage control is being done on behalf of these industries by the msm and at the same time they are selling the notion to people that they should demand mental health evaluations. Nothing like creating your own demand for what will certainly remain another government run market. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Guess how they'll keep track. Any guesses? My bet is either the rfid tattoo or whatever other device he references in his corporate scribbled healthcare bill.

The longer people play along with the narrative by only pissing and moaning about the sensationalised propaganda and memes happening over gun control on cable news instead of focusing on exactly how it's going to go down through the pharmaceutical industy and complicit psychiatry...and representatives...then the easier they make it for them.

The sudden outrage over gunsis nothing more than fear porn. It keeps the less attentive busy while the industry moves right through the front door and get the #1 job done unchallenged.

Just to add to this post. I had thought that maybe rfid would be forced after the Gestapo ordered mental health evaluations in order to maybe conform to the President's orders from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who wrote the rules he's forcing on us but now I see that maybe once you get your mental checkup they'll let you have yer gun but it only works with the rfid thingamabob that they're probably referencing as the device in this health care bill. Wish people would wake up and argue the correct terms of controversy. Geez. MSM continue to run interference for their sponsors as far as their accountability in recent events and continue to solicit growth on their behalf in synergy. Not a peep otherwise except to further the hype from the useful idiots setting the stage for the other useful idiots organizing at rallies and whatnot arguing over what is a mere distraction in the process. Problem...Reaction...Solution.

Anyhoo... Smart Guns with RFID? "Only the Owner Can Shoot" A (http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=23055)startup company in Ireland has patented a system that uses an RFID reader in the handle of a firearm to ’verify the identity of its owner’. Is this a good idea that keeps us safe, or increased involvement of RFID technology and control in daily lives?

[QuickZ06]

As for the spirit of guns pushing back tyranny well.... if the army came I don't see ranks of civilians soldiers with semi-autos doing much against trained soldiers with armored vehicles. It would probably come down to marksmanship and precision strikes picking off people.


Our military is not invincible, just look at what those goat herders and opium farmers can do in Afghan against the Russians and the US military.

[bolil]

Our military is not invincible, just look at what those goat herders and opium farmers can do in Afghan against the Russians and the US military.

And I don't think the ENTIRE military would play nice with the would be dictators, if met with forceful civilian resistance. The Marine Corp has a history of busting up coups (domestically, see Smedly Butler and the facist coup).

[QuickZ06]

And I don't think the ENTIRE military would play nice with the would be dictators, if met with forceful civilian resistance. The Marine Corp has a history of busting up coups (domestically, see Smedly Butler and the facist coup).

Truth. Also the NWO knows it does not have a firm hand on the entire military. This is why they have private contracting DHS, DEA ect. ect.

[Henry Rogue]

I actually consider the idea of treating semi-auto differently.

I mean for home defense that would still allow a pump action shotgun which is still intimidating and deadly. I also happen to like my single action Colt revolver.

It would also allow for hunting unless you claim to need a full clip to get an animal.

So what if there was free but required training or background checks for the semi-autos? I mean the 2nd amendment says well regulated but not infringed. Could that allow for holding it to some standard but not infringing with a cost so it must be free?


As for the spirit of guns pushing back tyranny well.... if the army came I don't see ranks of civilians soldiers with semi-autos doing much against trained soldiers with armored vehicles. It would probably come down to marksmanship and precision strikes picking off people.


I want to emphasize here I'm not suggesting a ban on Semi-Auto but holding it to a high standard like a permit and once you're cleared the permit is free and the course must be free.

EDIT: kind of going off on my own tangents I think lol. But it just seems like a real discussion could be happening while the rhetoric and language in Politics and the Media remains on "Assault Weapons" and "Gun Control".
I don't like compromise. The opposition wants to cut off both my arms. I want to keep both my arms. So we compromise and I get to keep one arm. I still got screwed.

[cbrons]

Who would decide what constitutes disqualification? If it is the family psychiatrist, that's one thing. If it is some government goon in a business suit who knows nothing about mental health, then, well, the answer is "hell no", and I tend to believe that will be the case.

Your right to bear arms would probably be decided by some bureacrat's office secretary who works a part-time job putting papers in filing cabinets.

If its a psychiatrist, it could still be problematic. How many of them are going to want to clear people? There is no incentive for them to do so. They take liability if they clear someone who goes off and does something, but none if they just auto-deny. Seems like it'd be much more in their self-interest not to clear people.

And not all people with a psychiatric disorder are dangerous. It is in fact a very small subset of them. Not all psychiatric medications make someone more of a danger to themselves or society. In fact, so far as I have read from independent sources that have been varified over and over again, it is the SSRI and other anti-depressants that may increase suicidality in children and (likely) adults as well. We should not be generically restricting people with "mental illness" from owning firearms.

[tangent4ronpaul]

As for the spirit of guns pushing back tyranny well.... if the army came I don't see ranks of civilians soldiers with semi-autos doing much against trained soldiers with armored vehicles. It would probably come down to marksmanship and precision strikes picking off people.


Our military is not invincible, just look at what those goat herders and opium farmers can do in Afghan against the Russians and the US military.


And I don't think the ENTIRE military would play nice with the would be dictators, if met with forceful civilian resistance. The Marine Corp has a history of busting up coups (domestically, see Smedly Butler and the facist coup).


Truth. Also the NWO knows it does not have a firm hand on the entire military. This is why they have private contracting DHS, DEA ect. ect.

The only country more scary to invade than the US is Switzerland. In both places, most people are armed. Many in the military and law enforcement have stated they would resign or even turn their weapons on anyone ordering them to do house to house gun confiscation.

Do you remember a guy named Randolf or something like that? Member of the "Army of God" who liked to kill abortion doctors and do bombings where gays gathered. He took to the woods and had entire military units searching for him, aircraft with thermal sensors. Yet they couldn't catch him for something like 8 months to a year and a half...

The military is also dependent on it's supply chain. That doesn't look good if most of it is in hostile territory.

If the Federal Gvmt decided to go t war with the citizens, they would get their asses kicked and handed to them on a silver platter.

It's the incrementalism that is worrisome.

-t

[Acala]

Yeah this is where I'm coming from.

I don't want to be so inflexible on an issue that no discussion takes place. I want to explore it and find solutions.

I think it is critical to keep in mind WHO you are looking to for implementing solutions. Every gun control proposal I have heard involves less freedom for individuals (the vast majority of whom are peaceful, honest people) and more power for the government (which has proven itself time and time again to be treacherous, deceitful, brutal, self-interested, and murderous). So the plan is to restrict the freedom of innocents and give more power to a murderous government that has already broken out of almost every restraint on its power. Why would you think that would work out well?

[tod evans]

I think it is critical to keep in mind WHO you are looking to for implementing solutions. Every gun control proposal I have heard involves less freedom for individuals (the vast majority of whom are peaceful, honest people) and more power for the government (which has proven itself time and time again to be treacherous, deceitful, brutal, self-interested, and murderous). So the plan is to restrict the freedom of innocents and give more power to a murderous government that has already broken out of almost every restraint on its power. Why would you think that would work out well?

^^^^^^^^^Much truth here!^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[cstarace]

So felons who have served their time and have re-integrated into society (MANY of which are non-violent) aren't allowed to protect themselves? Neither are people with some form of mental illness? And you guys call yourselves Ron Paul supporters?

[tod evans]

So felons who have served their time and have re-integrated into society (MANY of which are non-violent) aren't allowed to protect themselves? Neither are people with some form of mental illness? And you guys call yourselves Ron Paul supporters?

Not all of "you guys"....:o

I'm certainly not one of them...

[cstarace]

Not all of "you guys"....:o

I'm certainly not one of them...
Just speaking in general terms to any of the members in this thread advocating some form of gun control. Didn't mean to lump you or anybody else in with the rest of them. :)

[Acala]

So felons who have served their time and have re-integrated into society (MANY of which are non-violent) aren't allowed to protect themselves? Neither are people with some form of mental illness? And you guys call yourselves Ron Paul supporters?

There are two kinds of people in the country: 1. those who have been found (with due process) to be too dangerous to be free in our society; and 2. everyone else. No gun control law will make society safe from people in category one. Trying to pass laws that make it safe for violent criminals to walk around free by limiting their access to guns is stupid and futile. Anyone that is too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to walk freely among us. Once you identify such people, you get rid of them. I don't care how you do it - transportation, death penalty, life in prison - but you don't let them go free and then hope to make it okay by restricting EVERYONE'S freedom. Everyone should be presumed to be trustworthy until they are proven otherwise and then they have to leave.

[cstarace]

There are two kinds of people in the country: 1. those who have been found (with due process) to be too dangerous to be free in our society; and 2. everyone else. No gun control law will make society safe from people in category one. Trying to pass laws that make it safe for violent criminals to walk around free by limiting their access to guns is stupid and futile. Anyone that is too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to walk freely among us. Once you identify such people, you get rid of them. I don't care how you do it - transportation, death penalty, life in prison - but you don't let them go free and then hope to make it okay by restricting EVERYONE'S freedom. Everyone should be presumed to be trustworthy until they are proven otherwise and then they have to leave.
Yes.

In a free society this would be done via ostracism.

[Philhelm]

There are two kinds of people in the country: 1. those who have been found (with due process) to be too dangerous to be free in our society; and 2. everyone else. No gun control law will make society safe from people in category one. Trying to pass laws that make it safe for violent criminals to walk around free by limiting their access to guns is stupid and futile. Anyone that is too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to walk freely among us. Once you identify such people, you get rid of them. I don't care how you do it - transportation, death penalty, life in prison - but you don't let them go free and then hope to make it okay by restricting EVERYONE'S freedom. Everyone should be presumed to be trustworthy until they are proven otherwise and then they have to leave.

Is, say, embezzlement a felony?

[tod evans]

Is, say, embezzlement a felony?

Of course it is, so's tax evasion, and fishing out of season on federal land, growing weed etc....

Currently "Just-Cause" to jerk gun rights from the offending party..

[Philhelm]

Of course it is, so's tax evasion, and fishing out of season on federal land, growing weed etc....

Currently "Just-Cause" to jerk gun rights from the offending party..

Thank you for the answer.


So, if embezzlement is a felony, and there are other felonies in existence that do not involve violence, then there is no reason to assume that one is violent solely on the basis of being a convicted felon. Therefore, the argument that a convicted felon should not be allowed to lawfully purchase firearms, based on the assumption and reasoning of a proven history of violent behavior, is false.

[Acala]

Thank you for the answer.


So, if embezzlement is a felony, and there are other felonies in existence that do not involve violence, then there is no reason to assume that one is violent solely on the basis of being a convicted felon. Therefore, the argument that a convicted felon should not be allowed to lawfully purchase firearms, based on the assumption and reasoning of a proven history of violent behavior, is false.

Yup. Felony is almost meaningless now. It certainly is no indication of whether or not a person can be trusted to be free and armed.

[Acala]

Yes.

In a free society this would be done via ostracism.

Yup. And ejecting people from private property. If all property is private and all the members of a community say "get off my land!" Banishment happens by organic consensus.

[tod evans]

Thank you for the answer.


So, if embezzlement is a felony, and there are other felonies in existence that do not involve violence, then there is no reason to assume that one is violent solely on the basis of being a convicted felon. Therefore, the argument that a convicted felon should not be allowed to lawfully purchase firearms, based on the assumption and reasoning of a proven history of violent behavior, is false.

My opinion is that the "Just-Us" department does not want those who have been through the grinder to be legally permitted to resist.