Conservative Mind Set & Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
OK then. What about, if a gun is used in an illegal act, that gun is confiscated and one loses the right to own a gun. Such a law may have prevented the Navy yard shooting.
I agree on waiting periods and background checks, but they're already in place. Consistency is needed, though. When I lived in Baltimore, I had to wait two weeks for my Sig P228. Strangely enough, I bought an AR-15 a week later and there was no waiting time period. I said to the guy (who was a Sheriff as well) "let me get this straight, for the handgun there's a waiting period. But for the semi-automatic rifle, there isn't? Does that make sense?" He just replied "politicians".
In Florida, as easy as gun laws are, there is a mandatory 3 day wait and background check on all guns unless you have a concealed permit - because you've already undergone rigorous background tests and finger printing.
The problem is the law that allows me to sell to another individual if I want to sell one of my guns. I do not need to do a background check on that person if I sell them a gun. All I need to do (for my protection) is get them to fill out a piece of paper called a Firearms Bill of Sale, and ask them if they are legally able to own a firearm. They could easily lie.
That is a problem, in my opinion.
If a person uses a firearm to commit a crime, they should lose their ability to own a firearm, unless properly appealed to a judge and that judge agrees that the circumstances warrant reinstatement. The only reason I put that exception in is because there may be some situation where a person had to defend themselves, but yet was still charged with something like "reckless endangerment" or whatnot. The judge appeal clause would allow their case to be reviewed.
1) Written Laws do not cannot and never have prevented any crime. Only active physical crime prevention prevents crimes
2) Convicted felons are ALREADY by law prohibited from owning firearms. But then of course ink on paper doesn't actually stop them from acquiring guns.
You could maybe argue that a history of ANY firearm related infraction forfeits ones gun rights.
3)Who is it primarily opposing the profiling registration and incarceration of the known mentally ill? (before they harm others)
The right or the left?
I think you and I touched on this elsewhere. The Navy yard shooting would not have happened in Canada, for example, because his previous psycho incidents would have put him in the national law enforcement database. He would have failed to buy any weapons from the shop, and his trying to do so would have gotten him arrested.
See? There is a surprising amount that both conservatives and liberals agree with on the topic of guns. But it's about addressing the problems, not going after guns - you can't go after guns even if you want to. It's impossible logistically.
Once you get past that and start focusing on the problems, there's a whole lot that could be done that both sides would agree with.
1) Of course laws have prevented crime. What a ridiculous thing to say.
2) "Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.
While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements â part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. "
The key here is STATES. It has to be firm and nationwide.
The argument that because it may not be 100% effective therefore it is not any good is dumb.
3) Not relevant to the discussion. A red herring. Try to stay focused.