Results 61 to 72 of 128
Thread: Suggs and Guns
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
I made no mention of passing a psych eval. Let's not muddy the waters.
A psych eval is subjective to the person performing it anyway. So, if you think it's lawful to require me to pay for a background check and require me to pay for for a psych eval to leave it in the hands of someone who as far as I know could be anti-gun. No I don't think psych evals are a good idea. If you think people should get a psych eval to own a gun, why not to drive a car?
I don't know why you even think they are a good idea, you've already admitted to more laws on owning guns won't stop people who shouldn't have them from getting them. At this point you're arguing against yourself.
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
im curious how youre suggesting to do so without stricter screening processes or gun control?
As far as breathalyzers go, i dont think its a horrible idea honestly. if it was something that was standard when cars were invented wed be used to it by now and it would be no issues, but since the world progresses and this is something newer than the original invention and people arent used to it and generally dislike "change", it would be. If my car had a breathalyzer it would not effect me because i would not drive drunk regardless. it would only effect those that do drive drunk, which again, would be the point. its not taking away your right to own and operate a vehicle, but the state in which you can. its not taking away the right to own and operate a fire arm, but the state in which you can. i dont see the dilemma here.-JAB
-
12-11-2012, 04:29 PM #63Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Suggs and Guns
I think Texas' standards are the perfect balance between liberty and sensible regulation. Instant background check when you buy a gun, of which includes a check to see if you've been committed or otherwise are mentally unfit to own a weapon. To carry concealed, you must pass a background check, attend a 10 hour training class, submit to fingerprints and qualify with the style of weapon you wish to carry (semi-auto, or revolver).
I don't think it's a coincidence that states with more liberal gun laws have a much lower violent crime rate per capita than states whose gun restrictions are more strict.
Like I said, its a philosophical ideal we're not going solve here.
Liberty is not eliminated in one giant swoop. It's piddled at one small piece at a time and it's always in the name of security, safety or "the children".
A small inconvenience here, another small regulation there and voila, you're nothing close to the true intent of the right and nobody is safer.
You're fine with the process. I am not.
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
First, I didnt say more laws wouldnt stop ALL people that shouldnt have them from getting them, merely the criminal aspect of it will be unaffected. if you think the only two sides are responsible gun owners and criminals than were at a disagreement in general. I always look at the gray in black and white situations and this topic has one as well. there are people unfit to own and operate a gun while also not being criminals. this is who any gun law would be made for. any, because gun laws shouldnt effect you and HR as responsible gun owners and it wont effect criminals. its merely an inconvenience which youve both admitted is something you just dont want and pointing to your right to own as the reasoning why, which this doesn't infringe upon. youll still own it at the end of the day.
I really dont think were all that far apart in views despite the obvious differences. as Ive said numerous times, Im pro gun. i think you should be able to go out and buy whatever you want, full auto, AR, bazooka, i really dont care, i just dont think a stricter screening process and the burden on the purchaser is asking too much.-JAB
-
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
and i can agree with that to an extent, but i dont see how THIS is infringing on your right. Add to it more regulations and this and that and id probably agree that IF its taking away the right of fit responsible gun owners than its not something i would support either. youre looking 10 more laws down the road that would still need to be made, debated and passed, im looking at the one right in front of me and the intent of it. not unlike you looking at the constitution and the intent of it.
-JAB
-
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
can be, can not be. Theres standard tests for such a thing where answers "outside the norm" are flagged in which than you would have to go see a shrink and explain your answer. that would probably be the quickest and cheapest way to implement such a law and its something that companies already are incorporating into their hiring processes.
I think youre reaching if youre saying that a large majority of shrinks are pro-gun control and wouldnt pass anybody if thats what youre implying. Ill admit its possible a few would have agendas but in the grand scheme of things their Drs and have taken a Hippocratic oath to help people.-JAB
-
12-11-2012, 04:50 PM #69Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Suggs and Guns
What NC's pic says in jest, I will spell out.
Psych evals ... then what?
Ammo registration ... then what?
Micro stamping .... then what?
Get the point?
There's always a new "helpful" regulation, which individually mean nothing, but as a collective make it repressive for the honest folks.
And I am not comfortable with my government, the same government that makes mistakes an art form, deciding something as subjective as sanity without due process.
You really think a state like Maryland would give gun owners a fair shake? All it would take would be one study from some yahoo at a university saying "Gun ownership is a sign of mental defect" and the state has all the license it needs to stop you from making the purchase.
At some point you cross the line from sensible to burdensome (and then into unconstitutional).
-
12-11-2012, 04:51 PM #70Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
-
12-11-2012, 05:00 PM #72
I'm not directing this at you Jab, but it's simple straw man attacking when the left paints the right as nut jobs who believe liberals are sinister and maliciously trying to infringe upon constitutional rights.
I take the position of Hanlon's razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”
–Eleanor Roosevelt
Bookmarks