RE: Let’s take their guns
November 1, 2020 at 4:32 am
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2020 at 4:34 am by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(October 31, 2020 at 10:01 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:(October 31, 2020 at 7:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: How does better vetting target the law abiding? If you haven’t broken any serious laws, if you’re not mentally unstable, and if you can demonstrate that you’re willing to use and store your weapons in a responsible manner, I don’t see why you SHOULDN’T be able to purchase a firearm.
But you raise a fair point that if people who currently own firearms violate these provisions in future, they should no longer be allowed to own firearms.
We’re really not all that far apart on this.
Boru
How many times do you have to ask a law abiding person "are you obeying the law?" before the question just becomes stupidly redundant? What does asking the same question over and over accomplish?
I'm not sure I understand the questions. It isn't about repeatedly quizzing someone, it's about someone's actions and situations. Suppose Joe has been a law abiding gun owner for, I dunno, 20 years, and is then convicted of rape with violence. I think that should disqualify him from being a gun owner. Or say he's never convicted of anything, but develops severe dementia to the point where he can't recognize his own family members. He probably shouldn't be armed. Or imagine he leaves children alone with a loaded pistol and one child kills the other (much like what happened in Georgia fairly recently) - at the very least, Joe shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
How would standards like these damage YOUR gun ownership rights, or the rights of millions and millions of firearms owners who DON'T commit serious crimes, who are NOT a danger to other people, or who DO properly secure their weapons?
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson