Let’s take their guns

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Sigh.....

Why should a law abiding gun owner have to go through the same rigamarole every time they buy a gun? Why all the goofy rules about barrel length, magazine capacity, and folding stocks? Why the restrictions on sound supressors? (That's a courtesy issue) 

If a person isn't the problem - what is the point of restricting them?

Aren't the bad guys the problem?

But no one is being restricted. Your objection sounds like an objection to retesting people periodically for driving licenses.

Why SHOULDN’T checks be run for every gun purchase? Suppose you buy a gun and you sail through the process. Five years later, you want to buy another gun, but in the interim you’ve racked up two convictions for domestic abuse. What is the issue with being rechecked? Simply because you’re a law abiding citizen today doesn’t preclude you from being a bad guy tomorrow.

How is this a burden to you? How does it infringe on your rights?

Boru