Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gun ownership can be denied to domestic abuse


questionmark

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, questionmark said:

No, that is about sex offenders

LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT!  Haha..I knew it had some kind of name to it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, Agent0range said:

LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT!  Haha..I knew it had some kind of name to it.  

The candidate has 5 points and a peanut!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, questionmark said:

That is not what I was getting at. Most people think that if you fall under the criteria that preclude gun ownership you cannot buy a gun. The fact of the matter is that you cannot own a gun, bought or otherwise.

In the US there are only two problems with that: nobody actually knows who does own one and who does not and nobody controls what you buy or trade from a non-licensed firearms dealer. And the next problem with that, except on California nobody will actually come for your gun once you are not allowed to have it unless impounded in a lawful search (which generally implies that you have committed a crime or a judge is convinced that on your premises or other possessions evidence for a crime can be found).

And here we come to the traditional dilemma: If breaking a law has no consequences you don't need that law.

I had antique guns from family shotguns, old West pistols, hunting rifles, handguns, banets,German WWII, civil war, revolutionary war etc. Some of my ancesters were in revolutionary war to the latest ones in Vietnam, I was last in line to get their collections. Some still worked some not cleaned to work.

My spouse being civilian and military police etc. had a collection of guns and assault weapons when we married. Mine were never registered. How could anyone monitor it unless you commit a crime for a search warrant. 

I never worried about the ownership and probable wouldn't even know if some law required us to register them. 

We sold them to collectors, friends, and other veterans. No pass of ownership but we knew these people were collectors not prown to domestic or criminal violence. I know most of my older ones would never be used. I couldn't see someone loading a one shot gun with powder and a small metal ball. LOL. 

The dangerous ones were sold to people who had license for guns and were responsible police or military themselves. 

Gun ownership requires responsibility to protect children and guns being available to known criminals. Some people just sell to highest offer we didn't.

I kept my great grandmother's working pearly pistol of the old West. Trouble is it's not good for protection unless close range, even then you'd probably have to use multiple shots to kill someone. The banet is packed away but I suppose it still could work if you are desperate to kill someone. 

There's a difference between collectibles to me, but is there a law that requires registration, I don't know. How would the law even be able to make you register? 

Bad people will always find a way to get guns illegally, but I still think a person suspected on no fly list should never be allowed to buy a weapon legally.

 

 

 

Edited by White Unicorn
Spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

 

Bad people will always find a way to get gun sillegally, but I still think a person suspected on no fly list should never be allowed to buy a weapon legally.

 

 

 

I agree with you in theory, and I think the majority of Americans do. The problem is our government cannot even properly administer the no fly list. People end up on there for all kinds of reasons from political activism to sleeping with the wrong person. We cant as a nation start removing people's constitutional rights just because someone arbitrarily identifies them as a terror risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I agree with you in theory, and I think the majority of Americans do. The problem is our government cannot even properly administer the no fly list. People end up on there for all kinds of reasons from political activism to sleeping with the wrong person. We cant as a nation start removing people's constitutional rights just because someone arbitrarily identifies them as a terror risk. 

Just like an error on a credit report, it should be known to suspect and he should have a way to correct it. It would be a delay to purchase not a denial to a constitutional right. 

Latest Florida nut should not have been able to get an assult weapon only meant to kill people. Assult weapons should have higher checks for all people IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, White Unicorn said:

Just like an error on a credit report, it should be known to suspect and he should have a way to correct it. It would be a delay to purchase not a denial to a constitutional right. 

Latest Florida nut should not have been able to get an assult weapon only meant to kill people. Assult weapons should have higher checks for all people IMO.

 

 Arbitrarily suspending someoene's rights until they can prove theyre worthy of having said rights is insanely un-american. 

Gun control makes sense on the surface but if you move beyond the hyperbole and emotion the potential negatives of such actions clearly outweigh the potential positives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 Arbitrarily suspending someoene's rights until they can prove theyre worthy of having said rights is insanely un-american. 

Gun control makes sense on the surface but if you move beyond the hyperbole and emotion the potential negatives of such actions clearly outweigh the potential positives. 

And meanwhile another nutter gets himself a semi-automatic and looks for a nightclub.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

And meanwhile another nutter gets himself a semi-automatic and looks for a nightclub.

 

 You do realize that violent crime, despite the media programmed hysteria is actually down right? 

In order to be free we must assume some risk. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

 You do realize that violent crime, despite the media programmed hysteria is actually down right? 

In order to be free we must assume some risk. 

I know that if you live in an area where scorpions are predominant you look under the blankets before you go to bed. Tends to extend the part of your life considered healthy.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

In order to be free we must assume some risk. 

absolutely, the left seem to not get it,  there is a price to pay for everything including freedom. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 Arbitrarily suspending someoene's rights until they can prove theyre worthy of having said rights is insanely un-american. 

Gun control makes sense on the surface but if you move beyond the hyperbole and emotion the potential negatives of such actions clearly outweigh the potential positives. 

We are in very  unamerican times. We have a federal government with many more powers and bureaucracy than when it was first created to be national security and we had state militias. It is in its realms to protect citizens now.  The right to bear arms is not for militias now. 

It's about where we go from here to make the government better by changes within the current system or have another civil war which is worse to me. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, White Unicorn said:

We are in very  unamerican times. We have a federal government with many more powers and bureaucracy than when it was first created to be national security and we had state militias. It is in its realms to protect citizens now.  The right to bear arms is not for militias now. 

It's about where we go from here to make the government better by changes within the current system or have another civil war which is worse to me. 

 

 

Its always been in its realm to protect citizens. It is impossible however to protect the citizenry against every threat. Like I said in order to be free we must assume some risk. Whats next in your opinion, limiting free speech because IT makes people less safe? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Its always been in its realm to protect citizens. It is impossible however to protect the citizenry against every threat. Like I said in order to be free we must assume some risk. Whats next in your opinion, limiting free speech because IT makes people less safe? 

 

Freedom of speech is a different thing. All we can do is not believe any lies and hate behind some of it. The neonazi group had freedom of speech denied by another radical group who denied it by violence so they are just as bad as the other side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.