Getting a gun... - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

el presidente · #46 01-10-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I don't agree with arming anyone, I have no desire to own a gun and I would be more comfortable if we were more like england.

However, once everyone and his dog already has a gun, and most of them are not stored securely, it's a little silly to think passing laws will prevent "lunatics" from obtaining one. This seems like the ultimate case of closing the barn door behind the horse. I don't really think we can do anything to prevent these types of events.

Not about firearms....it's about freedom vs. control.

Some want more freedom, or at least to maintain what we currently have. Some wish to concentrate more control in the hands of political elites.

Hatterasguy · #47 01-10-2011, 01:49 PM

In CT they already preform background checks when you purchase a firearm. Quite a few states are like this and their is no problem with this system.

However the information is not perfect.

Hatterasguy · #48 01-10-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

What, you mean actually institute a Well Regulated Militia like the Constitution says? According to the Right, the Constitution is un-Constitutional!

Owning a gun should require the same things as owning a car. Obtaining a license, which would include passing a typical psychological exam as is used when enlisting in the Armed Forces, passing a background check for felonies and proving one could competently operate a firearm, followed by the registration of the firearm after proving one has obtained insurance coverage in case of it's accidental use. I am not against owning guns, I am against lunatics, felons and terrorists owning guns. The Constitution says gun owners comprise a Well-regulated Militia. Well, they don't.

I would consider supporting this if I could easily own anything I want. Full auto AK, M4 with M203 stuck underneath it, M60, MP5 PDW, P90, RPG, etc. The current laws nationally, as well as the current BS Assualt rifle ban in CT, is crap. How the heck is an AK74 legal and less "dangerous" than an AK47 which is illegal?

Actually some European countries do this and it seems to work pretty well.

vwbuge · #49 01-10-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I don't agree with arming anyone, I have no desire to own a gun and I would be more comfortable if we were more like england.

However, once everyone and his dog already has a gun, and most of them are not stored securely, it's a little silly to think passing laws will prevent "lunatics" from obtaining one. This seems like the ultimate case of closing the barn door behind the horse. I don't really think we can do anything to prevent these types of events.

I would be happy with everyone and his dog owning a gun. As long as everyone including the dog was investigated/researched for any mental instability and any prior criminal record.

What does storage have to do with anything? Do you think a responsible person (someone who was investigated) would leave a weapon out in the open to be stolen?

#50 01-10-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el presidente

Not about firearms....it's about freedom vs. control.

Some want more freedom, or at least to maintain what we currently have. Some wish to concentrate more control in the hands of political elites.

...and some of us don't really care about the "gun issue" because there are much more important freedoms that are at risk from "government control." Given a choice between the second and fourth amendment, I'll take the fourth every time.

PastorJoe · #51 01-10-2011, 01:54 PM

He did indeed buy it from a licensed dealer and passed a background check. Passing after being rejected by the military for failing a drug test. The form asks about drug use, so he obviously lied on the form.

The real lesson to be learned here is that the database searched when doing the background check is flawed. This is no surprise. It is simply just one more example of incompetency in government operated programs and processes.

el presidente · #52 01-10-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

...and some of us don't really care about the "gun issue" because there are much more important freedoms that are at risk from "government control." Given a choice between the second and fourth amendment, I'll take the fourth every time.

Liberty/Freedom....it's all connected.

el presidente · #53 01-10-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorJoe

He did indeed buy it from a licensed dealer and passed a background check. Passing after being rejected by the military for failing a drug test. The form asks about drug use, so he obviously lied on the form.

So, his failure to enlist was due to a drug screen, rather than failing a psychological exam?

#54 01-10-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vwbuge

I would be happy with everyone and his dog owning a gun. As long as everyone including the dog was investigated/researched for any mental instability and any prior criminal record.

What does storage have to do with anything? Do you think a responsible person (someone who was investigated) would leave a weapon out in the open to be stolen?

OK, as long as the potential gun owner is willing to pay the several $1000 required to perform that screening. I am subject to "real" background checks, it is not a cheap process. A certainly don't want my tax money used every time someone else decides they want to buy a gun.

Well, there are plenty of unregistered guns on the streets, they all came from someplace so I assume that someone was being "irresponsible" with their weapons.

#55 01-10-2011, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el presidente

Liberty/Freedom....it's all connected.

This is the wrong battle to chose.

JollyRoger · #56 01-10-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

and, who defines "lunatics"?

Apparently everyone who knew him describes him as very disturbed – the military rejected him, the school he was at asked him to leave, everyone seemed to define him as a lunatic, except the gun store. Heck of a system you NRA types have given us. Beltway snipers, college dorm shooters, Columbine killers, heck, they all just walk up and buy their guns. Why are we arming lunatics?

el presidente · #57 01-10-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Apparently everyone who knew him describes him as very disturbed – the military rejected him, the school he was at asked him to leave, everyone seemed to define him as a lunatic, except the gun store. Heck of a system you NRA types have given us. Beltway snipers, college dorm shooters, Columbine killers, heck, they all just walk up and buy their guns. Why are we arming lunatics?

Aren't you a gun owner? Would you be able to pass the suggested exams?

#58 01-10-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Apparently everyone who knew him describes him as very disturbed – the military rejected him, the school he was at asked him to leave, everyone seemed to define him as a lunatic, except the gun store. Heck of a system you NRA types have given us.

It's a legitimate question, how would you screen people? Do you make everyone take the MMPI and send anyone who falls outside the nominal range for a screening interview (that's how real screenings are normally performed)? That process will take several hours and has a significant cost, who pays for it?

toomany MBZ · #59 01-10-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Given a choice between the second and fourth amendment, I'll take the fourth every time.

There is no choice in the matter and that's a good thing.

Here in Va you go through a background check paid by the buyer, in the case of Va Tech, humans let that slip through.

Ft. Hood, that was an army officer, a psychiatrist, no less. Army folks are not allowed to carry on post. Didn't stop the nut job from trying to rid the world of infidels and the U. S. Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

#60 01-10-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toomany MBZ

There is no choice in the matter and that's a good thing.

Here in Va you go through a background check paid by the buyer, in the case of Va Tech, humans let that slip through.

Ft. Hood, that was an army officer, a psychiatrist, no less. Army folks are not allowed to carry on post. Didn't stop the nut job from trying to rid the world of infidels and the U. S. Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

In VA, what is the nature of the background check and how much does it cost?

I'm subject to "real" background checks that take several weeks, involve interviews with plenty of people, criminal checks, credit checks, random drug screening, periodic psychological screenings, etc. I don't know what it costs, but I suspect it is more than the average gun buyer would be willing to pay. The term "background check" can mean many things.