Who should be prevented from buying a firearm?

[djl02]

I think all felons should be given guns.

And sent to the front lines.

 

[blamecharles]

OP IC is for Carrying a handgun. This is very much different than possessing a firearm. Everyone should be able to defend themselves in their home. I agree with many others here. If someone shot their neighbor for loud music then I guess that person(shooter) wasn't stable and should be dealt with. If we were enforcing existing laws maybe we would have a different mindset.

 

[MTC]

Questions such as who should be prevented from buying (or "allowed" to) is at the root of the gun control mindset. When one advocates for a "system" whereby everyone must apply for and be granted clearance/authorization/permission to do a certain thing, that certain thing is no longer a right. The very second such a system is codified into law, the people (at large) no longer have a right, but a licensed privilege granted (or denied) by a bureaucracy or governmental agency.

It all starts with premises resuting from who should be by statute prevented from or "allowed to" ...

"allowed to"

"allowed to"

Many like to use the car analogy, e.g. "We license and register cars, why not guns (and their owners)?", arguing on the grounds of "public safety" or using the rationale of "keeping guns out of the hands of ___ ".

The problem with the analogy is that driving a motor vehicle is currently - by definition - a privilege, not a right. All too many seem perfectly willing to submit themselves and their fellow citizens to such statutes (and more proposed), while at the same time insisting that their possession of the object (after being granted "official" authorization/permission to do so) equates to a right.

If you have to apply for permission, you do not have a right.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Questions such as who should be prevented from buying (or "allowed" to) is at the root of the gun control mindset. When one advocates for a "system" whereby everyone must apply for and be granted clearance/authorization/permission to do a certain thing, that certain thing is no longer a right. The very second such a system is codified into law, the people (at large) no longer have a right, but a licensed privilege granted (or denied) by a bureaucracy or governmental agency.

It all starts with premises resuting from who should be by statute prevented from or "allowed to" ...

"allowed to"

"allowed to"

Many like to use the car analogy, e.g. "We license and register cars, why not guns (and their owners)?", arguing on the grounds of "public safety" or using the rationale of "keeping guns out of the hands of ___ ".

The problem with the analogy is that driving a motor vehicle is currently - by definition - a privilege, not a right. All too many seem perfectly willing to submit themselves and their fellow citizens to such statutes (and more proposed), while at the same time insisting that their possession of the object (after being granted "official" authorization/permission to do so) equates to a right.

If you have to apply for permission, you do not have a right.

Currently carrying a handgun in this state is no more a Right then driving a car.

 

[dobeluvr]

seems to me "Shall not be infringed" seems to say it all and has no exceptions.

While some exceptions seem to be reasonable, reason also leaves room to abuses by well meaning people.

I say "Shall not be infringed" says it very clearly.

 

[MTC]

Currently carrying a handgun in this state is no more a Right then driving a car.

As is buying any gun at retail from a licensed dealer. One has to do with purchasing of arms due to Brady/NICS at the federal level, the other has to do with the bearing of (side)arms - see IC 35-47-2-1(a) - at the State level.
I currently, by statute, have no right to buy guns from a dealer in my own country (have to wait while the proprietor or clerk calls in my personal info and gets official authorization/permission from headquarters) so that someone(s) can feel good about "doing something" to "keep guns out of ___ hands".
I also, by state statute, have no right to carry my own sidearm while off my property (although provision is made that I can send in all my personal info and fingerprints and be graciously granted permission to do so by the state police).
Again, all this so that someone can "feel good" about "keeping guns out of ___ hands" or for reasons of "public safety".

 

[Bunnykid68]

As is buying any gun at retail from a licensed dealer. One has to do with purchasing of arms due to Brady/NICS at the federal level, tghe other has to do with the beasring of (side)arms - see IC 35-47-2-1(a) - at the State level.
I currently, by statute, have no right to buy guns from a dealer in my own country (have to wait while the proprietor or clerk calles in my personal info and gets official authorization/permission from headquarters) so that someone(s) can feel good about "doing something" to "keep guns out of ___ hands".
I also, by state statute, have no right to carry my own sidearm while off my property (although provision is made that I can send in all my personal info and fingerprints and be graciously granted permission to do so by the state police).
Again, all this so that someone can "feel good" about "keeping guns out of ___ hands" or for reasons of "public safety".

Sounds like we are in agreement then

 

[jbombelli]

No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.


-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Pitmaster]

Folks with no impulse control.
How to tell? Hand them a gun and see how long it takes for them to kill someone. Then bar them for life. Or, you could invest in my Neural Resonance Fourier Synapse Potentiometer (NRFSP).

I want to pop off with something offensive but I won't. Although, you could move to Chicago, California, Massachusetts, or New York and fit right in.

Anyway, I have an 8 year old niece with ADHD. I have been teaching her about firearms for over a year. She does a great job with following safety rules and concentration. I'm taking her to her first Appleseed this weekend. I am perfectly comfortable with this. Should she have free and unimpeded access to a firearm?

I get sick and tired of the government and/or anyone else trying to legislate the prevention of every negative scenario that may happen. Life's not fair and ***** happens. Deal with it.

 

[VN Vet]

My off the cuff opinion is: No person convicted of a violent crime should be allowed a firearm permit of any kind.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Who should be barred from owning a firearm?

I have a better question: Who should be allowed to regulate a free, adult citizen's ownership of anything?

Interestingly enough, the answer to both questions is the same: No one.

(And for those trotting out the "what about the children" argument, I say there should be no law preventing a child from being lawfully armed, either.... Though his parents, being responsible for his actions, may decide that he is not yet mature enough to do so. When the responsibility for his actions is his and his alone, the question of "allowed" should be moot.)

Happy Independence Day, folks, and Happy Birthday, America.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

My off the cuff opinion is: No person convicted of a violent crime should be allowed a firearm permit of any kind.

My off the cuff rebuttal: Is No Vietnam Veteran should be allowed to possess a firearm or firearms permit of any kind...

 

[ryknoll3]

Hahaha. Well, then we shall simply label them as not free citizens, since they don't,get the 2A protection, but let's not lock them up for life just because they are mental okay? Lot's of people have Bipolar Disorder, and should never be allowed to touch a gun, period. Then we have people with ADD, and Down's Syndrome, and the list goes on.

I believe that the "well refulated militia" only includes those who would be handed a gun by a militia leader. But even if the 2A lacked the preamble, there really is no way to allow everyone access to guns, it is just absurd. We don't let some people drive, for example, and that is a good thing.

So I take it you do not own guns then? Why are you on a gun-owners site if you don't own guns? Or are you just a hypocrite?

 

[rugertoter]

I buy them simply because I like them.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I am not fit to bar my fellow citizen from arms. My fellow citizen is not fit to bar me from arms. No person or collective has the authority to look down upon a citizen and treat them like a child or ward. If anyone thinks themselves fit to decide for me, molon.

 

[rugertoter]

Having a system to weed out the insane is fine with me. What is not fine with me is that once you start something like this, it will never go away and will only grow in size - that is until nobody can own a gun. SOSDD.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

Who should be barred from owning a firearm?

I have a better question: Who should be allowed to regulate a free, adult citizen's ownership of anything?

Interestingly enough, the answer to both questions is the same: No one.

(And for those trotting out the "what about the children" argument, I say there should be no law preventing a child from being lawfully armed, either.... Though his parents, being responsible for his actions, may decide that he is not yet mature enough to do so. When the responsibility for his actions is his and his alone, the question of "allowed" should be moot.)

Happy Independence Day, folks, and Happy Birthday, America.

Blessings,
Bill

Well said sir, well said. +1

 

[ekg98]

My usually standard primary first reply of napalm. Also second my secondary reply of flamethrower. Both will suffice for this thread.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who Should be Prevented From Buying a Gun...?

People with active warrants for violent crimes
Foreign Nationals illegally in the country
People who are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol, etc
The extremely mentally ill
Adolescents (up to 12?)

rebuttals?

 

[IndyDave1776]

People with active warrants for violent crimes

1. Presumption of innocence pending conviction.
2. Feeds the pattern of progressively criminalizing more behavior until we reach the point at which only a special few (most likely protected from consequences rather than being truly upstanding) will have any rights as free citizens.

Foreign Nationals illegally in the country

This should not be a problem. Eject them. Problem solved. (Besides, if they are already breaking the law, do you really think another law will slow them down any?)

People who are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol, etc

Those issues should be dealt with separately.

The extremely mentally ill

Should not be roaming free in the first place.

Adolescents (up to 12?)

Probably shouldn't be, but that seems more like a parental responsibility to me.

rebuttals?

.