U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Unread 04-11-2009, 08:09 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
6,115 posts, read 4,233,909 times
Reputation: 3185
Default How many "common sense" gun restrictions do we have already?

There have been a lot of threads started lately calling for "common sense" restrictions on firearms ownership. When I think about it, there are an awful lot of restrictions on the books already, and many cities have laws bordering on outright bans (if your not a criminal anyway). The instant background check is in place, and the resultant fees, people adjudicated as mentally ill cannot posess a gun, convicted felonsand non citizens also cannot LEGALLY own a weapon. On top of that a misdemeanor "domestic violence" conviction forfiets ones right to own a gun as well, regardless of the language of the conviction. If it's domestic related, a disturbing the peace charge gets your guns taken away. CA;s firearms laws are downright ludicrous, and have been proven to be a failure, as gang violence with fully automatic firearms is rampant in it's big metro centers, yet a law abiding citizen cannot get an AR 15. There are scads of restrictions on firearms ownership already in place, and yet we have howling for more. What more do we need? Or do the existing laws just need to be enforced to the letter? Any thoughts ya'll? As an aside , I do not want to see a bunch of personal attacks getting started between individuals. This is a hot issue, I know, but lets steer away from the personal slamming I have been seeing ,and getting caught up in myself, on other threads. Rational and reasonable discussion please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 04-11-2009, 10:04 PM
 
11,970 posts, read 6,965,404 times
Reputation: 2772
I had no idea the restriction for non citizens were in place. Seems sensible, but it would restrict them to live in only the most crime free neighborhoods since they're not permitted to defend themselves with weapons.

Am I mistaken in this belief? I believe the ajudicated mentally ill are usually a case after the fact... meaning they've already committed an act of violence to merit the restriction. Right or wrong about these perceptions, I think how we've dealt with the mentally ill needs serious overhaul with identification and prevention measures in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 04-11-2009, 10:24 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
6,115 posts, read 4,233,909 times
Reputation: 3185
Green carded immigrants can buy a gun (I believe), the "mentally ill' clause covers court rulings and commitments by doctors to a mental institution, or drug rehab facility. Medical practicioners are required to report any patient they believe presents a public danger because of their 'condition'. Public safety trumps confidendtiality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 04-12-2009, 03:12 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
2,150 posts, read 2,296,663 times
Reputation: 1634
Being adjudicated mentally ill does not mean you've committed a crime previously. It just means the courts or a doctor thought you were mentally ill. Its a broad label, too wide in my opinion. Soldiers returning from war who were diagnosed with PTSD fall under the mentally ill category if I recall correctly.


As to the OP, we don't need any more restrictions. We need actual enforcement of the existing laws. Instead, for some reason, our current crop of lawmakers think more laws being put in place will change things when all it takes is enforcement. Who else do we really need to keep guns from? Apparently the answer is everyone.

Take a look at most of the gun crime out there. Most of it is committed by people who legally cannot possess a gun in the first place. Felons, mentally ill, on probation, parole, domestic offenders, etc. People are going to commit violent crime with or without guns.

Lawmakers and law enforcement need to focus on the existing gun laws and enforce them instead of further infringing on our rights.

People think I'm nuts for having this opinion, but if they take your 2nd Amendment rights, what is going to stop them from taking your other rights. Just because the current issue doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you shouldn't be worried. You should value every one of your rights equally. Those that you feel don't matter might be taken and then the ones you do care about will be under attack next. These are RIGHTS, people. Not privileges. I just can't stress this enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top