Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
What people can't seem to grasp is the fact that out of the 300+ million people, there will ALWAYS be some sort of nut who will get their hands on a weapon and create havoc. Delusional people think that we can govern ourselves into perfection.
The law is too weak. There's simply a question on the application asking if the applicant has ever been seriously mentally ill. All you have to do is check the box that says "no", and you're clear.
This isn't entirely accurate. If a person has been adjudicated as mentally ill it will show up on their background check.
What people can't seem to grasp is the fact that out of the 300+ million people, there will ALWAYS be some sort of nut who will get their hands on a weapon and create havoc. Delusional people think that we can govern ourselves into perfection.
Well, okay, you've got me thinking about it, and I might change my mind. It's possible that trying to stop the mentally ill from obtaining guns only makes some of us feel better; it doesn't actually do anything to stop them from getting one.
For those that are interested Gun Owners of America has a pre-written letter urging restraint rather than knee jerk reactions that can be sent to your representatives; Link
Last edited by outbacknv; 01-10-2011 at 07:44 PM..
This isn't entirely accurate. If a person has been adjudicated as mentally ill it will show up on their background check.
Yes, but "adjudicated" would mean that you've been judged mentally ill in a legal setting, which means that the vast majority of mentally ill people would never be identified as such through a background check.
I am sure the nti-gun looby thinks so but I really doubt mnay others beleiev that this has any basis in gun control being at fault really. Afterall they put the presnt law on mental illness i the law that exist now.
Yes, but "adjudicated" would mean that you've been judged mentally ill in a legal setting, which means that the vast majority of mentally ill people would never be identified as such through a background check.
This is true but the alternative is allowing individuals the opportunity to pass judgment on a persons mental status with no oversight. There is substantial potential for abuse under those conditions.
Why don't you just call a gun, a gun.
An object is an abstract entity, a gun is made to kill.
Don't be shy.
Because I wasn't specifically referring to just a gun.There are many "Objects" that can kill but it takes an insane person to carry that out.
There are more people killed everyday in cars so according to your thinking we should now ban all vehicles because they could potentially kill?
Quote:
a gun is made to kill.
Correction..A gun is made for protection,hunting and target shooting.Just like a car is made for driving and a knife is made for cutting but in the WRONG hands they become deadly!
Yes, but "adjudicated" would mean that you've been judged mentally ill in a legal setting, which means that the vast majority of mentally ill people would never be identified as such through a background check.
Which is the way it should be. There are such things as civil committments, which are usually short term, which have to be signed off by a judge. That would be a trigger for denial. Me saying that UAM is crazy isn't enough.
In MD an order of protection is flagged and a person is barred from legally obtaining a firearm. Technically that person also has to surrender any firearms in his/her possession as of the date of the order.
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.