View Single Post
      01-18-2013, 12:30 PM   #136
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
United_States
42
Rep
1,203
Posts

 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
But is that true for every gun owner who could utter that sentence today ? Probably not. If I wanted to keep my guns and stop the current legislation, I'd work on an argument which does not deny that fact, but acknowledges it and provides an answer to that concern.

Even the mental background checks on gun and ammo buyers being discussed would not have made any difference at Sandy Hook. They'd have to be far more intrusive, to cover anyone in your life who could possibly get at the gun.

Last time I got car insurance, I was asked who else has access to driving the car.

Perhaps the NRA would enjoy a more sympathetic ear from non-gun owners if they threw that on the table, and said, we'd support these more intrusive checks for immediate family, etc.
The NRA takes a stance by the literal words of the amendment. In some respect i can understand that some things may not be relevant now as it was then and some things may be relevant now as it wasn't then.

For instance, when the amendment was written everyone in the household was trained to use a rifle effectively at a very early age. They were taught to respect all adults and elders. They were taught that disobeying their parents or elders came with strict consequences. And there were not nearly as many mentally ill people as there are now.

Today, the early training and teaching of children happen much less frequently. In addition, we now have emo people and many more mentally unstable people in the world.

This is something that the NRA and gun owners alike should put some focus on. In this respect, simply allowing any citizen the right to bare arms doesn't make sense. Citizens who are convicted of violent crimes are disallowed this right. People who are under 21 years of age are disallowed this right. I don't see why the mentally ill can't be disallowed this right as well. Just as the insurance companies have a right to know how many people are in your house hold (because they MIGHT drive that car) knowing who lives with you when you get a back ground check IS something that should be check up on.

However, just because i have a child with a mental illness doesn't mean i can't have guns. it just means there will be some extra precautions i must take in order to do so. in addition i should be made aware that should my mentally ill child use my firearm in a crime that i will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

Things do get sticky when say a woman who want's to own a gun is married to a person who was convicted of a violent crime. I suppose the same would apply if she were married to a mentally ill person. After all it's not like people who aren't allowed to OWN guns aren't allowed to shoot them in a lawful manner.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat