Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Who should legally be allowed to buy guns?

View Poll Results: Who should be able to buy guns?
Poll Options:
US Citizens > 21, w/permit, no gov't disability $, no mental issues, clear background check 0 votes (0%)
US Citizens > 18, w/permit, no gov't disability $, no mental issues, clear background check 1 votes (100.00%)
US Citizens > 18, w/permit, with no reported mental health issues, clear criminal background check 0 votes (0%)
US Citizens > 18, with a permit, clear criminal background check 0 votes (0%)
US Citizens > 18, with a permit 0 votes (0%)
US Citizens > 18 0 votes (0%)
Anybody who can get themselves to the gun show 0 votes (0%)
Voters: 1. You may not vote on this poll
Who should legally be allowed to buy guns?
Thread Tools
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 03:07 PM
 
Since my comment got buried in the other thread, wondering how we feel on the retraction DT signed, removing Obama's limits on the mentally ill obtaining firearms:

House votes to overturn Obama gun rule | TheHill

I did not know it was tied to disability also. It reminds me of the many cries for welfare recipients to have drug testing.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 03:31 PM
 
Anyone who isn't in jail. I would tie it to the right to vote - citizens outside jail can buy. Non-citizens outside jail would not have it as a right, so it would be up to the seller / local jurisdiction.

Beware tying it to previous felony convictions. Courtesy of our lock-em-up policy (and the drug war) we have millions of people with previous felonies. At least 5.3 million at present, not counting those in states who restore voting rights after they've served their time. Counting those could drive it a good deal higher.

There are so many laws on the books that no one can know them all, much less avoid breaking them. At least one lawyer estimates the average US citizen commits 3 felonies a day. If those were all enforced, we would all lose the right to vote overnight.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 03:31 PM
 
Tell me about this "permit".
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 03:33 PM
 
Not enough options.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Anyone who isn't in jail. I would tie it to the right to vote - citizens outside jail can buy. Non-citizens outside jail would not have it as a right, so it would be up to the seller / local jurisdiction.

Beware tying it to previous felony convictions. Courtesy of our lock-em-up policy (and the drug war) we have millions of people with previous felonies. At least 5.3 million at present, not counting those in states who restore voting rights after they've served their time. Counting those could drive it a good deal higher.
IMO, correct. Unless it's a violent crime, your right shouldn't be infringed.

Permanent US resident, > 21, no mental issues, clear background check, no permit required (you would need one to publically carry, but not while your own property)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 04:27 PM
 
I'd be willing to concede the rights of felons who've served their time and appear to have readjusted to society. However it does get tricky drawing the line. Not all drug crimes are violent; yet sometimes drug crimes are more heavily punished than assault.

For permit, I was thinking the kind of class that proves you know how to unload/load and handle it safely. Less arduous/time consuming than drivers ed but enough to give gun shops CYA.

Also, no love for our 18yo who can vote, serve in the military? If you can do those adult things, why not guns? If, like the drinking age, it's to keep guns out of the hands of high schoolers, well, get ye to a remote field in the country and watch the everclear flow.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 04:36 PM
 
If the 18 y/o has as much training and personal discipline as active military personnel, sure, the vast majority don't.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 07:00 PM
 
Non-violent felons should have all the rights as a normal citizen, and also not be required to admit to their record on job applications.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 07:17 PM
 
Slightly OT. I've been thinking about the historical progression here. And what would happen if we changed any of the steps.

1776 Militia (those allowed to vote) comprised of armed white male landowners.
- (armed part with regard to voting)
- (landowner part)
+ (18-year-old limit)
+ (citizen requirement: born or naturalized)
- (white limit)
+ (disenfranchisement during/after jail)
- (male limit)
= 2017 citizen, with voting and gun rights.

The old race and gender limits must never be added back. Allowing non-citizens to vote on our laws compromises whether we control our own government. The landowner part doesn't quite make sense, because it would allow citizens to buy/sell their right to vote. Finally, letting children vote undermines an informed electorate and might result in Barney being elected.

But what about the old armed part of the militia? What if Texas for example, dropped their voter ID proof requirement. Instead, one has to prove gun ownership to vote.

Now that would be interesting. Practical concerns too, if people brought their proof to the polling station. It might still produce the desired result; reduced minority voting. But this method would have more tradition behind it.

I've been having fun thinking about how this would go. And how many people would have a cow.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Non-violent felons should have all the rights as a normal citizen, and also not be required to admit to their record on job applications.
Also agree.


(However... people who've been imprisoned for embezzlement or other money crimes should be flagged when applying for jobs that involve handling large sums of $$ (same thing for people with drug convictions working for pharmacies.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 06:59 AM
 
I don't know how correct this is, but I've been told it's way easier to get a scrip for whatever from a shady doc rather than stealing from a pharmacy.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't know how correct this is, but I've been told it's way easier to get a scrip for whatever from a shady doc rather than stealing from a pharmacy.
Not if you work there and are in charge of the med counts. While you'll eventually be caught, I can only imagine how much can walk out with you, after each shift, before then. A local Walgreens had an employee who stole >20k opiates (over a 1 yr period) before she was caught, and that only happened because they noticed she was hammered all the time and she'd bought a new $50k truck. I have a suspicion that's not too uncommon.

BTW, her method for stealing them was to hide them in her vagina.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:51 AM
 
That's... not well locked down.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,