Again, I will state, you have to look at who is leading the charge here. And again I will tell you, its the same people who have been quoted that they would disarm America in a heartbeat.
I don't think it matters who thinks what, so long as the proper things get done and it stops at the right time, even if they want to keep pressing it back. I would agree with racist bible thumpers on the right for them to have their own religion without persecution, but I wouldn't follow them off the cliff of insanity and prejudice when they want to keep going and make it illegal for anyone else to have a different religion. Hitch your wagon to the horse that's willing to work and jump ship before it drags you under.
Criminals who have felonies don't have the right to own a weapon. That's because they went through Due Process to have their rights removed. Doctors and therapists do not have the right to take rights away that Obama think they should. "Report your friends and family to the proper authorities." I wonder where the world has heard that before......
As far as I am aware, doctors and therapists
do not have that right right, as you said.
However, with the executive order Obama issued (wasn't it ruled unconstitutional anyways? I haven't been paying too close attention) doctors could report people who they believed were dangerous and had access to firearms. That is nothing like what you said.
Because banning alcohol worked? Right? Because banning Meth and Crack from off the streets helped? Right?
It did reduce the amount. It just increased the proportion of illegal activities because such activities were then called illegal. Of course it didn't stop it. I've said as much many times in this thread, banning guns does not make them disappear. I do not advocate a ban, I advocate more strict procedures to help limit the amount of guns available, and more measures taken to secure illegal firearms.
Because the ban of guns in Chicago didn't make them the country leader in homicides? Right?
You'll have to prove that it was the banning of guns which caused the homicide rate. I am not well versed in that area, but it seems far more reasonable to me that Chicago banned guns because of their high homicide rate. Opposite cause and effect.
Sandy Hook's State had the most strict gun controls in the country. That didn't stop the shooter from stealing the guns and killing children did it?
Quote me where I've said I think people shouldn't have guns. I have said exactly the opposite many times. Trained people carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, help prevent things like that. I have said this before. I've long thought it stupid that security guards at schools are armed with at most a taser.
Have you even bought a gun?
No.
Do you know what background checks are required? I do. The background check, checks if you have a criminal background. That's it.
That's the problem. It doesn't check for a whole host of other things which it should. Would you sell the materials for a bomb to someone without a criminal record? Even if they just said they want to blow up some snowmen for lols and Youtube videos? No, at least not without further proof that they won't end up hurting someone through ignorance, rashness, or anger.
Its not a future telling device that will say whether someone will go nuts.
Obviously not, since the people who go nuts are buying guns beforehand with the current system.
How can you even tell what the future holds? What kind of in-depth "background check" is going to fix that? Seriously.
If someone had been in say, (random figure) 6 car accidents over the course of 10 years of driving, I would say they are a fairly careless person. Unless the accidents were not their fault. If they are constantly being fired from jobs for harassment, anger issues, or similar things, they likely have a personality problem. That kind of in-depth background check. Plenty more could be added to the list, and while one thing alone may not be conclusive, I can sure as hell tell you right now, there are a lot of irresponsible idiots who own guns.
Think about that one for a second considering our Sandy Hook shooter was denied gun purchases. But guess what, he was still able to get a hold of weapons by stealing them from someone else. Namely, his mother. Who he also murdered.
His mother, who should have been aware of her child's mental problems. His mother, who should never have kept a gun anywhere where he could get to it. His mother, who was one of these irresponsible people I keep talking about over and over again. Would an in-depth background check have prevented him from stealing the gun somehow? Who knows. That's why I still advocate what I said earlier in regards to the shooting.
So you might argue that his mother should not have guns. Ok. How far in the family line should a gun ban go if someone in the related family has mental issues? Uncles and aunts? Cousins?
No. I have never said anything like that. My point was that she was irresponsible to allow her son to access the gun. I do not know where she kept it. Was it in a gun cabinet? Under her bed, or in a drawer? Locked in a safe? Hidden in the closet?
I do think that mental illnesses which are dangerous and hereditary should warrant an additional increase in scrutiny to require that they see a psychologist first to ensure they do not have said mental illness.
Not that autism is dangerous or causes violent tendencies anyways. Also, trust me in saying that I am not just prejudiced against people with a mental illness, as I have Aspergers, which is a form of high-functioning autism.
My point is, you can't tell who is going to just wake up one morning and go on a shooting spree.
Never said that you could.
Its better to be prepared (and don't ever confuse prepare with paranoia) for these situations than post some stupid little signs that criminals/nut jobs give two effs about.
Sure it is. Doesn't mean that we still shouldn't make sure people buying potentially lethal weapons aren't morons who have poor inhibition control.
See, this is where you lost me. You assume that a big bad black gun that is MISNAMED an assault rifle is somehow on the calibre of what the army issues. An assault rifle is automatic. You cannot just go to a sporting goods store, or gun shop, or a gun show and buy automatic weapons.
I'll admit I'm not well informed on exactly what laws are currently in relation to those details. I'm not against assault rifles because they're assault rifles, but because, from my knowledge, they are much more powerful, have a larger clip, and have a longer range than a pistol, in addition to automatic fire (unless modified otherwise).
