Should DUI be part of criminal background check for gun purchase?

[JakeStarkey]

...and rich progressive urban dwellers cling to guns and cocaine. So?

That's the point, percysunshine. We all have our own "teddy bears" to which we cling when we are unhappy. Obama was insensitive in what he said but nothing more than that.

The point is that stereotypes are a weak foundation for effective and useful public policy.

Many people in government do not understand that. They live in a La La land where they govern stereotypes, and not people.

And many Americans use commonly terms like "nazi" and "socialist" and "dictator" and "mccarthyite" without understanding the terms.

The country is not served well by nonsense terminology.

 

[Plasmaball]

Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.

There is no federal punishment for selling a gun to a drunk person.

 

[tjvh]

. That said, if a person is convicted of a felony DUI/DWI they lose the Right to own guns anyway.

Everybody knows that but DUI is almost never charged as a felony. We need to make it a felony in all cases even first time offenders.

Nope... Not until society embraces zero tolerance (0%) for drunk driving... The part you omitted when you quoted me. Until then society accepts that people may have a few drinks and not be criminalized for it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There seems to be a consensus emerging on the USMB right that all background checks are unconstitutional.

"shall not be infringed".

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.

There is no federal punishment for selling a gun to a drunk person.

sigh - yet another liberal who doesn't even know what the issue is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There seems to be a consensus emerging on the USMB right that all background checks are unconstitutional.

"shall not be infringed".

There is not such consensus nationally at all. The fringe wacks simply will have to abide.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

There seems to be a consensus emerging on the USMB right that all background checks are unconstitutional.

"shall not be infringed".

There is not such consensus nationally at all. The fringe wacks simply will have to abide.

"Shall not be infringed" is the mantra of such fringers. That is apparently the only portion of the 2nd Amendment that they see or understand. It's not unlike the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment, where only the Free Exercise or the Establishment clause seem to exist depending on which fringe one resides.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Studies have shown that driving while sleepy can net the same results as driving under the influence. So I guess by the measures that everyone in this thread is using, anyone who's ever driven when tired should be prohibited from owning a gun too....

Dumb thread is dumb

Can you think at all?. There is no way to test for tiredness. There is for drunkenness.

We all know you CAN'T think...and yes, there IS a way to test for fatigue.

Are you off your medication?

 

[hazlnut]

Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.

Yes, absolutely.

DUI means you likely have a drinking problem. Therefore you should not own a firearm. EVER.

 

[Jarlaxle]

IMHO - A DUI shouldn't disqualify a person from owning a gun legally. Nor should a pot conviction.

However, a person should not be allowed to purchase a gun if they are obviously intoxicated at the time. We don't even have THAT restriction in the books. How crazy is that?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't just walk in a store and walk out with a gun can you? I thought it was a several day long process.

Depends on the state and the gun...you often CAN, especially for a long gun.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

I got a dui many years ago. It scared the hell out of me. As well as about 6k

After completing probation I bought a breathalizer and started testing myself at home regularly. I know my limits.

If you were smart, you'd just stop drinking. I've never been drunk in my life and haven't even touched booze except for a little when i was a dumb teen.

It might react badly with the medication you take.

Wait, you stopped? Dammit, you KNOW that the judge ordered you to take those pills every day for the rest of your life! Do you want to go back in the padded room AGAIN?!

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

Its really none of your concern what other people do in their personal lives with legal substances.

HAHAHA. Gramps just said drunk driving should be legal.

Lying or stupid...which are you?

 

[Jarlaxle]

He did too. "Its really none of your concern what other people do in their personal lives with legal substances.". That's what he said and that means legalizing dui. I realize gramps is 97 and a loony lib and i'm trying to make allowances but there is still no excuse for anyone being that stupid.

No, he did not. When one is DUI, he is not legal and neither are the substances. Yes, you are misconstruing deliberately and falsely what he said. For shame.

Hey einstein. Booze is legal - has been for 80 years. So gramps said driving drunk is nobody's business. The board awaits your apology.

Driving drunk is not legal. Gramps said nothing of the sort. The board awaits your lobotomization.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think any one convicted of murder or manslaughter by firearms should be lobotomized.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course not. DUI is still a misdemeanor. It has nothing to do with if you are a person that would be dangerous with a gun.

.

Misdemeanor domestic abuse means loss of all gun rights. What say thee to that?

And DUI proves you don't care about endangering other people and that certainly does indicate you would be dangerous with a gun.

You don't like the idea because you are a drunk driver.

many people have one conviction and sin no more. many people end up driving drunk while on meds and for other reasons.

it is NOT illegal anywhere in the USA to drink and drive

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.

Yes, absolutely.

DUI means you likely have a drinking problem. Therefore you should not own a firearm. EVER.

really? people without drinking problems never get behind the wheel of a car after having a few drinks?

It is not illegal to drink and drive anywhere in the USA

 

[asaratis]

Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.

Yes, absolutely.

DUI means you likely have a drinking problem. Therefore you should not own a firearm. EVER.

Wrong! Getting a DUI means that you were involved in an incident wherein you were driving a vehicle after having consumed too much (there is an acceptable volume) alcohol. Either you were in an accident or you got stopped for some reason by a patrolman.

I am not aware of the most accurate estimate, but the percentage of drivers getting DUIs on any given day is very small compared to the total number of drinking drivers on the road. Most of them get home without a hitch. Many of those that got home okay were shit-faced DRUNK, not just tipsy.

Driving after drinking means you have a judgement problem regarding your own ability to control a vehicle and react properly to traffic in your immediate vicinity.

Besides, there are those with drinking problems that do choose not to drive...ever. Should they also be denied firearms? Are you in favor of making the right to bear arms dependent on behavioral patterns other than abiding law. (Remember, it is NOT illegal to have a drinking problem.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.

Yes, absolutely.
DUI means you likely have a drinking problem.

It means no such thing.

Therefore you should not own a firearm. EVER.

We don't take rights away from people because of a "likely".

 

[hazlnut]

There seems to be a consensus emerging on the USMB right that all background checks are unconstitutional.

"shall not be infringed".

SCOTUS has already upheld restricted gun ownership and banning certain types of weapons.

That is the law of the land.

Do you not get it, the Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is.

 

[hazlnut]

Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.

Yes, absolutely.

DUI means you likely have a drinking problem. Therefore you should not own a firearm. EVER.

Wrong!

No. Right!!

Getting a DUI means that you were involved in an incident wherein you were driving a vehicle after having consumed too much (there is an acceptable volume) alcohol. Either you were in an accident or you got stopped for some reason by a patrolman.

If you can't stop drinking when you know you have to drive home, then you're likely an Alcoholic.

I am not aware of the most accurate estimate, but the percentage of drivers getting DUIs on any given day is very small compared to the total number of drinking drivers on the road. Most of them get home without a hitch. Many of those that got home okay were shit-faced DRUNK, not just tipsy.

So you're saying most drunk drivers don't get caught on any given night.

That's why sobriety check points are so great, they're like a fly trap for drunks.

Driving after drinking means you have a judgement problem regarding your own ability to control a vehicle and react properly to traffic in your immediate vicinity.

In other words, potential alcoholic.

Besides, there are those with drinking problems that do choose not to drive...ever. Should they also be denied firearms? Are you in favor of making the right to bear arms dependent on behavioral patterns other than abiding law. (Remember, it is NOT illegal to have a drinking problem.)

If you have a drug problem, using drugs, you are barred by federal law from owning a firearm. Alcohol is a drug. Duh.

Ergo...