2 Questions For 2nd Amendment Fans

[Jackson]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

Hi Marc!
1. If the person's crime was one of violence, I don't think he should be permitted to own a gun.

2. Yes. I believe there should be test sites at the police department that customers can take a short mental or personality test to determine their mental competency or have a personality disorder that would not make them a good candidate to purchase a gun.

There is usually a three day waiting period anyway and this could be computer It should be sent back to his home address confirming that the address he/she gave is indeed the proper address. Then they can go buy their gun. All assault weapons should be outlawed.

 

[Missourian]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

Yes the trap is set now who will spring the trap.
If a convict has paid his dues to socitey he should be allowed to defend himself anyway he chooses.

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Should people be tested before they vote? Because an elected offical has killed more people than one person has with a gun.

 

[Jackson]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

Of course not silly. Convicts are in Jail!

Seriously, I would suggest for people that have served Their time and Parole, that it should depend on the Nature of the Crime, whether it was a State or Federal Crime, and both the Federal and State Government's should have voice in that.

Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

No. I do believe that a Background Check will Red Flag Anyone with a History of Mental Illness, in the clearing process. I do believe that a concerned Dealer should Report a Suspicious Customer to Federal Authorities. I do believe in the Right of the Seller to refuse the Sale. If you have reason to believe a crazy person is in possession of a gun, you should report it.

Mentally unstable too often fall through the cracks.We just had a great illustation of that with the Tuscon shooting. When parents, schools and LE fail to alert authorities of students who could be a danger to themselves or others they are free to buy any weapons.

We cannot leave it up to gun dealers, for once the customer got out of temporary psychiatric care, what do you bet the gun dealer who alerted authorities of the possible mental patient could be a target if the patient wasn't cared for properly?

I just think it would be best if the customers take the time to fill out the questionairre and put it in a box. He can't blame anyone for grading his paper wrong and have no ensuing episodes of anger. If he doesn't like the rule, he doesn't need the gun.

 

[shintao]

Why infringe on the rights of felons? If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and the words express the original intent of the founders, shouldn't any infringement, control or regulation be unconstitutional?
["Yes, I'd like a a two megaton warhead on my mortor. Do you deliever?"]

Yes, why infringe on the rights of felons? IF you find felons should not own guns in a free society, then keep them locked away instead of violating the Constitution that gives me the right to own guns.

And if the fancy mortar floats your boat and you can afford it, have after it as far as I am concerned. You have done nothing wrong to prevent it. IF I could afford a battle ship I should be able to buy it. What is the problem here? "Shall Not Be Infringed," means;

Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

I am pretty sure we had cannons when the Constitution was written.

Shin play along here ok?.....if some guy is in prison for shooting and killing 6 people randomly in cold blood.....and for some unknown reason ...he is released....and as he walks out he tells everyone.....im going to get a gun.....and kill 10 people this time......your ok with them letting him buy a gun legally?....

Yes. He has said nothing that a handful of free thinking people we judge to be sane, haven't said publicly, and he has committed no crime.

There is a price to pay for freedom, and hundred of thousands have paid that price, and I have watched them be butchered and die in my arms, and rise from the battlefield in choppers to never be seen again. Should I make an exception for 10? I don't think so. I think it is a fundamental flaw in American thinking to suggest I should.

I have family members that survived the Patrick Purdy massacre on the school grounds, others were violently robbed at gunpoint, one shot, and one of my own ladies carjacked and kidnapped, robbed, beaten, just a few months ago in broad daylight. Evidence enough there are plenty of people who shouldn't own guns, or cars, or knives, etc. Are you going to strip our rights to own property for a criminal? I think not. I think you are going to protect those rights of a free society so that we can protect ourselves. And I think the founders knew that when they wrote "Shall Not Be Infringed." My ladies want some 40 cals, and I will buy them, because we don't intend to be intimidated again.

The way to the free society we should all enjoy, is to lock these criminals away until we are sure they are safe to rejoin a free society, and I don't care how long you have to keep them there. I want to live free, a criminal wants to live in a closed society.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

No, if a person is safe to be released back into the population they should have ALL their rights restored. If they are NOT safe to be released then we need better laws.

No. One should not be TESTED for anything. I can sort of live with the , if you are involuntarily committed you lose the right. Which is already the law.

Further who gets to establish what is mentally acceptable to own said weapon?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

1.....depends on his crime

2.....who is going to say who is Mentaly Competant and how do you tell if he is or is not?.......now if the person has a history of being kinda deranged than thats more cut and dry.....but otherwise....how can you tell?......

Good points Harry.
As to number one, any crime of violence; any crime wherein alcohol or drugs are an element of the offense (DUI, Drunk in public, sale, posssession for sale or transportation of drugs, for example); any crime where threats are made, any gang enhancement
As to number two, any civil committment wherein a person has been found by a medical professional to be a danger to themselves or others.
In any case where a protection or stayaway order is in effect.

Your no.2 is already the Law. Anyone involuntarily committed to as mental hospital or Judged incompetent has forever forfeited their right to own and possess firearms unless they petition the Treasury Secretary and he agrees to reinstate said right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1.....depends on his crime

2.....who is going to say who is Mentaly Competant and how do you tell if he is or is not?.......now if the person has a history of being kinda deranged than thats more cut and dry.....but otherwise....how can you tell?......

Good points Harry.
As to number one, any crime of violence; any crime wherein alcohol or drugs are an element of the offense (DUI, Drunk in public, sale, posssession for sale or transportation of drugs, for example); any crime where threats are made, any gang enhancement
As to number two, any civil committment wherein a person has been found by a medical professional to be a danger to themselves or others.
In any case where a protection or stayaway order is in effect.

Your no.2 is already the Law. Anyone involuntarily committed to as mental hospital or Judged incompetent has forever forfeited their right to own and possess firearms unless they petition the Treasury Secretary and he agrees to reinstate said right.

Are you sure about that? Post a link to the authority if you will. I"ve detained persons under 5150 W&I (see CA Welfare & Institutions Code, 5150 and links to other sections of of a civil committment) for involuntary committment, and have had others voluntarily commit themselves for the 72 hour civil detention and evaluation. If these records are available to a gun shop owner I'd be very suprised.

 

[whitehall]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

Of course convicts should be denied access to a weapon. The law in most states requires that persons who have been under psychiatric treatment as a result of a court order should not be allowed to purchase a weapon. The state of Virginia forgot it's responsibility when the Virginia Tech shooter was allowed to purchase a weapon because court ordered psychiatric treatment was not available in the instant name check because of privacy issues. The law has been revised. I imagine Arizona has the same problem.

 

[Intense]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

Of course not silly. Convicts are in Jail!

Seriously, I would suggest for people that have served Their time and Parole, that it should depend on the Nature of the Crime, whether it was a State or Federal Crime, and both the Federal and State Government's should have voice in that.

Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

No. I do believe that a Background Check will Red Flag Anyone with a History of Mental Illness, in the clearing process. I do believe that a concerned Dealer should Report a Suspicious Customer to Federal Authorities. I do believe in the Right of the Seller to refuse the Sale. If you have reason to believe a crazy person is in possession of a gun, you should report it.

Do you also believe in the Easter bunny?

Are you Retarded???

 

[elvis]

what about the easter bunny?

 

[Intense]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

Of course not silly. Convicts are in Jail!

Seriously, I would suggest for people that have served Their time and Parole, that it should depend on the Nature of the Crime, whether it was a State or Federal Crime, and both the Federal and State Government's should have voice in that.

Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

No. I do believe that a Background Check will Red Flag Anyone with a History of Mental Illness, in the clearing process. I do believe that a concerned Dealer should Report a Suspicious Customer to Federal Authorities. I do believe in the Right of the Seller to refuse the Sale. If you have reason to believe a crazy person is in possession of a gun, you should report it.

Mentally unstable too often fall through the cracks.We just had a great illustation of that with the Tuscon shooting. When parents, schools and LE fail to alert authorities of students who could be a danger to themselves or others they are free to buy any weapons.

We cannot leave it up to gun dealers, for once the customer got out of temporary psychiatric care, what do you bet the gun dealer who alerted authorities of the possible mental patient could be a target if the patient wasn't cared for properly?

I just think it would be best if the customers take the time to fill out the questionairre and put it in a box. He can't blame anyone for grading his paper wrong and have no ensuing episodes of anger. If he doesn't like the rule, he doesn't need the gun.

The Arizona Shooting was the result, in part, of multiple ignored Red Flags. The system failed, there. Had it done It's job, this probably would not have happened. It does not change the importance of the Second Amendment, nor should it.

 

[Intense]

what about the easter bunny?

I think the Easter Bunny should be able to Carry too! You got a problem with that???

 

[Sherry]

Yes, why infringe on the rights of felons? IF you find felons should not own guns in a free society, then keep them locked away instead of violating the Constitution that gives me the right to own guns.

And if the fancy mortar floats your boat and you can afford it, have after it as far as I am concerned. You have done nothing wrong to prevent it. IF I could afford a battle ship I should be able to buy it. What is the problem here? "Shall Not Be Infringed," means;

Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

I am pretty sure we had cannons when the Constitution was written.

Shin play along here ok?.....if some guy is in prison for shooting and killing 6 people randomly in cold blood.....and for some unknown reason ...he is released....and as he walks out he tells everyone.....im going to get a gun.....and kill 10 people this time......your ok with them letting him buy a gun legally?....

Yes. He has said nothing that a handful of free thinking people we judge to be sane, haven't said publicly, and he has committed no crime.

There is a price to pay for freedom, and hundred of thousands have paid that price, and I have watched them be butchered and die in my arms, and rise from the battlefield in choppers to never be seen again. Should I make an exception for 10? I don't think so. I think it is a fundamental flaw in American thinking to suggest I should.

I have family members that survived the Patrick Purdy massacre on the school grounds, others were violently robbed at gunpoint, one shot, and one of my own ladies carjacked and kidnapped, robbed, beaten, just a few months ago in broad daylight. Evidence enough there are plenty of people who shouldn't own guns, or cars, or knives, etc. Are you going to strip our rights to own property for a criminal? I think not. I think you are going to protect those rights of a free society so that we can protect ourselves. And I think the founders knew that when they wrote "Shall Not Be Infringed." My ladies want some 40 cals, and I will buy them, because we don't intend to be intimidated again.

The way to the free society we should all enjoy, is to lock these criminals away until we are sure they are safe to rejoin a free society, and I don't care how long you have to keep them there. I want to live free, a criminal wants to live in a closed society.

Are you a pimp??

 

[Father Time]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

1. Depends on what they've been convicted of. If someone's been convicted of something like piracy (and yes people have gone to jail for that) then they should still be allowed guns.

2. If you mean 'make sure they are not mentally retarded' then yes. If you just mean 'make sure they do not have mental health issues' then no because that's too vague.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Second Amendment was never intended to control gun ownership. It was intended to control the composition of the military.

what?......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, why infringe on the rights of felons? IF you find felons should not own guns in a free society, then keep them locked away instead of violating the Constitution that gives me the right to own guns.

And if the fancy mortar floats your boat and you can afford it, have after it as far as I am concerned. You have done nothing wrong to prevent it. IF I could afford a battle ship I should be able to buy it. What is the problem here? "Shall Not Be Infringed," means;

Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

I am pretty sure we had cannons when the Constitution was written.

Shin play along here ok?.....if some guy is in prison for shooting and killing 6 people randomly in cold blood.....and for some unknown reason ...he is released....and as he walks out he tells everyone.....im going to get a gun.....and kill 10 people this time......your ok with them letting him buy a gun legally?....

Yes. He has said nothing that a handful of free thinking people we judge to be sane, haven't said publicly, and he has committed no crime.

There is a price to pay for freedom, and hundred of thousands have paid that price, and I have watched them be butchered and die in my arms, and rise from the battlefield in choppers to never be seen again. Should I make an exception for 10? I don't think so. I think it is a fundamental flaw in American thinking to suggest I should.

I have family members that survived the Patrick Purdy massacre on the school grounds, others were violently robbed at gunpoint, one shot, and one of my own ladies carjacked and kidnapped, robbed, beaten, just a few months ago in broad daylight. Evidence enough there are plenty of people who shouldn't own guns, or cars, or knives, etc. Are you going to strip our rights to own property for a criminal? I think not. I think you are going to protect those rights of a free society so that we can protect ourselves. And I think the founders knew that when they wrote "Shall Not Be Infringed." My ladies want some 40 cals, and I will buy them, because we don't intend to be intimidated again.

The way to the free society we should all enjoy, is to lock these criminals away until we are sure they are safe to rejoin a free society, and I don't care how long you have to keep them there. I want to live free, a criminal wants to live in a closed society.

well at least your honest....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good points Harry.
As to number one, any crime of violence; any crime wherein alcohol or drugs are an element of the offense (DUI, Drunk in public, sale, posssession for sale or transportation of drugs, for example); any crime where threats are made, any gang enhancement
As to number two, any civil committment wherein a person has been found by a medical professional to be a danger to themselves or others.
In any case where a protection or stayaway order is in effect.

Your no.2 is already the Law. Anyone involuntarily committed to as mental hospital or Judged incompetent has forever forfeited their right to own and possess firearms unless they petition the Treasury Secretary and he agrees to reinstate said right.

Are you sure about that? Post a link to the authority if you will. I"ve detained persons under 5150 W&I (see CA Welfare & Institutions Code, 5150 and links to other sections of of a civil committment) for involuntary committment, and have had others voluntarily commit themselves for the 72 hour civil detention and evaluation. If these records are available to a gun shop owner I'd be very suprised.

Maybe your State like Virginia does not report them to the Federal Government. It is a Federal not State law. If you commit yourself nothing happens to your gun rights. Also if you are involuntarily committed nothing happens until a Judge rules on the commitment. The Federal law requires a competent authority ( usually a Judge) to rule you incompetent.

I have severe Depress and suicidal thoughts. I spent lots of time in mental hospitals from 96 to 99. Never committed always voluntary. As such I never forfeited my right to own guns.

 

[MikeK]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

1) Assuming you mean ex-convicts, that should depend on the nature of offense that resulted in imprisonment and whether the individual has, after a reasonable period of time following release, shown himself to be rehabiliated and leading a socially acceptable lifestyle (employment, local references, etc). There are a small percentage of offenders who make a mistake, are punished, and then demonstrate willingness to lead honest, peaceful lives.

2) Except in cases of conspicuous mental disturbance there is no fast and easy way to determine psychological stability. For example, the bi-polar personality can appear to be perfectly rational and sound, then for no reason become completely irrational, aggressive and potentially assaultive. This disorder is believed to have served as inspiration for the creation of such fiction as Jekyll and Hyde and The Wolfman.

Also, consider the examples of Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gayce, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein, and there are many other truly dangerous, full-blown psychopaths who appeared to all who knew them (except their victims) as perfectly normal, likeable persons. Even the forensic behaviorists who evaluated them pre-trial said they were brilliantly deceptive.

So a psych evaluation as a gun license requirement would benefit no one but the examiners.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

Of course convicts should be denied access to a weapon. The law in most states requires that persons who have been under psychiatric treatment as a result of a court order should not be allowed to purchase a weapon. The state of Virginia forgot it's responsibility when the Virginia Tech shooter was allowed to purchase a weapon because court ordered psychiatric treatment was not available in the instant name check because of privacy issues. The law has been revised. I imagine Arizona has the same problem.

Whitehall the militia aka the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The militias aka the people at Virigina Tech were deprived of that right. Why is it that people think it help to take away the right from a law abiding citizen when it does not affect the unlawful? the more people carring guns to less likely you will have someone acting a idiot.