Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't want any guns to be illegal. What I do want is a mental health check for the buyer, 'cuz simply put, I don't want a crazy guy getting a gun and shooting up some place. Other than that, I think the gov't should lay off the gun control stuff.

Mental check consisting of what?





I'm assuming you mean for the people, but just to be sure; you don't mean for the military?

Also, it is intended that our second amendment shouldn't be infringed upon but do you think it is at all? Anywhere in the United States?

I agree with the mental health thing, I want to make sure that anyone with a gun is mentally capable of being responsible with it.

However, I disagree with the idea that our rights aren't being infringed upon. The 2nd amendment doesn't say guns. It says the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. ARMS includes so much more than guns. It includes explosives, guided missiles, tanks, ect. The founding fathers feared a standing military, and decided the best way to prevent that, and to keep the government in whole in check, was to have an armed poplulace. There would be little need for a standing military if American could have a tank in their backyard. And pirates? Equip your private yacht or merchant vessel with a heavy gun or two on the bow, and they won't mess with you.

Unfortunantly, we have surrendered 90% of the second amendment, focusing on only ONE type af arms, and we are surprised when the government comes after them. Having surrendered our right to pratically every other type of weapon, the government has no problem moving to ban fully automatic and semi automatic machine guns, silencers, and limit the amount of ammunition guns can carry. Some cities, such as D.C., have even gone so far as to ban handgun ownership. The government fears an armed population, because its much harder to oppress with brute force. The military is the governments option of last resort in the event of an uprising. True libertarians would never use armed force to change things, but if S.W.A.T. came to their home, possibly to arrest them for using medical marijuana, they might very well use those guns for self defense.

In conclusion, our rights have been so infringed upon for so long, we don't even know what they are anymore. We have only a small portion of the 2nd amendment left to us, and the government will always try to take that last little bit of weapons rights away from us, because if it can, its power will be almost absolute.

I change my stance. I can see that our rights are being infringed upon now that I know that (Ohio's [where I'm from] kind of lenient on gun laws, and I wasn't sure about anywhere else). Thanks for the insight. smile

I tend to agree. Crazy people should not have guns, because they are not able to use that right responsibly. Determining whether or not somebody is crazy IS a difficult challenge, I'll grant you that. I think the best way would be to talk with people who know the person well, ask questions like whether they have sudden fits of rage, or sometimes do incredibly stupid or strange things, anything that might indicate a mental imbalance and possible problems. Such things are not proof that the person in question is crazy, but if they are subject to fits of rage, an anger management course should be required before they get a gun. Really, I think that the question of determining whether or not somebody is sane is best left to professional psyciatrists. I tend to think that looking at observed behavior would be a good indicator, but thats hardly proof.

As for convicted felons, I'm not so sure. If you stole a car as a teenager and went joy riding, that would probably be a felony. Does that mean you should never ever be allowed to have a gun? Even if you learn from your mistakes an become an honest, hard working citizen, that one stunt you pulled will forever bar you from owning a firearm. I definitally think there should be an interm period, like maybe ten years, but if you clean up your act, and prove you can be responsible, I think you should be able to earn back your rights at some point. Obviously, the situation would be different for violent offenders, but being a felon doesn't necessarily mean you should be blacklisted for life.

Also, I would like to bring up another point, related to Kelina's post. Our founding fathers feared a standing military. They believed that a standing military would eventually be used to oppress the people. I think the tru purpose of the second amendment was that the average citizens would be the military. A redneck with a shotgun will defend his land against any trespassers, especially ones from a foreign army. Wealthy businessmen who could afford cannons would use them to protect their money. And, of course, our independence was won by ordinary citizens with their private firearms.

I believe that they intended our nations defense to be the fact that every citizen had a firearm, and would rise to defend the country if it were attacked. In peacetime, they would be farmers, hunters, merchants, and craftsmen, but if the need arose, they would be ready to fight. In other words, they wanted America's citizens to be one large Army Reserve by default, and the nations defense when the time came. That way, the military could never take over or be used by the government to oppress the people, and we'd have as many soldiers as we had men, all at ZERO cost to the taxpayer. The true purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the government in check by keeping weapons in the hands of the PEOPLE, not the army.

I don't know if this is what they actually thought, but it would make sense, given their history with the British government and its use of soldiers. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.

Here is something we all should remember. Our security is a right, the ability to secure ourselves isn't. Just as life is a right, but our ability to stay alive isn't. We are allowed to carry weapons in order to secure ourselves just as we are allowed to possess food to keep us alive. We naturally have the right to do so, and the government cannot intervene with that. Police, military, and any other means is simply a good provided by the government. And to use that force in order to interfere with our right to protect our selves is directly infringing on those rights. It really is that simple. People argue that allowing citizens to own tanks is crazy. Well, I argue that allowing the government to own tanks while the people are left defenseless is even crazier.

On the note that metal checks be issued really isn't that much of a problem. I am sure if anyone had any obvious mental problems a gun supply wouldn't sell them any weapons. And in the case this would happen, local governments and community should be the ones addressing these issues although those too cannot be perfect.

In any case, if we could keep guns away from those who are considered insane or criminal then would we not be doing so? Sure, we are trying. That's what gun control is was originally trying to do, and then failed. Its close to impossible. This was already apparent before the constitution was even written. The best we can do is allow everyone to be able to defend themselves equally.