JJB - don't get me wrong, I don't WANT mental patients running around with guns anyway.
So let's discuss how to realistically keep guns out of people's hands, in a free society - or, what we'll find out, is that you can't until you have a very UNfree society.
Does the brady bill as it stands keep guns out of a mental patient's hands? He can still buy privately, right?
Ergo, the "private sales" loophole allows a "disturbed person" to buy a firearm.
Okay, private sales are gone; but since Brady records are destroyed, how do you know if he doesn't ALREADY own firearms? I know, you need licencing and registration, so the police know where to confiscate. Or, in absence of licencing you can kick mental patient's door in. After all, he may have bought a gun pre-registration, might as well kick door in anyway.
But it's so easy for prohibited person to burglarize one from someone allowed to own a firearm. Therefore, mandatory storage rules are in place for firearms licence holders, and storage devices can be inspected by police at any time (like in England).
Obviously, I've gone too far; but you'll see all of the above in the next 10 years, you can bet the farm.
I know that as a gunowner you don't support restrictions on the law-abiding, etc. that cut as deep as I've described. Yet even that which I've described wouldn't prevent a prohibited person access to a weapon.
Non-brady felon restrictions work at the point of arrest - you now have another thing you can charge a prohibited person with. But that does not satisfy the "prevention" side of it that democrats speak of - since the armed person has been arrested he's probably hurt someone already.
Just like saying "ban the guns" means nothing until you describe the means of enforcement, how do you suggest enforcement of "felons/mental patients can't own guns"? It would have to be MORE severe than current Brady (already a violation of people's rights) to have any effect on someone determined on obtaining a firearm.
Battler.
So let's discuss how to realistically keep guns out of people's hands, in a free society - or, what we'll find out, is that you can't until you have a very UNfree society.
Does the brady bill as it stands keep guns out of a mental patient's hands? He can still buy privately, right?
Ergo, the "private sales" loophole allows a "disturbed person" to buy a firearm.
Okay, private sales are gone; but since Brady records are destroyed, how do you know if he doesn't ALREADY own firearms? I know, you need licencing and registration, so the police know where to confiscate. Or, in absence of licencing you can kick mental patient's door in. After all, he may have bought a gun pre-registration, might as well kick door in anyway.
But it's so easy for prohibited person to burglarize one from someone allowed to own a firearm. Therefore, mandatory storage rules are in place for firearms licence holders, and storage devices can be inspected by police at any time (like in England).
Obviously, I've gone too far; but you'll see all of the above in the next 10 years, you can bet the farm.
I know that as a gunowner you don't support restrictions on the law-abiding, etc. that cut as deep as I've described. Yet even that which I've described wouldn't prevent a prohibited person access to a weapon.
Non-brady felon restrictions work at the point of arrest - you now have another thing you can charge a prohibited person with. But that does not satisfy the "prevention" side of it that democrats speak of - since the armed person has been arrested he's probably hurt someone already.
Just like saying "ban the guns" means nothing until you describe the means of enforcement, how do you suggest enforcement of "felons/mental patients can't own guns"? It would have to be MORE severe than current Brady (already a violation of people's rights) to have any effect on someone determined on obtaining a firearm.
Battler.