T2C…since you are talking about a different situation than I was (combat vets coming home vs men and women charged with non-violent crimes domestically that prohibit them from owning firearms after their debt was paid).
The fact remains, freedom is dangerous. You want to give the federal government the power to deem who is “crazy” or who is fit to own firearms based off what? A psych eval? That’s a way more dangerous proposition than doing nothing at all.
If your one friend doesn’t trust himself around firearms then he doesn’t have to own one. Can he trust himself around knives? How about cars? As to your other friend…what makes you so special and/or qualified that you think that you can decide whether another “free man” is fit to keep and bear arms?
How can a universal background system work better without infringing on a citizen’s rights? That’s oxymoronic.
Based of your avatar, I would have assumed you’d have a firmer grasp on the subject at hand. Any type of background check system at the federal level is infringing upon citizen’s rights.
Higher incarceration rate than most? No. Higher than all. If memory serves, we have double the per capita incarceration rate of the next highest country (which I believe is Russia). We have more people in prison than China.
So while there’s a guy who raped a little boy living in my neighborhood, the prisons are filled with people who were caught with marijuana in their car. Makes sense, don’t it?
How did we conduct background checks on felons and “mentally” unstable people before we had databases? Pretty sure, it didn’t happen. As I recall a convicted felon was able to possess a firearm until the Gun Control Act of 1968 (I may be wrong). In addition some white collar crimes that are felonies do not create a disability and a firearm may still be possessed. Some states allow felons to petition for restoration of gun rights, and some allow it to occur after a set period of time.
As many have mentioned. If someone is so dangerous that we cannot allow them to ever possess a firearm again, why are they free? I also think prison should be reserved for those who are a true danger and not a place for every shoplifter, pickpocket, or marijuana smoker.
I had a student in a Concealed Carry course who was convicted of Felony drug possession years ago. He had to go through a process in order to be able to purchase a firearm and obtain his CCW license. I wholeheartedly agree that once you pay your debt to society for a non-violent crime and a period of time has passed you should be able to legally purchase and carry a firearm.
Violent offenders are all too often released early and become repeat offenders when some people involved in non-violent crimes are still incarcerated. This issue needs to be addressed.
Mental health problems and firearm possession is a big issue and it will be difficult to get a lot of people in the firearms community to agree on how it should be handled. We cannot ignore the issue, because if a viable solution is not found the Liberals will come up with some draconian and restrictive legislation and force it on firearm owners.
I don’t think you can revamp NCIS without taking a deeper look at what we call “Justice” here in America.
The idea that we have Felons walking the street with multiple violent crimes under their belts who seem to have no problem getting guns shows just how screwed up the combination of our legal and prison systems are.
If you would come to me saying that NCIS is a national priority, I think I could point you to a half a dozen things that are far more likely to impact your life than NCIS.
The idea that our borders remain porous, that our prisons systems are over crowded with nonviolent drug users all while violent felons are pushed out the door, That no one wants to address our National Debt, Term Limits,…I could go on, but you get the picture.
Does it need fixed, yes, is it a National Priority with all we have on our plate as a Nation? Well, no, not unless you want to disarm Americans.
So the prevailing idea is that any big brother check on who can buy a gun is infringing on our rights, yet humans exist who shouldn’t be trusted with guns. I agree with both points. What I was driving at earlier with my “how can the system be improved?” comment was not intended to ask how background checks can be improved, rather how the whole system can be improved to not infringe on our rights (no b/g checks), and still sequester/treat the violent, sociopathic, and mentally unstable criminals. I totally agree that current sentencing is severely asymmetric, and that often punishment does not fit the crime. We also do very little to treat mental issues as a society, preferring to stigmatize and prescribe away those problems. I’m not looking for a “safe” or “one size fits all” solution, because I think that’s a non-starter, for reasons others have stated far more eloquently than I.
The real question I’m trying to ask is, if we all agree there are people who shouldn’t be trusted with guns, where should society (not government) draw that line?