Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun?
The 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms. While murder is totally wrong, it would be…
Where someone’s right to bear arms exists, the minute it crosses over someone’s right to LIFE there is an issue. When someone, who has the constitutional right to own a fire arm, aims and fires at an innocent child who has the constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that right to bear arms is no longer that simple. Owning a gun is fine, but they should be regulated and not end up in the hands of someone who is not mentally stable enough to hold a weapon that can kill in seconds. If people are so happy and so defensive about owning their guns and they believe they should own them because they are not mentally unstable, a criminal, what have you, why is the extra precaution such a bother to them? If the guns are so treasured and important why would someone NOT be willing to make sure they prove themselves worthy of owning a weapon that has the potential to take life? A mental stability/capacity test is bear minimum being asked to be conducted when purchasing things like this, it doesn’t seem like such a large task to get done when you really put it into perspective in this day and age. Someone who is manic depressive or manic bipolar, should honestly not own a gun. Their mental state does not make it safe to own one. (Open to disagreements and getting educated with anyone who can provide legitimate information proving/supporting otherwise. I am not looking for a “well I know a go” situation though. ). Someone who has a history of gun violence should not be able to own a firearm (obviously this has to have a lot of specifications as to what “gun violence” entails). Obviously this will not make it impossible for those who have ill intentions in mind when owning/purchasing a firearm, but it makes it that much more difficult. Also goes into question, should certain types of fire arms have more regulations/purchasing requirements than others (such as the requirements to purchase a hunting rifle compared to the requirements of owning an AR-15). Also, this amendment was written before many of the fire arms we have today existed, should it not be reformed in some capacity to accommodate for the technological advances we have had since 1788 when the constitution was adopted? (This idea can apply to many amendments, neither here nor there for this argument though).
Here are the top political news stories for today.
@9WS5YHR2yrs2Y
@BCZXTMR2mos2MO
@B2B6KD61yr1Y
If the second amendment is outdated and only apply to muskets. Then that makes the first amendment even older. So anyone that says that, I hope you like going back to pen and paper as your only way of comunitcation. Also, guns save more lives than they take every year. And cars kill more people than all gun deaths combined. You if you really want to ban the thing that can kill the most and the fastest, than I hope you are going to be with the idea to ban cars.
@B7DLTCL9mos9MO
A few issues I would like to point out. Firstly, mental capacity tests would open the flood gates for politicians (both left and right) restricting peoples rights by aligning the definitions of mentally ill to align with whomever they want to restrict the rights of. Don't forget when the south had strict gun laws and whom it was exactly who was restricted from owning/ carrying them (hint: it was black people). Also lets not forget, people can lie, and will lie on those tests if they want to shoot up a school, it's not that difficult for lunatics to fit in with ordinary people. Also… Read more
@B495GHC1yr1Y
I don't totally disagree with you. I want you to know, when a gun owner events to committ an attempted murder, that's a crime, a reasonable one and an abuse of an constitutional right Another abuse of constitutional rights is the right for Congress members to set their own salary. A congress member could pay themselves $200k a year compared to the 100k.
Join in on more popular conversations.
