1) Passed a background check multiple times no problem
2) stole the weapons
Making a database of people disallowed would never have prevented either of these two instances. So your idea is rubbish, especially when there is no telling what type of lunatic ideas they'll have to decide who is "fit" to own a gun.
I stand firm on the "give no ground" response on this point.
I do agree the mental health system needs fixing. There are parents who need help with their kids and they cannot do it as a single parent or even a couple. They get passed around from this agency to that and never get any help. Some of them fear for the safety of their family and others because their child is diagnosed bi-polar or something and they don't ever get any real treatment for them.
Most of them don't sound too bad to me. I don't have a problem with studying the causes of violence, so long as it is truly scientific, peer-reviewed and whatnot.
Also, as someone who has a minor child living in a separate residence that is legally prevented from owning guns, it'd be nice to know that his step-dad's DV arrests are going to show up on a background check if he tries to purchase a firearm. I honestly don't know if he would be flagged at the LGS right now.
My concern is this puts Obama's foot in the door for total control...so far he has all that he already wants. He will keep going. Bad Guys will always have access to whatever weapons they choose. No matter the laws we have in place. Bad Guys DO NOT follow laws!!!! SMH
I agree with reticence about such questions, though. At best, it's going to identify possible chemical (ie, gunpowder) and weapon sources of potential threat to "health and well-being." At worst, it's going to go onto some list, some database somewhere, that'll prompt others into action based on that information. As if a person's at serious risk merely because such products have been purchased. On the surface of it, it's little different than asking if Ajax cleanser is under the kitchen sink. Deeper down, though, the ugliness of the presumption of criminality and threat related to it simply being a firearm goes way beyond any cursory benefit such an answer could provide.
We don't know what is in the E.O. because we ain't read it yet. They ain't showed it to us, just gave us a "one line overview" of what the E.O. is all about.Quote:
No where does it mandate "proving" that you bought the gun legally.
That's something that's being drummed up, but I don't see it happening.
I've seen in happen when I was a LEO. It's nothing short of anti-gun, back door, gun control. Try watching COPS sometime. All kinds of infringements on constitutional rights going on. :hand1:
Or better yet, just watch TV documentaries on Public Television and you'll see that when you cross a Native American Reservation (via a U.S. Highway) and if you get stopped for speeding, they confiscate any and all weapons and hold them until you prove ownership.
All worthless drivel from an empty suit but....he and his kind are and will continue to be a threat, so I take them seriously. I have instructed my kids to answer "No" to any health care or school representative should they ask if we have any firearms in the house. I wouldn't put it past some sneaky turd to try this route.
Guys...It's called a slippery slope fallacy for a reason.