Defensive Carry banner

Who should own a gun and who shouldn't?

10K views 200 replies 79 participants last post by  Ghost1958 
#1 ·
I am wondering about the opinions of the people here about this. Other than people that are in jail, is there anyone that you feel should not own a gun? If so, what do you think should be the criteria for restrictions of ownership and how should they be decided and enforced?
If you will, please explain the reason for your opinions.
 
#2 ·
Any & EVERYbody who hasn't committed and been conVICTED of a crime that prohibits gun ownership. Once we start deciding over what someone "might" or "could" do, then it immediately becomes LESS about the 2nd Amendment and MORE about the agenda of...the deciders.
 
#70 ·
DING! DING! DING!
We have a WINNER!

Every free man/woman in the United States should be able to "freely" walk around anywhere they like; carrying in whatever way they like! The police can't be everywhere and keeping guns & other weapons out of the hands of people willing to use them is a pipe dream and the folly of FOOLS!

Look at what happened in Virginia. Nobody except the BG had a gun. It's totally obvious that if someone had been on the scene who was paying attention, that preventing this tragedy was very possible! But, instead, two people were killed and another wounded. Sure, the police showed up and the BG ultimately was also killed. (Albeit,by his own cowardly hand.) But, that was ALL after the fact! Yet, had an armed GG been close by & paying attention, they may have seen this guy coming up with his sneak attack and been able to intervene in time. That's "WHY" the absolute BEST situation to have is "armed" good guys anywhere & everywhere!

Personally, I would much rather be allowed to protect myself & my family than trusting in the police. It may have been a different story yesterday if an armed good guy had been there watching things unfold.
-
 
#16 ·
I think anyone that votes to restrict my freedoms should be banned from ownership, and maybe oxygen.Other than that,just people with violent criminal records. I'm not sure about the mental illness thing,that seems like a very slippery slope to dance on.
I'm with Aimless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZJD1968
#6 ·
without writing a novella about the how's and why's...

Open the Flood Gates.

Basically- if a person is deemed so "bad" we can't trust them with one single type of deadly tool, then they are too dangerous and unpredictable to be allowed to be free in society as whole anyway. because everyone on this forum already knows "the gun is just a tool" - so the answer to me is stupid simple.
 
#25 ·
Stupid simple is correct most of the time. Liberty, the rarest treasure on the Earth, isn't something that is just won. It is something that must be fought for and then defended constantly and in perpetuity. Eternal vigilance and holding it dearer than your life is it's price.
 
#10 ·
Agreed Ding! What's next? Propane tanks and chainsaws? I can kill with Jet-Puff mini marshmallows, if I stuff a bag of 'em up my victim's nose! We gotta' tell the bureaucratic nanny-goats to go chew their cud... somewhere ELSE. Stop lookin'-out for MY own good!
 
#27 ·
This is a straight to the point reply that I agree with.

Rights exist for every member of society and rights are sacrosanct in so much as they cannot be rescinded or infringed upon as a society or group. However, any given individual can commit acts that ethically permit society to infringe upon or rescind that individuals rights. For me, that would be any individual who commits a violent crime - if an individual demonstrates a willingness and capacity for harming others, then they give up their rights.

Additionally, I see no issue with age requirements because at a certain point a child is incapable of understanding the risk and responsibility inherent with carry.
 
#18 ·
and none of that does a lick of good for the "common, normal" guy who gets pushed to far by circumstance, real or perceived, and snaps. much like I suspect this newest guy who shot the two live on TV. whether his "discrimination" claims are real or not is quite beside the point, I bet it turns out he was a "normal guy"- who just snapped.

NOTHING PREVENTS THAT. it's sad and tragic, but the only defense against that is armed response. And in this instance it appears to have been an ambush attack, and a quick one at that, a gun was just convenient.

In the middle east they have a popular method of carrying out such public ambush attacks.... ACID. fortunately we haven't seen much of this in the CONUS, but it has happened.

The gun is the tool. Dangerous and unstable people need to be dealt with. the normal guy who snaps will ALWAYS be a danger... no matter what tools are available to society as a whole.
 
#19 ·
I can go to Walmart and buy a gallon of Chlorine and a gallon of Muriatic Acid in the swimming pool section and kill more people than anyone with a gun. Yes, the mixture of the two chemicals creates Mustard Gas that was used extensively in World War I. There is no license and no paperwork required to buy these two potentially deadly chemicals. Should everyone have the right to buy them? Apparently no one cares.

Having sold guns years ago, 2 out of 10 guns I sold, I wish I didn't have to sell them the weapon. One young father purchased a gun from me, waited the required 3 days, came back and picked up his gun and promptly went out to the store parking lot and put a bullet in his head. I saw nothing wrong with him and he seemed like a normal first time gun buyer. We had a lot of young gang bangers that had just turned 21 and would immediately come in to buy a gun. If they passed the background check, we couldn't deny them.....but we all knew who they were buying the gun for, but had no legal way to prevent it.
.....and then you have the Gekko 45's that you just want to tell to get the crap out of the store....but you can't. They're decent people, but dangerous in the EXPERT knowledge and gun handling. Been barrel swept by more than one of them.

Bottom line: We all know people that should not be able to leave the house during the day and commingle in general population......but once we start identifying those that should not, the criteria to prevent gun ownership will keep expanding to a point that no one will be able to own them. The mental health issue is already being used by the Left to confiscate guns from those that THEY deem represent a risk. Where does it stop?
 
#20 ·
There will always be people who abuse their freedom. The solution to that is NOT to restrict the freedom of others.

I am okay with the restriction that violent felons shouldn't own firearms. I am also okay with a minimum age requirement, although I'm not sure 21 should be it.
 
#97 ·
I am okay with the restriction that violent felons shouldn't own firearms. I am also okay with a minimum age requirement, although I'm not sure 21 should be it.
I'm happy with 18 for everything as that's our age of majority. If you're old enough to put on a uniform and go to war, then imo you're old enough to handle a handgun.
 
#21 ·
I think everyone should be allowed to own a gun unless they are a.) In jail/prison b.) on probation/parole for a violent felony conviction c.) currently seeking treatment for mental illness.

It bothers me that we allow people back into society but tell them that they are too dangerous to vote or possess the most effective means for self-preservation.

I have mixed feelings about "c" because it is damn near impossible to legislate without treading on those who SHOULD own a gun. Conditions like dementia, schizophrenia, PTSD, drug addiction, and bipolar disorder come to mind, but when will the gun-grabbers extend that to ADD/ADHD, anxiety disorders, or eating disorders? Or, worse yet, when will a Bloomberg funded study declare gun owners mentally ill?? Once we open the door to "common sense mental health gun laws" what is to stop us from sliding down that slippery slope?
 
#69 ·
The Government is trying to prevent people who have been treated for PTSD from owning firearms. Because of stigma that's being attached to it, GIs are less likely to seek treatment. Someone who comes home from the desert and is having problems sleeping shouldn't be denied his civil rights. That's a pretty slippery slope to be navigating.
 
#22 ·
Minimum age requirements are (were once?) easily covered by responsible PARENTS! My Dear 'ol Mammy used to laugh about having to provide HER ID when I mistakenly told the TRUTH about whether my .22 LR ammo was for a rifle or a...PISTOL. The ATFE may STILL consider her (at 85) a "person of interest". :hand5:
 
#24 ·
I don't tell anyone what they should or should not own, even though I may think it. Karma and DRwin usually weed them out by natural selection.
 
#28 ·
Having a gun for self-defense is a human right, codified in the Constitution. As with any such, it cannot be taken from anyone except by a court following due process of law. Blanket restrictions and tests are a violation of human rights.
 
#137 ·
Agreed completely. While I don't believe in the idea of illegal immigrants as to be a free nation people should be allowed to enter and leave at will, nobody should be denied the right to purchase a firearm. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it mention age, race, religion, mental health status, immigration status, or any of that. If they have the money then they should be allowed to purchase. Just like a book or newspaper.
 
#31 ·
Folks who have exhibted certain types of behavior need to be placed on a watch list by local ,state agencies.I had to terminate an employee years ago and he said he had a list that he was going to settle things up before he checked out.My boss
called the local police and I told the individual I would take care of business if he came near me or my family.Those
are the folks who slip through the system.This is why I started to carry as your employer not going to provide protection 24/7.
 
#34 ·
Folks who have exhibted certain types of behavior need to be placed on a watch list by local ,state agencies.I had to terminate an employee years ago and he said he had a list that he was going to settle things up before he checked out.My boss
called the local police and I told the individual I would take care of business if he came near me or my family.Those
are the folks who slip through the system.
This is why I started to carry as your employer not going to provide protection 24/7.
I am posting directly to this post but would also like to direct it at everyone else. Since there is already a system in place to keep people from having guns do you agree with it, or not? Does it need to be changed or updated? Laws added or removed?
 
#33 ·
I strongly believe that those who've individually been served specific due process, and been convicted (or committed) for a violent crime or dire threat to others, would be the only folks who we have any right to jump on. They're still citizens, still in full possession of their basic rights, and unless the sentencing removes them from society for purposes of protecting society from that danger, it's not deemed there's sufficient danger by said person.

Fact is, the average person can find weaponry most anywhere. And anyone just the least bit enterprising can tap into the 'black' market and obtain weaponry. About all it takes, if truly dangerously violent, is to rob someone or break into a home or car. Do that, and you stand a very good chance of getting re-armed rapidly. No law's gonna stop that from happening.

That's about it. Due process. And, at least IMO, after due process and the related sentence term has expired, I can find no legitimate reason for stripping a person of his/her preexisting rights either. If you get incarcerated or involuntarily committed for cause (due to violent threat), for the term you're there you are kept securely (to ensure the sentence is carried out). Post-term, you're free. Literally. No parole crap. No conditions. You've paid your debt. And, no, I disbelieve that ongoing stripping of a person's inherent inborn rights constitutes part of the sentencing due process can effect. You want a person gone permanently, for cause? Execution or expulsion from the country. You want a person temporarily segregated? Segregate, temporarily. That person isn't a direct violent threat to others? Then IMO incarceration or involuntary commitment specifically for cause of violent threat is hardly warranted, and hence no stripping of such rights should go with that.

Yeah, but how do you go after folks who are a threat but who've yet to be caught or committed or incarcerated? That's just it ... such people are not yet dire threats or criminals, hence they have full retention of every single right and privilege you and I do. Until due process is served, for cause.

JMO.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top