Hmm... Not a word about keeping the dangerous loons locked up. It's just another disguised gun control measure. Another hurdle to leap. More deeply ingrained infringement. More law to be expanded. More law to be stretched beyond its intent by bureaucrats. More agents breathing down your neck if you sneeze in the wrong direction.
Woody
Woody
NICS needs to know about these people
Lock 'em up and we won't need the NICS.
Woody
Woody
Yes sir , But they want them back in the community even when they should be locked up.
Of course they do. Otherwise, there is no justification for the NICS.
It's the same for violent felons. Lock them up and there is no need for the NICS. Non-violent felons should not have their RKBA infringed once they have served their time.
Woody
It's the same for violent felons. Lock them up and there is no need for the NICS. Non-violent felons should not have their RKBA infringed once they have served their time.
Woody
I see no evidence that this proposed legislation would keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illness. It is an impediment to them legally purchasing firearms and you can argue one of two ways: some impediment is better than nothing or it is a first step towards more restrictive measures.
What exactly is a "serious mental condition"? As always the devil is in the details. Meddlesome politicians will always craft legislation that sounds good in a sound bite but it is really good?
I'm with Woody - if they are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, why are we letting them drive a car or have a knife or a container of gasoline?
What exactly is a "serious mental condition"? As always the devil is in the details. Meddlesome politicians will always craft legislation that sounds good in a sound bite but it is really good?
I'm with Woody - if they are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, why are we letting them drive a car or have a knife or a container of gasoline?
Similar threads
