USA Today Opinion: 5 Common-Ground Approaches to Gun Control. Opinions/Discourse

[-Rogue-]

Gun control, 5 common-ground steps: Our view

I will admit, I may be a bit more independent that many of the outspoken here that take "shall not be infringed" from an absolute position. **On a side note, I believe that people should be allowed to own AR-15s and "standard" (ie high-capacity) magazines.

But, I am one who agrees that there are limits on freedoms to the extent that we do not impede on the freedoms of others. I.E., we have freedom of speech but are not allowed to libel or slander. We have freedom of Religion, but cults are curtailed, etc.

In reference to background checks, why not require that records of the transaction are not kept? What if the only time the results of the background check reported to the authorities are only reported if someone is denied?

Going further, what if there were similar restrictions on the reporting of mental illness? For example, the mental health professional should only report the name and that they are not allowed to own firearms (subject to a Court's approval). That way if the FFL runs the check, it should only come back as "approved" or "denied." Deny the system from invading privacy by not including the condition diagnoses, reasons, etc.

So, let's hear it form the more moderates out there? What say you?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I.E., we have freedom of speech but are not allowed to libel or slander.

We are not allowed to defame but we do not impose prior restraint as prior restraint of speech is illegal.

Why should prior restraint for the RKBA be permissible?

We have freedom of Religion, but cults are curtailed, etc.

Cults are curtailed?

What cult curtailment statute are you referencing? Which cult are you citing?

What restrictions on cults are legal?

For example, the mental health professional should only report the name and that they are not allowed to own firearms (subject to a Court's approval).

And how is this accomplished? What scale or standard are we subject to.

Who will write this definition and what other rights should I lose? Should I lose my right to vote because of my sudden determination? Will this determination be subject to review by a court?

If I go to a counselor and face the possibility of losing my RKBA because of marital trouble, loss of a child in a car accident, depression, then I won't go to a counselor. How does this help those suffering from mental illness? Why should patient privacy be sacrificed for any reason?

What assurances can you give me that "mental health" will not be abused by the government a la the USSR? What if the government suddenly decidies that if I want to own a firearm then I MUST be crazy?

 

[silverspoon]

I didn't realize we curtailed the existence of cults? Scientologists practice their religion every single day. Everyone at the Branch Davidian practiced their cult religion until supposedly child molestation and firearm laws were broken. There are hundreds of others that practice their religion every day with no repercussions or interference from the government.

What if something gets screwed up and someone gets denied by accident? Should we notify the authorities and bring charges before the person gets a chance to straighten out the SNAFU? We already have background checks and the states are already supposed to be reporting people who are mentally unstable. Why don't we request the states do what they are supposed to do?

I don't think we need any more laws. The federal and state governments need to spend more time and money enforcing the laws we already have. The laws all by themselves are all the restrictions on this particular amendment we need. No more. There is no more room to give without completely decimating the Second Amendment.

And that's fairly moderate.

If I had my druthers, there would be no restrictions whatsoever. If you can afford it then you should be able to own it. We are capitalists at heart aren't we? Or was that another part of the "change" I didn't quite understand?

 

[richieray]

I would like to address the 5 points made in the article is reverse order. #5 Yes every gun owner should be responsible in maintaining and storing their gun no argument. I would have the same response to #4 & #3 There are laws in place to prevent these act. They are A) not be followed and B0 Not being enforced. I writing more laws that won't be followed or enforced going to help. #2 On the surface sounds like good idea. I have a hard time believing that info would remain confidential sooner or later ti would be decided that a diagnosis would need to be included, for clarification purposes. The bigger problem is that it would solve very little. Adam Lanza attempted to make firearm purchase and was rightfully denied, what good did that do? My understanding of Connecticut law is that that denial should have triggered a follow up, which was never carried out. Triggering a follow up that is carried out is the only way this step could be effective. And even then what action do you take because unless you arrest or institutionalize the person they will just get an illegal gun for their purpose. Finally #1 On what planet is that background check not going to be entered into a database. Our government is not going to let that kind of opportunity to collect information go past. Technically they are not legally allowed to keep that information. If you think that is stopping them, I have some swamp land in Arizona an I'm looking for a buyer.