- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you be for more stringent gun license requirements
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:43 pm to bbvdd
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:43 pm to bbvdd
quote:
more stringent background check. I believe the medical background should be part of it. If someone is taking or has taken antipsychotics then they have to be able to prove that they are fit to own a gun.
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
0
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:46 pm to AubieALUMdvm
I MIGHT could get on board with some kind of psych examine every 10 years or so...if it was done correctly.
Let me be clear that I don't know that any law will help the situation...but I also think compromising with the left could buy gun owners collateral down the road, when politics is no longer on our side. Which will happen within 12-16 years for sure.
I just don't believe that drawing a line and not budging is a winnable solution.
P.s. I hope things stay just like they are now, but they won't.
Let me be clear that I don't know that any law will help the situation...but I also think compromising with the left could buy gun owners collateral down the road, when politics is no longer on our side. Which will happen within 12-16 years for sure.
I just don't believe that drawing a line and not budging is a winnable solution.
P.s. I hope things stay just like they are now, but they won't.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:47 pm to SportTiger1
quote:
I MIGHT could get on board with some kind of psych examine every 10 years or so...if it was done correctly.
That’s laughable
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:49 pm to SportTiger1
quote:
..if it was done correctly.
Say your doctor hates guns, what sort of repercussions do they face for falsifying documents saying people are unfit for gun ownership? How long does that process take? I guarantee that doesn't work out for gun ownership in the end.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:49 pm to bbvdd
I mean, you can call it what you want. If you pass a medical and a training course, you are free to own a firearm. If you fail, you can't. And to the people saying it is a right, you have the right to free speach, but you can slander or scream fire in a crowded building. The constitution has limits to your rights.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:52 pm to AUCE05
quote:
but you can slander or scream fire in a crowded building. The constitution has limits to your rights.
Because those cause harm to people...
Owning a firearm doesn't make you harmful. It's what you do with it.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:52 pm to kengel2
quote:
Only if you answer my dog allergy question.
Done
quote:
But seriously, when does it stop?
The hard line approach is what will ultimately be the demise of gun owners if we (yeah, I own quite a few and like them a lot) don't think with moderation and compromise. Saying "well when does it stop? it's a slippery slope" is just a catchy thing to say. Fact is - a lot of moderate, conservative folks think there should be some overhaul on how guns are obtained.
Using cigs, booze etc... as defense will never apply - separate issues and completely irrelevant.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:53 pm to AUCE05
quote:
but you can slander or scream fire in a crowded building. The constitution has limits to your rights.
That's exactly like saying murdering someone is illegal.
It's already illegal.
What you are talking about is putting a muzzle on people and preventing them from slander.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:53 pm to ChatRabbit77
I think a firearm in the hands of a mentally ill person does hurt the public, and tarnishes the rep of responsible gun owners.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:56 pm to AUCE05
quote:
I think a firearm in the hands of a mentally ill person does hurt the public, and tarnishes the rep of responsible gun owners.
If there's a strong rebuttal for this I'm all ears.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:56 pm to AUCE05
quote:
AUCE05
Get out of here with your ignorant statements bigot.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:57 pm to bbvdd
quote:
What I would not be against a more stringent background check. I believe the medical background should be part of it. If someone is taking or has taken antipsychotics then they have to be able to prove that they are fit to own a gun.
Then we are talking about the same thing technically. I think DRs should be able to flag people that need consults before purchasing...something of that nature.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:00 pm to ctiger69
I got a feeling some of you don't see the big arse train coming, and you are standing on the tracks. We all will keep our rights. It is our kids that won't have the same rights, and we will play a part in that because we refuse to bend. This post was edited on 2/21/18 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:01 pm to AUCE05
Who decides who is or isn't on the crazy list? It may start out ok but it will quickly turn into a gun grab. Oh you have 30 guns? Let's put you on the list. You are going to marriage counseling? Yep you need to be on the list. Won't take long we will all be on the list.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:01 pm to AubieALUMdvm
quote:
If there's a strong rebuttal for this I'm all ears.
No rebuttal, but I feel like that would be the responsibility of the store owner and family members to either decline service or take the weapons from the person. Not that they could legally be held accountable, but what happened to moral responsibility?
Also, the frequency of these events is really low. It's the media playing everything up in such dramatic fashion that everything becomes a natural disasters type deal even though the chances of it happening again are slim to none.
I hate that it happened, but why punish the 99.9% for something the .01% commit?
This post was edited on 2/21/18 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:03 pm to SportTiger1
Right now, don't DRs or family have to commit you to an institution to keep you from buying a weapon?
There are obviously people that don't need firearms, for public safety purposes. I dont think that is questionable.
Look, my main point is, you're not going to win the entire argument forever, from a political perspective.
Either 2A people will pick the compromise now, or the left will pick it in a decade and shove it down your throat.
There are obviously people that don't need firearms, for public safety purposes. I dont think that is questionable.
Look, my main point is, you're not going to win the entire argument forever, from a political perspective.
Either 2A people will pick the compromise now, or the left will pick it in a decade and shove it down your throat.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:05 pm to SportTiger1
Demographics are not changing in our favor.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:06 pm to kengel2
It's not about the events or number of lives lost...its perception of the public as a whole. Sure, the media and internet are responsible for that, but you're not going to reverse it without a lot of natural changes to society.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:10 pm to AubieALUMdvm
quote:
Where to people think criminals' guns originate??
Got errythang in they momma name
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:15 pm to AUCE05
quote:
Disagree. I would be good with more requirements, and once I have my permits, no state can tell me I can't have a gun. You could pass in LA, and carry a handgun in California for example. Walk into a store, flash your card, and buy a gun. Your background checks, etc are already complete.
You'd still have to follow CA law. A state has to enforce Federal law, but can enact a law that is more stringent than Federal law. (Unless it's about weed. Then it seems like states can do whatever the frick they want. I'd love to see us get to the brink of Civil War II over CA, CO and other pro-marijuana states screaming about States Rights and Federal overreach. That shite would be funny.)
For example, many CalOSHA requirements are more stringent than Federal OSHA rules. Everyone working in CA has to meet Cal OSHA requirements, even a contractor from LA.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News