By law in N.C. the only thing they can ask for is your full name and your address.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I'm not comparing the two. I'm pointing out that, according to what you're saying, if I want to engage in commerce with another person, the government shouldn't have any right to infringe upon that, unless I'm infringing upon the liberties of someone else. That would include selling a gun to someone without an ID.
This line of thinking is absurd. Should I be able to sell enriched uranium if I'm not "infringing on the liberties of someone else?"
Selling guns to unlicensed citizens creates a negative externality. That external cost is borne by other citizens who are endangered by guns being trafficked to people who shouldn't have them. That is a violation of their liberties, because you're expecting people to take on a risk that they didn't choose to accept. Gun ownership is a clear example of where the social contract should be strictly enforced. You want to own a gun? Sure you can have that right. But you also have the responsibility to demonstrate to society that you can safely handle one, and aren't mentally ill or a criminal. Society at large has the right to demand that. And its not asking very much... Nobody complains about driver's licenses infringing on their precious liberty.
Thats not what i’m saying at all. Selling and or purchasing a gun is not a right guaranteed in the constitution. In turn, You can legally bear arms without having a valid photo id in your possession. If u shoot someone breaking in your home you dont have to make sure you have your id on you. I guess we’re disagreeing on whether or not a states retail purchase restrictions constitute “infringement” on owning a gun and violates your rights. I dont think so. Except in the ma case referenced above. I’m no lawyer but thats how i see it. I’m assuming SCOTUS has somewhere along the way confirmed as much.
Tell me in the Constitution where it restricts two people completing a transaction.
I did say u have to show the initiative of going to the polls. So u gotta get off yer ass to go buy a gun to. Did make me lol though.
I never knew you approved of her doing it! That's a new one!
I know you’re new here, but everyone else knows I’m not a Hillary supporter by any stretch of the imagination.
So I’ll gladly trade her going to prison in exchange for mandatory background checks that includes checking for drug prescriptions for psychiatric disorders, and a licensing system that requires a practical gun safety exam.
Nope i dont agree with phone voting.
I'm ok with this.
Can't get behind this.
I recommended getting a good phone instead of an iPhone.
Which part can’t you get behind? The safety exam or not letting people on psychiatric drugs buy firearms? Or both?
You almost got me. I'm not sure as to the prescription drug check. Jury is still out for me on this one. I know @tarheel0910 explains this one better than me. I'm an avid hunter and I can definitely get behind background checks and safety training........and definitely Hildabeast going to prison.
If you want people tested for prescribed psychiatric drugs what about drug tests for other things like Meth, heroin, cocaine, they have psychotic effects?
Out here kids have to pass a hunter's safety test once they turn 16 to hunt alone. Before they have to have passed it or be accompanied by an adult. I have no issue with that.
I guess I need more clarification on what exactly the exam entails. You're talking about getting a hunting license though right? That's a little different than just being able to buy a gun.
I wouldn’t use drug testing. I think we need a national database for doctors who prescribe any medications, and a law that requires doctors to run you through the system before prescribing pain medication or psychiatric drugs. This would also eliminate people getting opioid prescriptions from multiple doctors then selling their pills or using them to get high. I’d use the same database to make sure people haven’t been diagnosed with mental illnesses or have prescriptions for psychiatric drugs before buying a gun. Ideally it wouldn’t permanently disqualify you if you can pass an exam later on to prove you’re no longer sick.
With regards to meth, heroin and cocaine, I’m not sure how to prevent that. People can get those drugs out of their system so quickly that drug testing wouldn’t do much.
Honestly the background checks and safety exam are my main priorities. That being said, almost every mass shooter has been on psychiatric drugs. I think it would a lot of good to address that issue as well.
Correct, but no need to have a license if you aren't going to possess a gun.
I’d make it similar to the driving exam. Basic stuff that covers safely handling and firing a gun. And a basic written exam that would address stuff like how to safely store a gun and where you can take it. A mandatory gun safety course at a range could also cover most of these bases.
I don't think we need laws to keep the crazies from owning guns. I think we just need to put more financial backing into mental health facilities in this country. The crazies should be allowed to defend themselves as well.
Question: How do you shoot women and children?
Answer: Easy, you just don't lead them as much.
I'm not totally against your thoughts on this, I'd have to give it more thought i guess. But I will say I believe if it were to go as you suggest for me to get fully behind it I'd have to include illegal drugs in the mix. I'm sure most on here know I'm not not in favor of legalizing drugs(don't want to go down this road). I don't want to argue or debate the drug subject and I respect those who do want drugs legalized, but as of now they are illegal and if following your suggested protocol for me to be behind it, it would have to include those as well.
Well theres already really strict laws against owning a gun if you’re in possession of illegal drugs. In SC it’s like a 2 year mandatory minimum if you’re caught with drugs and a firearm.
I don’t think people who do cocaine or meth or heroin should be able to get guns either. I’m not necessarily opposed to someone being drug tested when they get a gun license, I just don’t know how effective it would be at preventing people from going back on drugs once they get their hands on a gun. But it would do some good in preventing degenerate addicts from getting guns. If you can’t get clean long enough to pass a drug test then you definitley shouldn’t have a gun.
For sure. I’m well aware of the fact that typically speaking, gun owners are very serious about gun safety. The stuff on the exam would be the things you’d drill into your kid’s head before they ever went hunting. Things like muzzle safety, and safe reloading are what I have in mind.
If you could guarantee that this would be limited to a need to know basis and only medical personnel would have access, I would be ok with it. If you're saying government should have access, then I'm against it.
There are several issues with this. Just because someone is on a psychiatric drug doesn't mean they aren't mentally stable. In fact the opposite can be true. If they are having mental health issues, then taking the medication should (in theory) make them perfectly capable of being able to function just like anyone else. One of the biggest issues we have with mental health is the stigma around it and getting people to get help. If you tell someone they are going to be put on some government list and be deemed unfit if they ask for help, then they will be more likely not to seek that help. That makes things worse, not better.
We've been over this in another thread and I've provided studies that show being mentally ill doesn't lead to mass shootings and is rarely the cause of one. It can be a contributing factor, but there are other things that contribute more. A mentally ill person is far more likely to kill themselves than they are to kill someone else.
I'm not saying the only reason is mass shootings. The fact that mentally ill people kill themselves is another reason to prevent them from getting guns. Success rates for suicide attempts vary widely based on the means. Guns are by far the most successful method of suicide. Preventing suicidal people from getting guns can save their lives, and/or the lives of close family members.
Psychiatric drugs don't make people just as capable as someone who doesn't have a mental illness, in most cases. Mood stabilizers and SSRI's in particular have pretty severe side effects, and psychiatric drugs rarely are 100% effective in treating mental illnesses. They work wonders for many conditions, but rarely eliminate symptoms completely, without side effects.
I should be more specific and narrow it down to more serious psychiatric drugs, used for treating schizotypal disorders, and mood disorders in particular. Those are the disorders that are most likely to manifest violent tendencies and the drugs for them tend to have the most severe side effects. Someone who is schizophrenic, depressed, or bipolar should absolutely not own a firearm IMO.
Studies have shown that anti-depressants increase the risk of suicide, murder, and violence towards others. That's why its important to have consistent monitoring of people on anti-depressants.
Damnit, could you quit being reasonable? It's not becoming
WOW! My voting precinct was PACKED! I've never seen that parking lot so full, and waited in line for so long. There were easily 3-5 times as many people as I've ever seen at any election, including 2016. I guess it was because of the governor's seat.
If you win a Congressional seat in this district, it's like being appointed Congressman until you decide to retire.
If you win a Congressional seat in this district, it's like being appointed Congressman until you decide to retire.
In theory, I agree with this. However, in practice it creates a bit of a catch-22. All you should have to do to be able to vote is be a US Citizen. However, how can we tell that the guy that just walked into the polling area is indeed a US Citizen without ID?
A corrolary of that would be, what if they are a US Citizen, but are a felon, or under age 18 or something like that.
Well, that's at least a step farther than in MA, where they ask you your address and then give you your name to just confirm. At least in NC if you're trying to go vote in place of someone else you need to know both their address and the name of the person at that address. Still something you could do with a phone book, but more difficult than just picking a house number out of the air.
I had to take pretty much exactly what you're referring to for my LTC. I think it should be required everywhere (is it not required nationwide already?).
)
The database already exists for controlled substances, at least in most states. However, giving access to anyone other than medical personnel opens a number of issues, privacy and otherwise, that I don’t think we want to get into.
Nah its definitely not required, unless you want a concealed carry. So much of it seems like common sense, but dummies accidentally shoot themselves and others almost every day.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Continuous UNC FB Offer Thread (Updated 2-13: Four 2026 prospects added)- Latest: andrew jones
-
-