Who should NOT be able to carry carry guns?

[digonswine]

There was a question about this in an earlier OP, but I could not decipher the meaning.
My incomplete list would include violent criminals-domestic violence, etc., rapists(redundant), certain mentally ill, , etc-
I would like to see licences-easy to get, that prove you can handle a gun safely.
No concealed carry for those under 18
This is a partial list or maybe a complete one.

[X_Digger]

1. All those are already the rule in most states..

..other than 18- in most states, it's 21.

At the federal level, you have the 'prohibited buyer' criteria for purchase, that is all you mentioned plus (off the top of my head): those dishonorably discharged from the military service, illegal drug users, non-resident aliens.

[digonswine]

2. Thank you-but I was not looking for a list, exactly-

What is legal and what is socially sound(right) are two different things. I would like to know what is acceptable to others regarding this.

[X_Digger]

3. The current list is fine with me, except..

There is a law on the books that a person may petition a court to have their rights restored, but congress has de-funded the process since 1994, I believe.

If a felon has been clean for 10-15 years (I don't recall the specific timeframe, if there was one), and can show that they're a contributing member of society, I believe all their rights should be restored- voting as well as firearms ownership.

[digonswine]

4. I agree

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. I would also say...

...that if a crime was not a violent one then no prohibition is called for at all.

I'd like to see a state-by-state effort to level the standard for reportable mental defects and have the privacy laws amended to allow for this.

[Callisto32]

22. Agreed.

If someone cannot be trusted with a vote or a gun, he should still be behind bars.

[slackmaster]

5. Just two kinds of people IMO

1. Anyone who is not qualified for any reason to own a gun, and

2. Anyone who does not want to carry a gun.

[Hoyt]

6. Keep it simple. Almost no one should carry,even where legal..

[X_Digger]

7. Yes, wouldn't want you ex-cohorts to be put in danger..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[Hoyt]

9. Read the post in context and quit acting like typical gun nut.

[X_Digger]

14. Were you or were you not "in the business" of robbing people?

That lends a hell of a different light to all your posts on the subject. I just feel that everyone should know that when reading your posts.

[Hoyt]

16. Read post in context. Plus, stop keeping files on those who oppose gun proliferation.

[Jenoch]

17. "...stop keeping files..."?

"Files"? I'm not sure if you are aware of a feature on your web browser, but it is quite handy, it's either called Favorites, Bookmarks, or something similar.

[Union Scribe]

18. This from the guy who routinely contorts the old posts of others

to make them out to be bloodthirsty murderers-in-waiting eager to kill "unarmed teenagers."

[Simo 1939_1940]

20. Accountability is a bitch, aint it? NT

[X_Digger]

21. It's a simple yes or no question. Please answer. n/t

[Hoyt]

23. No, I was not in "business" or robbing people. Are you in "business" of trafficking guns?

Here is context of the "robber" post (you can refer to the dossier you keep on those opposed to gun proliferation): A gun cultist here, trying to defend shooting people, stated that when robbers locked the door of a store, it was obvious they were going to kill the clerks.

I came back with a flip response of: "When I was a robber," I locked the door to keep other people out so I could control the situation, not necessarily to kill people. And, I still think that is the case.

Then, gun cultists -- who have proven difficulty assessing situations -- started calling me a "robber."

Point is, if you can't make an honest assessment of something in writing where you have plenty of time to analyze the context, etc., how the hell are you going to determine -- in a split second -- if someone should be shot/killed with a gun from your vast cache of weapons."

You and your fellow gun cultists aren't god, or judge and jury -- although you act like you enjoy all the things involved in being a self-appointed executioner.

Do you make money of guns and related activities?

[X_Digger]

26. Now you're trying to walk back your slip?

You could have said, "Maybe robbers lock the doors to..", or "If I were a robber, maybe.."- but no, I think you slipped up and said more than you intended. It casts all your posts on the subject in a wholly different light.

Do you make money of guns and related activities?

Nope, I lose money whenever I take a curious friend to the range with me. I lose my time and whatever money I spend on materials and/or ammo whenever I give a class to friends or friends of friends on safe gun usage. The last class I gave was to a group of GLBT people who were interested in protecting themselves.

[Hoyt]

28. No, I said it thinking you guys had some sense -- obviously that was a bad assumption.

So, you don't sell guns or view your vast cache of weapons as an investment for future sales? You just buy multiples of the same model for the heck of it.

[X_Digger]

34. I haven't sold a gun since.. 2007? 2008?

I do keep up on their relative value, in case something happens and my bank account can't cover it. But I feel the same way about the tools in my garage or my pinball machine and video game collection.

I really love how you think I have some 'vast cache' or 'multiples of the same model'.



Got any lotto numbers handy?

[Hoyt]

37. 16 23 29 34 42 -- if you need a powerball or another number, the winner is 09.

[virginia mountainman]

42. Uhhh.... "as a former robber"...

How does context matter to a statement like that?

[sarisataka]

8. OK, simple then...

Who should be able to carry?

[Hoyt]

11. Police, CIA, maybe a few temporary permits, etc. You can keep a few guns at home.

If necessary, I'd support grief counselling and some new gun training that instructs you how to live without a gun in your pants and why it will be good for all.

[sarisataka]

13. Police- ok

CIA are not supposed to operate within CONUS, that is FBI territory
few- temporary permits- I assume security guards etc. How will it be determined who is in enough danger for a 'self-protection' permit and who determines how long they need it until they are out of danger. Will this also include the crony permit system that is what spurred the shall-issue push it the first place?

Thank you for the offer but I know some good counselors if I have any issues with grief. Also my old gun training instructed how to deal with threats both with and without guns; I believe it was adequate.
A gun in the pants does become uncomfortable but I think it would be better there than in the front yard. If it is not properly locked up, I like to have positive control.

[4th law of robotics]

25. Armed robbers everywhere rejoice!

Hoyt has your back.

The strong shall prey on the weak with impunity. What a glorious utopia.

[Hoyt]

29. Are you weak and view yourself as prey? Other than bolstering your ego, what has a gun ever done

for you?

[4th law of robotics]

30. I don't think I'm weak, but I don't pretend there aren't others stronger than I

or more vicious, or better at fighting.

Do you believe yourself to be the ultimate fighting machine capable of defeating any human being in hand to hand combat?

[Hoyt]

31. Far from ultimate fighting machine, but in our society, you don't have to be because it is very safe

Take a few precautions and safety is all but assured, well until your goal of gun saturation is reached.

Those who strap guns on should re-evaluate their fears.

Personally, I don't view our society as my enemy -- all "vicious" and such. Besides, those packing a gun -- and practicing to shoot people -- have clearly demonstrated a level of viciousness that is a threat to our society.

[4th law of robotics]

33. I thought we lived in a constant state of bloodshed

because of all the guns dontchaknow.

Which is it: we're very safe or we're being killed constantly?

[Hoyt]

36. You just ain't getting it -- more and more guns on street don't bode well for future.

[4th law of robotics]

38. Ah so we aren't in a state of constant violence

but we may be in the future if we hit some tipping point in gun-saturation. Is that your argument now?

[TPaine7]

40. Not everyone lives in your world, Hoyt.

Take a few precautions and safety is all but assured...

Your premise being ludicrous--that everyone lives in a safe bubble like you and/or has your options--your conclusion is not surprising.

Even for those who live in the bubble, "all but assured" sometimes doesn't cut it.

[Hoyt]

41. I don't live in a bubble. I routinely walk in areas that would have you guys clutching your guns.

Admittedly, on a few occasions I've walked down the middle of the street to be safe. I've even turned around and tried another way. But, I'll be danged if I'm going to leave my house prepared to judge and execute another citizen when there are alternatives and then claim "self-defense."

You guys take the lazy way out -- arm up, practice shooting people, become callous, hate those you envision as "thugs," etc.

I'm not going to be a friggin "Zimmerman."

[TPaine7]

43. Yet another example of

Hoyt's "psychic, long-distance, reality-free psychological evaluation (TM)"!

[shadowrider]

47. Reading his posts gives me my daily dose of chuckle..n/t

[Hoyt]

49. Anyone who believes "gun free zones are target rich," needs more than a few laughs.

[shadowrider]

51. Same offer to you I've made to others. Prove me wrong and I'll remove it

I'll go first:

Va Tech
Columbine
Aurora
Wisconsin

What did they all have in common?

[benlurkin]

55. A level playing field was all that was needed to save lives in those cases.

It would come as a shock to the thick-headed anti-gun crowd how many people around them, on a daily basis, carry (LEGAL) concealed weapons. They would never know unless a situation arose calling for the intended use of a weapon used to stop a killer intent on harming innocent people. These incidents are in the news every single day.

Some would be grateful for the gun owner's presence at that moment, some would say that they would rather leave their life in the hands of the criminal. Those who fall under the latter are never gonna agree with you. Why waste your time arguing with someone with such sanctimonious attitude toward something they know absolutely nothing about? F' em.

[Reasonable_Argument]

48. Those of us who carry firearms

Don't walk around in a constant state of fear. We just understand that we are responsible for our own safety and the safety of our loved ones so we take steps to ensure we have the best chance of making it home at the end of the day should the unthinkable happen. Are you saying you wouldn't use deadly force, if necessary, to keep you and yours safe?

[Hoyt]

50. Sure I would, but don't think I'll ever need to in public. In unlikely event I do, I'll improvise.

Have you ever eaten, smoked, worked with, etc., a carcinogen. Your risk of cancer is higher than getting in the situations you fear (unless you engage in certain questionable activities). I think the "I must protect me and my family" is just a bunch of hooey when it comes to why the gun cultists carry guns.

[shadowrider]

53. Except to those people who actually lose family members and wish they had a gun

See Luby's for an example

[Trunk Monkey]

45. Maybe not hand to hand but hand to bean can and it's ON!!!!! NT

[4th law of robotics]

46. Like my grandfather always said:

there's always someone with a bigger can of beans.

I never knew what that meant but now I get it.

[holdencaufield]

10. Was there anyone...

... who didn't expect this response?

[Hoyt]

12. Nor did you deviate from norm.

[4th law of robotics]

24. Rights are not something to be doled out from on high

by a benevolent father-figure.

They are something we all possess and should fight for every day.

[benlurkin]

56. Be grateful that the anti-gun weenies are a minority in this country.

They start screeching about gun control every time a mass murderer gets away with killing innocent people. It's a knee jerk reaction with out any thought.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. You're a former robber?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

"As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police."

That's information worth knowing.

What type of people did you rob? Were you ever involved in home invasions?

[shadowrider]

54. Don't you know the claim now is, "it's been taken out of context"?

Although how someone can do that is beyond me.

[ellisonz]

19. Neo-Nazis. n/t

[tularetom]

27. Jesus these threads are predictable

The same shit being argued by the same people over and over again.

Personally I think only minors and those whose mental capacity would preclude the safe use of firearms should be denied the right to carry.

Convicted felons? If we really mean it when we refer to "paying ones debt to society" they should be allowed to vote and to carry.

[digonswine]

57. I only meant convicted violent felons.

[2pooped2pop]

32. republicans

just kidding.

mostly.

[Trunk Monkey]

35. Who should NOT be able to carry carry guns?

Hoyt

[Hoyt]

44. I shall comply with your wish.

[Atypical Liberal]

39. Anyone who fails a NICS check.

I am content with the current federal law:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

I would support universal licensing provided such licensing was automatically issued with any driver's license or state-issued ID unless the applicant opts-out. This preserves firearm ownership anonymity.

However, in exchange for a licensing requirement, I would expect to be able to buy firearms through the mail again without going through an FFL. Going through an FFL was done ostensibly so that the receiver had to go through a background check. If they have a license, this is no longer necessary. This will have the happy side-effect of enhancing buying firearms over the internet.