What kind of Logic salad is that?

The Supreme Court has ruled that an individuals right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. District of Columbia vs. Heller:

not entirely, there are currently 7 states that require serial # registration for so called "ghost guns".
Last Year (I think it went into effect in Aug), the Biden Admin implemented the "Frame and receiver rule", that states all frames, and lower receivers must have serial #'s and buyers must pass background check.

That’s right you have the right to keep and bear arms. Examples not to be limited too such as the transfer of a firearm(s) within the family through inheritance, supervised use by underaged within the family circle or sporting or competition events, a gift from a father to his son, or as SeanC suggested make your own like others do. All IMO satisfies the constitutional right. However in this country the firearms industry and businesses are not owned by the collective. The way I see it, they are privately owned by individuals exercising their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the right to bear arms and are not required to sell you a damn thing if it’s not in their interests to do so. Just as your constitutional right to bear arms can not in any way compel me to sell you my firearms.

My argument was to open the criminal history no matter what stage in life a crime was committed before a purchase. Or raise the age to 21 so there was a record to check. According to you they finally did open minor age records to back ground checks. That’s a good thing imo.

The other was Red Flag the use of prescription drugs our ‘professionals’ hand out like candy which has been known for decades to have side effects of increased violent, suicidal, aggressive behavior. Any bets that most shooters were on the stuff when they tripped off line? Any bets the shooter in Nashville who was under care for mental health was taking anti-depressants? If they’re on the stuff they shouldn’t have a gun and dealers shouldn’t sell them one. I’d bet if anyone looked they would find a correlation between the rise in that prescription drug use and the rise in shootings and other violent behavior.

What ever the case they need to leave me and other law abiding mentally sound citizens and our firearms out of the argument.

Let's address that then, 37 million U.S. citizens take some form of prescription anti-depressant, 61 million citizens self medicate using drugs and/or alcohol. Admittedly, there is probably some overlap between the 2 groups. Be that as it may, you are advocating for stripping 1/3 of the population of a Constitutional right without due process on the chance they may break the law. That is anathema to the core tenets that this country was founded on. There is no way I can agree to something like that.

Good point I agree I doubt it’s possible to track them all down anyway. But maybe it’s a good time to start having the information available to firearms dealers. Because who we sell firearms too does matter.

I think only 40% of those on prescription drugs have had significant degrees of increased in violent behavior. So not all have problems with it. But all it takes is one goof ball for everyone to get their panties in a bunch.

Another idea would be to make the drugs trial data publicly available, so people can make their own educated choices when it comes to taking that stuff. Hold the manufactures and prescribers of those chemicals responsible like they did for the opioid epidemic.

The biggest thing for me is for the extremists to leave me and other law abiding, sound minded citizens and our firearms out of the argument.

That information is already publicly available through the National Library of Medicine (est. 1836). That information is also included (albeit in truncated form) every time a prescription is filled.

The problem with this issue, is people are mistaking a symptom (gun violence) for a cause (human behavior), and are trying to eradicate the symptom without addressing the cause. which has never worked, not once, in the last 6000 years of civilization.

I should also add that even though the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects our right to bear arms, ownership is not unconditional. Making mental health information as well as a criminal record available to sellers is maybe one way to reduce sales to nut cases.

Look at Australia they didn’t ban firearms, in fact sales are booming. What they did was tighten up the criteria for ownership. Though reduced they have still have from time to time what are considered mass shootings it’s just not something you hear about unless you dig a little. Extremists would lead us to believe all firearms have been banned in Aussie land and mass shootings stopped since ‘96.

Honestly I really don’t have the answer how keep nut jobs from owning a firearm.

I never intimated that ownership be unconditional, most felonies, and some misdemeanors already preclude firearm ownership, as does some metal issues and medication use.

Now you want to curtail the 14th amendment on top of the 2nd. Just how many Rights do you want to deny citizens?

I can't be the only one wondering

How would your founding fathers have written the 2nd Amendment if they could see the American society today..with all the mass shootings

I'm convinced they would have put down the word differently.

Markus

They would not have. It was worded the way it was to put citizens on an equal footing with a standing army if needed.

As a seller, I’m not trying to deny anyone of their rights. But if you have mental health issues and are taking medications that may increase violent behavior. I know one thing, I sure as hell wouldn’t sell you a gun. I don’t care how much you cry about your constitutional rights. :yep: :03:

But you are, you posted, and I quote:
and that violates the 14th (ie: privacy) for everyone who wants to purchase a firearm. That requirement may even violate the 4th, 6th and 9th amendment, (that will depend on how your law is written)

Well that’s good because I just found some cool books on eBay from 1970 by Mary Jane Superweed called Herbal Highs. Can’t wait to try out some recipes.

I thought everyone might find this article of interest. Apparently, a robber entered O'Reilly's Auto Parts Store in Chicago and flashed a hang gun and demanded money from the register. Instead, the armed manager at the parts store shot and killed the would be robber.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/armed-sto...174835873.html

I don't know if it's good or bad-where a person can kill another just because s/he is waving with a gun and threating.

Here in Denmark and Sweden you are allowed to neutralize a criminal so he no longer is a threat to you..This doesn't mean you are allowed to kill him. Well this has to be last thing.

Those times it have happened-The criminal had been neutralized but not killed and the police came and arrested the criminal.

I guess the owner had to kill the robber,'cause there wasn't any other way.

Markus

Well, I'm sure this stupid individual trying to rob the store and brandishing a weapon wasn't collecting for the Red Cross unless it was a contribution for their blood bank. The standard was and remains, was the manager in fear for his life ? The robber took his chances and paid with his life. Case closed. The manager had a license to carry a concealed weapon and the weapon the would be robber used in this crime was recovered at the scene. The would be robber made a bad choice. That's not an attempt at being insensitive or short but just recognition that weapons in the hands of responsible individuals can in fact and do save lives and perhaps the lives of others.

It's a bad thing (the rule of law is on hiatus) and the blame can be placed at the feet of "liberal policies", this kind of thing is what happens when you "defund" the police and have prosecutors that won't put criminals in jail. People realize that nobody is going to help them, so they take matters into their own hands. expect to see more of the same as crime rates rise, and prosecution rates fall.

I believe precedent was established by the U.S. Supreme Court which says cops do not have a duty to protect you, or anyone.

That is correct. Regardless of what it says on the sides of LAPD cruisers the Cops exist only to apprehend those who have violated the laws of the state.

I didn't say that, or even intimate that idea. The Supreme court has ruled on various occasions that the police have no constitutional mandate to protect individuals (except when they are in custody). However it is clear that they are in place to protect society at large, and they do this in the following manner:

The duties of the police are to deter crimes through visible patrols, investigate crimes, collect evidence and to arrest those who commit crimes and aid in the prosecution of those persons.

Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see the correlation between fewer police + fewer prosecutions = more crime & criminals. and that results in more people fed up with the job the criminal justice system is doing.

You cant remove the fence around your cornfield and expect the cattle in the next pasture to stay out of it.

Oh I understand the correlation completely. I only mentioned it because I think it’s one more reason for law abiding citizens to own and carry a firearm.