New Gun Control Provisions?

Question

okay so because of the VT shooting, they have now been working on new Gun Control Provisions to help keep us safer.

The idea has been to keep guns out of the hands of those who are criminals, and those who have mental defect.

So now the new provision to the law is that states now share information with the FBI and the NICS, so that people like the person who killed those 31 students and teachers aren't able to get their hands on guns anymore.

The NRA is in support of this, and there has only been one argument againt the provision sighting it is an infringment on Second Amendment Rights.

so what do you think? Do you agree with the provision? Do you think it will work? Do you think it will help to keep/stop those who shouldn't have gun ( bought legally )?

Or

Do you think that this is just another way to step on the toes of those who are good gun owners and infringe on the Second Amendment rights?

if you think it's an infringment on Second Amendment rights please explain why.

It states that if you are adjudicated mentally ill, are mentally ill, a criminal, have commited an act of Domestic Violence, or you are on parole or probation then you can't own a gun.

So why is it an infringment on your rights if none of those apply to you?

Would you give an insane person jumping off a building a child to hold while they are there? That is what you are enevitably doing by giving one of those kinds of people access to guns.

to the person who says i answered my own question. I know what i think.

I wanna know what others think.

Answer 1

The bill in question just provides states with additional funds to improve their computer systems to increase the accuracy of their reporting to NICS. Most states use an instant background check for firearm purchases that access the federal date base. This bill allows states to update their computers and gives incentives for more timely reporting. The NRA supports this as a common sense response. The NRA protects your right to own firearms and also supports keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and those prohibited from owning firearms such as the mentally ill.

Answer 2

From time to time someone outside the NRA comes up with a timely addition to "Gun Control", WHICH THIS IS NOT! It has not affected the Second Amendment in any form. If you would take the time to read the details of the new law, and the comments from Wayne La Pierre, NRA Second in Command, you will find it is a lucidation and modification of a law introduced during the Clinton years of a law passed after another criminal instigated shooting. It is designed to save lives and keep the mentally impaired from legally purchased firearms under their names. Sheesh!

Answer 3

The only argument I can see against is more from Privacy Act and Hipaa stuff. If someone is afraid they're going to lose their rights to own firearms, they might not opt to voluntarily go for counseling or other mental health measures. On the face, it seems like a good thing to keep flamers like Cho from getting guns, but I can see where there could be some issues with it.

That said, I think the NRA is right in supporting the modifications and that this is a good step to make the background checks more effective.

Answer 4

The number one overall problem with any plan as this is how do you determine who should or shouldn't have the right. Thank goodness it is predetermined that we, the people, would not have our right infringed - in any way.

Let's take domestic violence as the perfect example. Guilty in this country doesn't mean you did anything, it just means you couldn't fight the charge. The legal system is a disgrace, and to base other judgement calls of such a flawed system would also be a disgrace.

Give everyone guns, and let them shoot it out.

Answer 5

Gun control is a bad idea. IT DOES NOT WORK. However, to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental problems is a good thing. Otherwise we have the constitution for a reason, and it says in black and white we have the Right to bear arms.

Answer 6

I think you have answered your own question.

While laws against gun ownership have been ineffectual in keeping guns away from criminals or the criminal minded, that is in no way an arguement for not trying.

As our society evolves we must be smarter about who can easily buy guns... particularly those of the people-killing variety.

Answer 7

Gun administration is extremely approximately relegating you to subject status. international by historic past, voters have been armed, in lots of situations REQUIRED to be; on a similar time as matters have been forbidden hands. The 2d replace is in undeniable English, albeit 18th Century undeniable English. study it for your self - yet understand 18th Century utilization: As ratified by the States: "A properly regulated militia being mandatory to the risk-free practices of a unfastened State, the suited of the people to maintain and undergo hands shall no longer be infringed." - properly regulated = staggering, able. interior the context of a militia it additionally ability "much like a known military unit." - militia = anybody waiting to combat. The authors wrote notably in this. in case you ought to combat, you are the militia so a ways as they are in touch. - risk-free practices = surety - the people = persons. whilst they meant "the States," they mentioned States, no longer people. - save and undergo = very own and use, deploy - hands = weapons, particularly those desirable for wrestle against a professional military No honest statistical concepts exhibits gun administration as a good suggestion. a hundred% of situations and places the place extra controls have been utilized, extra violence ensued; a hundred% of situations and places the place controls have been comfortable violence declined. No exceptions. besides, whether the different have been actual, RIGHTS are actually not subject to information.

Answer 8

This doesn't sound like gun control

It sounds like information sharing for law enforcement. If the NRA supports it, then it can't be bad.

Answer 9

It's just another law on top of a law that they weren't enforcing anyway.

Answer 10

It is a violation of our second ammendment rights.