Should the govt have the power to confiscate guns from dangerous people?

jet57 said:

You should put away your paranoia. The responsible left isn't going to do anything in our lifetime to the second amendment other than ban assault rifles and 30 round clips and armor piercing ammunition. Cops should not need assault rifles to deal with the public period - full stop.

What you should be worried about are the attitudes of the rabid far right who are fear mongering you and the gun crowd into a sky is falling fallacy that is only going to direct our future generations into looking at the validity of the second amendment as it is written.

Click to expand...

I have no concerns about the RESPONSIBLE left. It is the radical and extreme left and those that think this Hogg kid is their new poster child that prove my growing paranoia.

...and to your point;
It has been my experience the FAR RIGHT is just as dangerous as the FAR LEFT.
So much so they start to overlap.
The biggest and most scariest difference is the FAR RIGHT generally knows how to shoot.
That special case of military ball ammo I have squirreled away is not for any attack from the FAR LEFT.

Fortunately, I can temporarily changed my spots and meld with the FAR RIGHT lunatics just long enough to make my escape if need be.
I know their lingo and their buzz words.

UNfortunately, I have no tattoos, prefer rum over beer, don't know any woman with two first names, and have cats not attack dogs.
I wouldn't last a week.

People who finished their prison sentences should have all rights restored.If that individual is so dangerous that he or she can't be trusted with their rights then they should not be released in the first place. People who are dangerously nuts should not be running around free,they should be locked up in a nut house.

jamesrage said:

People who finished their prison sentences should have all rights restored.If that individual is so dangerous that he or she can't be trusted with their rights then they should not be released in the first place. People who are dangerously nuts should not be running around free,they should be locked up in a nut house.

Click to expand...

I don't believe they should have their full rights restored...

According to a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison; and 77 percent were arrested within five years.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I believe that violent-crime offenders should lose their Second Amendment Right permanently. According to the statistics, that would be the responsible thing for society to insist upon. But we aren't a very responsible people are we? I find it odd that a Bad Conduct Discharge from the military will follow that person throughout his life into the workforce and through background checks, thereby insisting on a higher standard of conduct to begin with, but a criminal who is convicted of violent crimes gets a do-over, knowing full well that his tendency to commit further crime is a high probability.

MSgt said:

I don't believe they should have their full rights restored...



I believe that violent-crime offenders should lose their Second Amendment Right permanently. According to the statistics, that would be the responsible thing for society to insist upon. But we aren't a very responsible people are we? I find it odd that a Bad Conduct Discharge from the military will follow that person throughout his life into the workforce and through background checks, thereby insisting on a higher standard of conduct to begin with, but a criminal who is convicted of violent crimes gets a do-over, knowing full well that his tendency to commit further crime is a high probability.

Click to expand...

As I said before if they can't be trusted with all their rights restored then they shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place. Because a law saying they can't have a gun isn't going to stop them from a law saying they can't murder people.

sangha said:

IOW, it is not banned at the federal level.

Click to expand...

Your own source says it is prohibited at the federal level

jamesrage said:

As I said before if they can't be trusted with all their rights restored then they shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place. Because a law saying they can't have a gun isn't going to stop them from a law saying they can't murder people.

Click to expand...

And if you pay your debt to society, then you should be free to move on with your life. If, as you wrote, the 'debt' isnt enough, then that's what should be revisited.

sangha said:

By dangerous, I mean someone who has been deemed dangerous, either by a judge, or by committing a violent crime

Click to expand...

The less power the government has, the better of we are.
Always power to the people.

ataraxia said:

That law is a joke due to the loopholes. And the NRA has fight any attempts to close them.

Click to expand...

Efforts to enforce that law are also fought tooth and nail as well.
It should be uniform throughout the country, and supported by a national list/database which can be consulted by both law enforcement and gun dealers. If you're on the list, you can't buy a gun, if the police see that you are on the list, you lose your guns.

Just that ONE bit of progress alone would not only result in huge changes in the current trends, it would also render MOOT all the calls for gun bans and other such useless nonsense. If you aren't screwing up, and you're responsible and law abiding, you should have your guns and be left alone. If you pop up and start acting irresponsibly, and appear to be a confirmed danger, to yourself, to your loved ones, to society in general, your rights get restricted.

Just that alone would do more good than any other gun laws or bans, because most other gun laws or gun bans do not produce that level of results, at least not where criminals are concerned.

No, sorry to say that it will not do much with regard to previously normal people who suddenly go off on a tear and decide to commit some horrific slaughter, I'm afraid we will definitely need to work on mental health issues for that, and background checks might help a little bit but overall I feel that the single most effective regulation would be a national no gun list database. The only positive note is that if a previously normal person sends out some red flags and has contact with law enforcement, then law enforcement may use their discretion to recommend that such person be referred to a court which will decide if their behavior merits them being placed on the no gun list.

Almost everything else is really just cosmetics.

I do not believe the State should have any more power to the ability to kill me than it should to be able to take away my ability to defend myself (from being killed).
Period.