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?
Answers: 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.
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.
It is a violation of our second ammendment rights.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
what?
It's just another law on top of a law that they weren't enforcing anyway.
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?
Answers: 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.
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.
It is a violation of our second ammendment rights.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
what?
It's just another law on top of a law that they weren't enforcing anyway.
More questions & answers:
- Is this true and would you agree?
- Is this dishonest?
- How can I get through voir dire?
- This is how Republicans in Congress treat vets.?
- How does one find out what laws politicians have voted on?
- Does Yahoo Helps Social Organisations and NGOs by free or consesional Promotions of their cause?
- The Costs of receiving a Mural?
- What do you think of present pope and his view of ISLAM(peace)?(PLEASE TRY TO READ MY DETAILS DOWN HERE)?
- Definition of Liberal and Neocon?
- Is Ignorance BLISS?
- What if: we stopped problems at their source rather than attempting to "fix" them later...?
- Silent Majority?
I was with her on the first 1/4, but she lost me when she started in on the crazy conspiracy theories. Like so many well-intentioned people, she didn't stop soon enough.
Ummm yeah! Dishonest and more importantly unethical behavior!
I do criminal law in Monterey County, California. I've done jury selection several times. I'm defense.
I usually try to remove the wolf in sheep's clothing and find the leader. I want to
I usually try to remove the wolf in sheep's clothing and find the leader. I want to
Hi jl_jack09, my name is Hank. I want to say up front there are people who are still fighting the war in Vietnam. Like the pobept character who brags he was a First Shirt with two tours. It's obvious
Alot of this info is on USCONGRESS.com.
my kid used it for his civics class last year and I checked it out. There is alot of info in there.
Have fun
my kid used it for his civics class last year and I checked it out. There is alot of info in there.
Have fun
I don't smell a question in here but I do believe that it's now time to get up and ask for our share. What mumbai has given to India and the world must be properly honored by everyone. Mumbai must get
Contact the art department at Coppin.
EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE .BUT LOOK AT YOUR COMMENTS BY OTHERS MOST OF THEM HAVE'NT EVEN READ IT AND JUST HAVE COMMENT ON YOU.PEOPLE DONT LIKE TO SEE,HEAR,READ THE TRUTH
Liberal = wonderfully brilliant
Neocon = narrow/close-minded jerks
Neocon = narrow/close-minded jerks
You do have some interesting logic. One would conclude that the Supporters are plugged into the Matrix, and the non-supporters are struggling against the Matrix?
We can't do anything without a competent government largely free of corruption. We have not had such a government in well over 40 years.
i'm not 100% sure, but i think it refers to the opinions silently held outside of the voting booth...just at any time, and are not represented by the media, are usually different from the media, and a
The Politics & Government informations are posted by the website users and for your use only, and without responsibility on endihm.com.