beatledog7
Member
Dean said:If the people involved are dangerous enough to be denied their Constitutional rights to buy (and presumably own) a gun, then they should be dangerous enough to prosecute.
Agreed, in a sense. But I'd go a step further. A person who is ineligible for the reasons that the laws say make him or her ineligible should not be walking freely among the law-abiding in the first place, and therefore should not be free to walk into a gun store to try to buy a gun. A person who is "legally" too dangerous to own a gun should be under 24/7 supervision of either law enforcement or mental health professionals. If free, such a person can acquire a gun if he really wants one, background check notwithstanding. That's not what we want.
Furthermore, a previously ineligible person deemed to be safe for release into polite society should be able to buy a gun, pure and simple. If we don't think he should be able to own a gun, then why are we sending him out where the guns are?
We shouldn't need background checks at all, since all the people who would fail them should be locked away, leaving only those who would obviously pass the check to be free to walk into a gun store.
Problem solved.