Quote from: gennee on October 31, 2014, 01:41:57 PM
New York City prohibits people from owning handguns, except in certain cases (security, etc.). I believe people have the right to protect themselves.
NYC does allow one to own handguns. One can get a premises permit from the NYPD to keep one in your home and shoot at the range or go hunting with. The Heller decision affirmed that right and there is no jurisdiction in the USA which bans the ownership of handguns for use in the home.
However to carry one on your person is very strictly regulated and no one gets a permit except for police officers, celebrities and the rich. This I think is wrong. The right of free speech, freedom of religion etc is not restricted to certain people who "need" it. Neither should the right to self defense. I predict that in time the courts will affirm the right to carry outside the home as well.
QuoteI believe background checks is the right way.
Every gun purchased from a dealer requires a background check called NICS. Some states have additional background checks, for example NJ does its own background check. However I have known people who passed the NJ check then were denied by NICS. So I think NICS is good enough. I wouldn't mind a background check for private sales provided there are safeguards in place so that it doesn't disarm poor people by requiring high fees, or require the use of a licensed dealer (which negatively affects citizens who live in rural areas) or prohibit things like allowing your kids to hunt under your supervision or allowing your wife to use your gun to protect your kids in the event of a 2AM home invasion. In this age of internet and smartphones it is doable. Throw in national CCW reciprocity and shall-issue for all 50 states and I think a lot of people would support a universal background check proposal. Problem is that Bloomberg et al would never support this. Their goal is complete disarmament and their method is to do it incrementally.
QuoteI don't see the purpose of having assault weapons and they should be banned. I don't object to people owning handguns.
I used to think the same thing until I found out exactly what an "assault weapon" was. Some people mistakenly think it refers to machine guns. That is FALSE and machine guns are already heavily regulated ($200 tax stamp to the ATF plus signoff from your police chief, and background checks). "Assault weapons" are simply semi automatic (one bullet per trigger pull) rifles that have cosmetic and ergonomic features. In other words, they are scary looking black guns.
QuoteIn a lot of the mass shootings the first thing people want to do is ban guns. This would not solve the problem. Many of the shooters and antagonists were on anti-psychotic medications. I haven't heard this issue addressed anywhere in the media or with lawmakers. [/color][/size][/font]
Some are addressing it but I am wary to go down that slippery slope. What if going to your gender therapist landed you on a gun ban list because you were deemed mentally unstable? I hope this never happens to me, but I can see it happening since a lot of transgender people are suicidal. I do think there needs to be focus on mental health but moreso HELPING people get the treatment they need. I believe that proper healthcare access for all including mental healthcare is the way to go about this.
