You won't like reading this one...

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by janikphoto, Apr 20, 2009.

  1. hunter Joe

    hunter Joe New Member

    I found this very interesting reading and yes, I did enjoy it. I totally agree that people with mental deficiencies should not be allowed to own firearms. This is akin to giving matches to a pyromaniac. If you are adjudicated mental deficient, how can you be held responsible for you actions, so therefore, how can you be a responsible firearm owner?

    I believe the definition for responsible includes completely understanding the difference between right and wrong.

    So if you hear voices in your head long enough who are you going to listen to? Right or wrong.

  2. BPond

    BPond New Member

    There. I corrected that worthless article.
  3. janikphoto

    janikphoto New Member

    This is more along the lines of what I saw wrong with the article - not the idea that we should let criminally-insane people run around with loaded guns.

    There were some technical details that scared me a bit, like the part about revoking or not renewing a license because they had a suspicion about Wong's mental stability and criminal potential?!? Read this section of the article closer:

    In Binghamton, Jiverly Wong's mental instability had never landed him in trouble with the authorities, and so even had the state supplied its records to the federal authorities, he would have passed the background check all the same. Is there anything, then, that could have prevented him from acquiring guns?

    The honest answer is: yes.

    In New York, state police can reject applications for gun permits if a person is not of "good moral character," a provision that is intended to keep guns away from those who are known to authorities for exhibiting dangerous behavior. A known drug user, for instance, should be denied a permit. In 1999, police received reports that Wong had a crack cocaine addiction - and was plotting to rob a bank.

    This information would have been grounds for denying Wong a permit, except that a lifetime permit had already been granted in 1997... ...Had local police been able to review Wong's re-application in 2000, they would likely have turned him down. And that means Wong would not have been able to purchase the guns he bought in the months and years leading up to the Binghamton shooting spree.

    Look at it closer. It says the police received REPORTS that Wong had an addiction and was planning a robbery. Nothing was ever done about it. He never did rob a bank. He was not arrested, but someone reported that he might be doing these things. Sound like the Salem witch trials?!?

    He could've been denied a permit because someone called up the police and said something? What if an ex-girlfriend, disgruntled employee, or someone who just doesn't like you decides to make a similar report on you? You are innocent, but all they need is the report to deny you...

    Where does it stop? If you accused of drinking too much alcohol or not having a job or something else that isn't status quo? Can I one day be denied access to firearms because my ancestors came from Poland? What about Jewish people? I think violent felons should not be allowed to possess firearms and minors should be restricted to use with adult supervision, but that's about it. Anything else is a very slippery slope.
  4. Mark F

    Mark F Active Member Supporter

    It never stops. Ever since humans decided to congrgate there has been conflicts and differences. The smarter humans think they are, the worse the issues become. The only time there will be an end is when you no longer belong to the human race. So deal with it, and fight for your cause.