OrionTheWolf
Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FullCircle
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Either she was trespassing on posted property, and the old man had valid reason to shoot, which that would be determined by the legal system, or he assaulted someone and that will be dealt with my the legal system. See the existing laws cover this scenario.
Even if sign posted there is still the legal question of how clear the sign posting was and perhaps whether or not the old man was actually aiming for the horse. How in this situation can anyone see a personal threat? Seems to me a case of stop look and listen rather than instantaneous reaction would have easily prevented this injury. This is all though beside the point.
As I said, it is for the legal system to handle. That was in response to you implying that these things cannot be handled in modern times.
quote:
quote:
Mental competency is also a requirement to enact your right to bear arms, in most states. Many that have been designated as mentally unstable or incompetent have many rights removed from them. See existing laws cover that.
I've shown in a previous thread here your federal governments own statistics on the numbers of people given such a legal right with their background checked afterwards and found to be too mentally unstable. A silly mechanism where someone given the right to own a gun is then asked to hand it back if found unstable, how many do? There are also numbers for those that disappear. Some states have this system some don't but the idea that only mentally capable people legally own guns is nonsense for two other reasons also:
1) The mental state of an individual may change throughout their life whereas how often is the right to own guns checked against their current mental state?
2) Sources of data for mental health background checks include past crimes committed but not actual medical records in some states as they are private.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1881786
And I have stated in previous threads that there should be licensing, not waiting periods. Part of the vetting would be a check for mental health issues in the past. Regardless it should be the State, and not the Feds, that handle this for the local citizenry. I have also stated this countless times in other threads.
quote:
quote:
The argument that modern times have outran an arhcaic right, does not hold any substance in most day to day situations that involve firearms.
If that wasn't the case half the debates here on the topic of gun ownership wouldn't go back to these rights with some people arguing any control or regulation of firearms is against the 2nd amendment. This is how I see it but you have another view which is fair enough.
I responded to a blanket statement. There are current laws on the books in many states, that are not suitablly enforced so making more laws will not correct the problem. Forced responsibility of your rights will. This means that people like the girl in this story, do not just accept the apology. They accept it and say "but you still must face the consequences of your actions" and call the police. Let the legal system determine whether the man 1) should have done what he did 2) is mentally competent to keep a firearm.
_____________________________
When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."
|
The issue of firearms - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread