Should a non-citizen have the right to purchase firearms?
- Thread starter forestal
- Start date
forestal
I'm the Boss of Me
Well, the state of VA knew he was crazy. maybe we shouldn't sell guns to people that a doctor has determined is severely disturbed....
but hey, I could be wrong...
Virgina, home of Crazy gun owners
In December 2005 — more than a year before Monday's mass shootings — a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.
but hey, I could be wrong...
Virgina, home of Crazy gun owners
In December 2005 — more than a year before Monday's mass shootings — a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.
Geek said:
forestal
I'm the Boss of Me
Watch as I bust your nuts again.
Nope, you can buy a gun without being a citizen. a green card is all you need.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/cbsnews_investigates/main2695059.shtml
As a legal permanent resident, under federal law, in order to buy the gun, Cho had to show a government-issued photo ID—in this case, his green card—and proof that he lived in Virginia—his driver's license. Cho was also subjected to an instant, criminal background check.
Nope, you can buy a gun without being a citizen. a green card is all you need.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/cbsnews_investigates/main2695059.shtml
As a legal permanent resident, under federal law, in order to buy the gun, Cho had to show a government-issued photo ID—in this case, his green card—and proof that he lived in Virginia—his driver's license. Cho was also subjected to an instant, criminal background check.
Bustem' Down said:
dustin
UAIOE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266591,00.htmlforestal said:
TOKYO — The mayor of the Japanese city of Nagasaki was shot to death in a brazen attack Tuesday by an organized crime chief apparently enraged that the city refused to compensate him after his car was damaged at a public works construction site, police said.
The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned and only five politicians are known to have been killed since World War II.
Dork
Highlander's MPD
forestal said:
Well, that makes sense......to you! That's like saying fewer drugs means fewer drug addicts. Drugs are illegal but there isn't any shortage of drugs. We are very different from Japan but I would bet that if you sent 1000s of guns to Japan, things wouldn't change over there.
jenbengen
Watch it
It's a touchy subject. Cho had lived here since he was 8 years old. So I'm not sure what the right answer would be- I think people who were emigrated here with their parents and have lived here their whole lives should have that same right.
In this case, his citizenship has nothing to do with what he did- he's been here nearly his whole life. Plenty of U.S. citizens commit random violence as well and we don't consider their nationality as part of the issue.
But I DO believe that mentally unstable people (proved through courts, institutions) should NOT be allowed to purchase firearms. This kid slipped through that whole system of protection.
In this case, his citizenship has nothing to do with what he did- he's been here nearly his whole life. Plenty of U.S. citizens commit random violence as well and we don't consider their nationality as part of the issue.
But I DO believe that mentally unstable people (proved through courts, institutions) should NOT be allowed to purchase firearms. This kid slipped through that whole system of protection.
bdh802
Bob
forestal said:
I'm really trying to understand how this makes sense, but I can't. I own three guns. One is always loaded and is only accesible by me. I will never blow someone away because they piss me off but I will use the gun if someone threatens me or my family.
Unfortunately, there are many people in our society who have no value for human life. If you look at them wrong, talk to their sister, take their parking space, whatever....they are going to kill you with or without a gun. These people DON"T CARE! Let's outlaw guns, close up all gun shops. Do you really think we'll all be safer? I would bet this pizzed off thug will have a gun anyway or will use something else. Knives, razor blades, bats, whatever.
I feel safer with my guns. If you are afraid of being shot, don't threaten my family and we will all be happy. I have no desire to shoot someone but I have no desire to be killed by some idiot even more.
You don't make a no sense!, forestal
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well...
...let's examine that for a moment, shall we?
bd, you're post lays the foundation question of gun control; is man inherently violent or do weapons make him violent?
forestal and the anti crowd try to make the public argument that it is the latter and if one simply hands over whatever it is, a parking space, your wallet, whatever, then the aggressor will, somehow, want no more from you.
So, if there are no guns, at all, then the worst you can expect to go with being robbed is a beating or a stabbing or some other violence and it will only be you and not 32 people at once.
I just don't get it; If you tell a leftist he can't watch that movie or say this word or wear that T shirt; they're ready to man the barricades and fight back for all they're worth to protect their 'rights', including any and every movie, any and every word and any and every T shirt.
But guns, a tool that allows them the chance to fight back? Nope. Not that they'd misuse it, but that everyone else would.
It's a common theme; that the circumstances make mans nature violent or not; society makes one rob, makes one attack, makes one rape and resistance with a weapon will only make the bad guy mad at you to boot whereas before he only wanted your stuff.
Sorry for butting in, but forestal never wants to get into the nuts and bolts of why he thinks what he thinks, so, I'll throw this out there as a reason until he comes along to dispute it.
edited for grammatical terrorism
bdh802 said:
...let's examine that for a moment, shall we?
bd, you're post lays the foundation question of gun control; is man inherently violent or do weapons make him violent?
forestal and the anti crowd try to make the public argument that it is the latter and if one simply hands over whatever it is, a parking space, your wallet, whatever, then the aggressor will, somehow, want no more from you.
So, if there are no guns, at all, then the worst you can expect to go with being robbed is a beating or a stabbing or some other violence and it will only be you and not 32 people at once.
I just don't get it; If you tell a leftist he can't watch that movie or say this word or wear that T shirt; they're ready to man the barricades and fight back for all they're worth to protect their 'rights', including any and every movie, any and every word and any and every T shirt.
But guns, a tool that allows them the chance to fight back? Nope. Not that they'd misuse it, but that everyone else would.
It's a common theme; that the circumstances make mans nature violent or not; society makes one rob, makes one attack, makes one rape and resistance with a weapon will only make the bad guy mad at you to boot whereas before he only wanted your stuff.
Sorry for butting in, but forestal never wants to get into the nuts and bolts of why he thinks what he thinks, so, I'll throw this out there as a reason until he comes along to dispute it.
edited for grammatical terrorism
Last edited:
itsbob
I bowl overhand
forestal said:
Actually the state can't know anything, it's inanimate, and doesn't have the ability to think or know anything.
That being said, the only people that knew Cho was a danger were Cho, and the doctor that examined him. Since Cho's rights are protected, and medical records priviledged information, he was sold a gun without being able to look into his medical or psychological background.. and since he was a criminal before the shooting all he had to do was lie on the form.. WHO'D a thunk? A person planning on going on a rampage would actually LIE on a federal form..
Good thing he shot himself or we'd be trying him for providing false information ..
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's right...
....unlike a gun that is ALL knowing and ALL powerful. A living, breathing minister of death choosing who lives, who dies. What channel we have to watch. Which shoes to wear with which holster...etc.
itsbob said:
....unlike a gun that is ALL knowing and ALL powerful. A living, breathing minister of death choosing who lives, who dies. What channel we have to watch. Which shoes to wear with which holster...etc.