Desire for a gun is the first sign of mental instability

That’s what they’ll have you think.

The NRA says:

The National Rifle Association has always supported including the records of individuals adjudicated mentally defective into the National Instant Background Check System. We believe that the NICS should serve the intent of Congress, which is to prohibit the legal sale of firearms to criminals and other prohibited persons, such as adjudicated mental defectives. However, we must not forget that the NICS also serves the purpose of clearing firearm purchases by law-abiding Americans. Too often, the system has been abused and has not delivered on the promise of a fair and instant check.

So the NRA has always supported a system that they know “has been abused and has not delivered on the promise of a fair and instant check.

But back to “adjudicated mental defectives.” Who gets to decide? A doctor who has decided that “gun violence” is a “disease,” or that your desire to defend yourself is a sign of paranoia? An elitist judge or legislator who doesn’t want the common rabble to defend themselves?

Who gets to decide? Who do you trust to decide if you’re competent enough to defend yourself?

Credit: The War On Guns



4 Responses to “Desire for a gun is the first sign of mental instability”

  1. Loyd and Harry Says:

    If you have ever lived in California for over ten years you should be designated mentally defective.
    Maybe some type of basic marksmanship and gun handling classes would let the dealer get a better feel of who the gun purchaser really is.
    Like the terrorist who wasn’t interested in learning how to land a airplane, but spent thousands on how to fly one??? Cautionary discretion by all concerned.

  2. Darkman Says:

    I suppose you are only being facetious with the California remark, although I see your point.

    But any type of test–marksmanship or gun handling–would be yet another opportunity for discrimination on both personal and national levels.

    Government has proven time and again that it/they will prefer to increase restrictions any time such a restriction is possible.

    Who gets to decide if you are enough of a marksman to own a firearm?

    Let’s say you’re a woman who is afraid of an abusive ex-husband. Are you going to rely on a scrap of paper that says he can’t come within 100 yards of you to keep you safe? Or will you have to worry about another possibly biased man approving your license to own a gun so you can protect yourself and maybe even your child/children?

    It is always better to err on the side of fewer laws. More laws only give the “authorities” a greater opportunity for oppression and more ways to levy unjust taxes. Taxes which they refer to as “fees,” but taxes nonetheless.

  3. […] Who would have thought is could actually be proposed? […]

  4. […] of the firsts posts I made to this blog focused on this […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: