You know what would be a lot higher? Not letting mentally ill people or domestic abusers, or people who have shown to use them in an unsafe manner around children have access to them. But apparently that is way too far in America.
People who have been convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership, same for people who have been involuntarily committed, and child endangerment is already also a crime that falls outside the scope of simply firearms.
That’s not what I said, I said a history of mental illness.
Ah, so you want to nebulously define mental illness to include depressed people, people with ADHD, BPD, Bi-polar, and trans people as “undesireables.” Well this ableist position thankfully isn’t the law and it requires proof that a person is actually dangerous before stripping their rights. Furthermore all it does is make people less likely to seek the help they actually need for fear of being barred from rights for having a mental illness that wouldn’t have made them be violent anyway (stop stigmatizing the mentally ill btw, do better.)
But it doesn’t include handgun ownership, which you know full well.
Ah but it does. If someone is actually endangering their children with a handgun it absolutely applies, but no, “owning a handgun” isn’t in and of itself child endangerment and your suggestion that it should be is quite laughable.
You seem to have a habit of cutting and running every time I prove that you have no idea what you’re talking about. By all means take your ball and go home lol.
There is a difference between regulated and highly regulated?
Crimes like straw purchasing or lying on a NICs form are punishable by 10yr in prison, federal prison in some cases. I’d say that’s pretty “high.”
You know what would be a lot higher? Not letting mentally ill people or domestic abusers, or people who have shown to use them in an unsafe manner around children have access to them. But apparently that is way too far in America.
People who have been convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership, same for people who have been involuntarily committed, and child endangerment is already also a crime that falls outside the scope of simply firearms.
Not for long.
That’s not what I said, I said a history of mental illness.
But it doesn’t include handgun ownership, which you know full well. And that’s what we’re talking about here.
But since you are blatantly misrepresenting what I said and being incredibly dishonest, I don’t think this conversation needs to continue.
Ah, so you want to nebulously define mental illness to include depressed people, people with ADHD, BPD, Bi-polar, and trans people as “undesireables.” Well this ableist position thankfully isn’t the law and it requires proof that a person is actually dangerous before stripping their rights. Furthermore all it does is make people less likely to seek the help they actually need for fear of being barred from rights for having a mental illness that wouldn’t have made them be violent anyway (stop stigmatizing the mentally ill btw, do better.)
Ah but it does. If someone is actually endangering their children with a handgun it absolutely applies, but no, “owning a handgun” isn’t in and of itself child endangerment and your suggestion that it should be is quite laughable.
You seem to have a habit of cutting and running every time I prove that you have no idea what you’re talking about. By all means take your ball and go home lol.