Debate on Gun Rights In House Turns Racial

I oppose any law that resticts gun sales based on anything less than a successful criminal sentence based on a crime of violence. Drug teatment/use programs, restraining orders, etc. are handed out indiscriminately by courts and/or other authorities and don't necessarily require criminal prosecution. This allows totally innocent people to be deprived of constitutional rights based entirely upon unsubstantiated accusations. For example, restraining orders are routinely given out during divorces to prevent potentially harrassing verbal contact. Businesses with drug testing programs can require employees whom they determine test positive to go to drug use programs if they wish to remain employed.

[ 04-10-2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

I don't think it is wise to have a person with a history of violence or drug use should be able to carry one, because drugs can retard a person's thinking and they may use it. And with a history of violence, they may be tempted to use it. It doesn't go through race or anything like that, even a little kid can get ahold of it and fire it off. Just because someone is a different color than someone else doesn't mean anything.

[EDIT]Word Placement[/EDIT]

[ 04-10-2003, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Gangrell ]

I agree with Kenneth, it's a gross overstatement to try and ban gun sales to people who have been required to undergo drug treatment, take for instance someone who maybe smoked up a little in high school, got busted, cleaned up and never looked back, but because the drug treatment is there on their record, they lose a constitutionally protected right.

If implemented (which I hope it isn't) I think a time limit should be included, ie if you've had to undergo treatment for drug abuse in the last 5 years.

as far as the racist remarks, they're unforgivable.