Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 226

Keeping Guns From People Convicted of Violent Crimes or Distributing Drugs and Alcohol

Argument in favor

Gun violence is an epidemic in this country — and the perpetrators are often people who have committed crimes in the past. This bill will help keep guns out of the hands of high risk individuals.

Donald's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
Those persons having a history of violence against persons and animals should not have or have access to any weapons.
Like (27)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
And many of these criminals used a weapon during their behaviors. That's why they're in custody. So, YES. NO GUNS OR WEAPONS EVER!
Like (11)
Follow
Share
JeremieRoss's Opinion
···
10/05/2015
Violent crimes yes, why take it away from people distributing alcohol though?
Like (4)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The use of "reasonable suspicion" to deny a person access to firearms or ammunition in this bill is just asking to be abused. Law abiding gun owners shouldn't be punished just because they "might" have a criminal record.

Drew's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
This definition is way to broad. Those convicted of violent crimes should be restricted, but suspected or possible persons gives too much leeway and abusive power to the govt.
Like (27)
Follow
Share
ark4162's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
convicted - yes. Suspected - ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!!!! Ever hear the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? What the hell are you trying to pull here?
Like (19)
Follow
Share
Michael's Opinion
···
10/03/2015
Innocent until proven guilty. The "suspected" category simply opens the door to interpretation and likely abuse by "discriminating" individuals.
Like (10)
Follow
Share
    Those persons having a history of violence against persons and animals should not have or have access to any weapons.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    This definition is way to broad. Those convicted of violent crimes should be restricted, but suspected or possible persons gives too much leeway and abusive power to the govt.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    convicted - yes. Suspected - ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!!!! Ever hear the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? What the hell are you trying to pull here?
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    And many of these criminals used a weapon during their behaviors. That's why they're in custody. So, YES. NO GUNS OR WEAPONS EVER!
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Innocent until proven guilty. The "suspected" category simply opens the door to interpretation and likely abuse by "discriminating" individuals.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Your key word is "Suspected". We are innocent until proven guilty. Once convicted the law spells it out.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    The problem here is "suspected." Sorry but no. This is just begging to be abused. No law should be based on murky probabilities of guilt or innocence.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Some of these people may need guns for self-defense. Also, my main problem with this is the "suspected" part. "Just because the government says you're suspected of something now means you can't purchase something" is a major flaw, and is easily exploited.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems like common sense. If you lose your right to vote when you are convicted of a crime then you should definitely lose your right to bear arms
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Violent crimes yes, why take it away from people distributing alcohol though?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Suspicion isn't enough to restrict someone's rights. A conviction of a violent crime must be required.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Background checks are the best way to go about this.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    I support some forms of gum regulations, but making any restriction based on suspicion is unconstitutional.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    I believe the right to keep and bear arms should never be infringed on law abiding, responsible citizens. Thugs and criminals shoot be removed from society.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    No one with a criminal past should be allowed to own a firearm especially with such a high recidivism rate in this country. We don't rehabilitate we incarcerate and repeat. As soon as we start to actually fix the problem this country has with career criminals then we can decide if they should own weapons meant to kill.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    There is a psychological truism that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. A history of violent acts is a warning that guns in the hand of person with violent behavior would be a potential danger in the future. I t may also indicate that the person has a mental illness and is not able to have good judgment.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Those who have already proven themselves capable of violence against others should not have access to the easiest tools to perpetrate that violence again.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    "Reasonable cause" is not enough to deny people basic rights guaranteed in our constitution.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    "Reasonable cause" to believe they have been convicted of a crime? Anything other than set in stone documentation of their offenses should not be taken as evidence that they have been prosecuted as such.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Criminals will always get guns. All gun restrictions have the possibility of restricting good citizens from carrying and endanger us all.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE