Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Purchasers

We the People is urging the President to do it.
Many people have called for drug testing of welfare recipients. It seems reasonable that individuals seeking to purchase firearms should also be required to submit to a drug test prior to gaining ownership of these deadly weapons.

This would protect society and law enforcement from drug abusers and addicts seeking to use deadly firearms, often in criminal acts.

This administration should urge Congress and the states to pass legislation to this effect.
This is a brilliant idea, supported by the Brady Campaign and I dare say, by anyone else who is serious about gun responsibility.

It's odd about the gun-rights supporters who oppose common sense restrictions.  You'd think they'd be the first ones on board with these things, after all the bad apples who would be screened out give all of them a bad name. Resisting these types of initiatives on the part of the pro-gun crowd is a self-defeating effort. Apparently they don't see the writing on the wall, the days of gun-rights ascendency are about over. If they were smart they'd begin by cutting their losses and the place to start is with the troublemakers among them.

Stricter gun control, better enforcement, administered federally in order to keep all the States on the same page, these are the answers to the gun violence problem.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

30 comments:

  1. So what other rights should be drug tested? Should you have to pass a drug test before getting your drivers license (not even a right but a priveledge)? Before voting? Before writing a newspaper or giving a speech in public? Before being allowed to go to church?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Drug testing prior to owning a gun? Sure!

    Right after drug testing prior to voting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Serhatred, I'll be happy to add drug testing to the right to vote, just as soon as you demonstrate to me that a vote was directly or proximally the cause of any injury or death, including suicide.

    Economic suicide in this context does't count. I'm talking loss of life or limb.

    The two do not equate; what is wrong with you gun loonz? Don't you ever study rhetoric and logic?

    You consistently conflat dissimilar things and then try to float the argument that they are equivalent when they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Serhatred is all for economic suicide if you read his views on economics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Grrrrrr.

    I'm using a different computer which has a keyboard that has a very hard touch in order for the keys to work.

    I type very quickly, and on this keyboard, that problem is resulting in dropped letters and misspellings. My apologies to readers. I hate typos!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dog Gone - to make this match up, you would then have to show where the act of purchasing a gun resulted in someone dieing. Not the use of the gun, just the purchase of that gun since that is what is proposed to be banned.

    Now if you would like to propose that passing a drug test be required before using a gun to commit a crime, then I would be in support of that. I am not sure what good that would actually accomplish other than adding another charge to the indictment, but maybe someone would think twice before getting high and shooting someone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not at all Jim.

    The only purpose served by drug testing someone before voting is to remove those who are impaired by drugs from those who do vote.

    The reason for testing all possible gun owners is to remove from the gun owning pool those who have demonstrated by the drug test that they are impaired and therefore should not own guns.

    When you can demonstrate that there is an equivalent harm in writing a newspaper or going to church or making a speech while impaired to using a gun while impaired, your reasoning will be valid.

    There have been more than enough people who have died as a result of someone purchasing a gun to justify testing anyone who wants to purchase a gun.

    You need to brush up on how logic works Jim. But you are better than Serhatred, who needs serious remedial work on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "There have been more than enough people who have died as a result of someone purchasing a gun to justify testing anyone who wants to purchase a gun."

    Please cite sources for people dieing as a result of a gun purchase without that gun having been fired.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please cite sources for people dying as a result of a gun purchase without that gun having been fired.

    Well, unloaded guns are fairly safe provided they are truly unloaded. I'm not sure one can actually say that given the first rule of gun safety is "All guns are always loaded".

    A deactivated firearm is safe as well!

    So, you could disassemble the gun: that would make it fairly safe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can you guarantee to me Jim that every gun purchased will NEVER be fired? If not, see the previous contention that guns are weapons, constructed to be loaded and fired.

    Unlike a vote, which is intended to elect someone to office.

    So, we're back to testing anyone who is buying a gun. Because it is unlikely they can or would guarantee they will never shoot it if they are purchasing it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "If not, see the previous contention that guns are weapons, constructed to be loaded and fired."

    That is why I said we need to drug test people that intend to fire their weapons illegally. I don't know how you determine that group of people before they actually fire their weapons. Similarly, there is no way to know who is going to drive drunk before they do it, but we only arrest the drunk drivers - not all drivers. We only arrest people that incite violence with their speech - not anyone that wishes to speak on the assumption that they are going to incite violence.

    So again I ask you - which other rights should you have to pre-emptively prove you have the right to participate in by being drug free?

    ReplyDelete
  12. No Jim, we need to test people who are acquiring firearms. Period.

    Testing them for guns determines if they have a pattern of becoming impaired where their judgemnt is faulty.

    I don't give a rats rumpus if they are going to fire the weapon legally or illegally as the premise for testing. The purpose of the testing is not the same as the purpose of testing the alcohol content of drunk drivers. No one is proposing arresting someone on the basis of this testing. Rather the premise is not to legally allow someone who uses drugs - which are illegal - to have a gun.

    Drug users are prohibited and are supposed to be on the NCIS list. The argument here is that if you want a firearm, you agree to submit to a test. Not unlike a driver submits to an eye test as part of their licensing.

    It is a safety thing. You seem to not get that, in bringing up going to church or voting or writing a newspaper article, or giving a speech in public. When any of those things are as inherently dangerous, as inherently and intentionally weapons, when those tihngs kill people both deliberately and accidentally, or are used in suicide, then and only then do they belong in a comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I enjoyed that slick diversion by Jim trying to separate the buying of a gun from the using of it.

    Dog Gone took care of that.

    My question is, why would gun owners object to drug testing? The drug users among them would have obvious reason, but the others? Wouldn't they benefit from cleaning up some of the less responsible among them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dog gone,

    You asked for one example of where voting has led to injury or death. I give you Florida in 2000. Had Gore won that election, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. That election was won by a few hundred votes--with many more in dispute, as I well remember.

    Nevertheless, I absolutely oppose drug testing for voters. You have heard of innocent before proven guilty? Of due process? The presumption on the part of the government, when I exercise my rights, must be that I'm an innocent citizen in good standing. Otherwise, we live in a police state.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We have laws which prohibit users of illegal drugs from owning firearms.

    It is more logical and reasonable and consistent with law to test potential licensees and firearm purchasers for drugs than it does to test people applying for assistance in Florida.]]

    People who use drugs, including an abusive use of alcohol, pose a direct risk in connection with the use of a firearm that voters do not.

    We test eyesight to get a drivers license; let's test for drug use to get a gun license. Both tests directly relate to the use of the license.

    It is not a violation of due process, because 1. it is voluntary; and 2. it carries no criminal penalties for the test results.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dog Gone,

    Once again, our disagreement is over the question of rights. You apparently believe in a right to vote. I do as well. Do you support drug testing for voters?

    I believe in a right to own, carry, and use small arms for legitimate purposes (including self defense). I should not have to pass a test to exercise my right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually, Fat Tony Scalia says there is no right to vote. In fact, he has said it would be his preference that state governments appoint US Senators.

    But, once again, gunloons make the error of confusing their wishes and wants with Constitutional law. And per Heller and McDonald, drug testing (among other things) is permitted as a precondition to gun ownership.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jadegold,

    You're confused in thinking that your interpretation of the ennumerated list of rights in the Constitution is comprehensive and correct. There are rights that are logically prior to any founding documents. We call them natural rights. Self defense is a natural right, and firearms are useful tools in exercising that right. Participating in the processes of one's society is also a natural right.

    Sometimes the Supreme Court gets its judgements of our rights correct, and sometimes the justices go astray. The overall trend has been good, though.

    Dog Gone,

    You have yet to answer my point about elections and consequences. Did the 2000 presidental election lead to injury or death?

    Also, you raised the point of suicide. Suicide is the right of an adult. Your point?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greg Camp wrote:
    "Once again, our disagreement is over the question of rights. You apparently believe in a right to vote. I do as well. Do you support drug testing for voters?"

    No; there are more than enough measures in place that already address anyone showing up to a voting place drunk or high. Further, the election of Bush in 2000 certainly had some problems, and was probably crooked given not only the polling problems in Florida, but also the right wing engineered disenfranchisement of legal voters.

    However, I might consider voter drug testing, if you could shoe me a justification of harm done by people voting while chemically impaired.

    AND, if you would agree that anyone with a gun was only able to use it as often as they had occasion to vote for public office......say once every two years or so. And that the rest of the time they did not possess their firearm.

    And that they could only use it in a supervised public place.

    You know - like a vote.

    Rights are not absolute, they are not innate, they are not god given.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dog Gone,

    "Rights are not absolute, they are not innate, they are not god given."

    I see. You've said that we get our rights from the social contract. That's a scary idea. You do realize that if your statement is true, we could all get together and vote away your rights? We could decide that you don't have the right to live. We could decide that you don't have the right to express yourself unless you agree with us. Don't you see the danger there? And if you think that such a thing couldn't happen, let me remind you of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the social contract that gave us slavery for decades in this country, and on and on. I much prefer an understanding that says that each one of us is born with rights.

    You said that rights are not absolute. That's a matter of some discussion. My right to speech doesn't include the right to lie about someone or to incite violence, but I do have an absolute right to express my opinion or to tell the truth. Again, my rights aren't given to me by American law. Many of them are recognized by the same, but they come from something more fundamental.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Greg Camp wrote;

    That's a matter of some discussion.

    No. It is a matter of established definition - and having looked at various dictionary definitions of the tern, including legal definitions, there is nothing there which supports your personal idea. Depending on which source you prefer, Dictionary.com gives 50 - 60 definitions, NONE of which support your assertion.

    Perhaps your idea is like this:
    "“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
    ― Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass

    or this

    “Take care of the sounds and the sense will take care of itself.”
    ― Lewis Carroll, The Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through The Looking Glass

    or perhaps you are like this with your use of terms:

    “Reeling and Writhing of course, to begin with,' the Mock Turtle replied, 'and the different branches of arithmetic-ambition, distraction, uglification, and derision.”
    ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland: Including Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass

    Because you seem to have made up something that is not established, is not true, is not real, and about which there is not the consensus you seem to be trying to pose here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Drug Testing To Buy a Gun
    Drug Testing To Buy Guns vs. The Reapers
    Drug Testing To Buy A Gun vs. The Reavers
    from the movie Serenity
    Posted by Henry Massingale
    PATRIOTS FOR GUN RIGHTS

    The Reapers / a F.A.S.C. Concepts , byMassingale News Release.
    I offer a legal help, a option, to Drug Test People before they buy a Gun. The new
    testing of the swab to the mouth is painless and on the money for stopping
    gun crimes, by junkies. You see Guns and Drugs, a issue our Government Covers
    up because of the sale of Oxy Heroin. I have labeled these heroin users as,
    "The Reapers / The Reavers /. byMassingale", a Internet catch. Some
    of the most terrible crimes committed by addicts.
    To state it simple it is not the people's fault that a junkie shoot at the White House, it is not the People's fault that Congress Lady Gabby got shoot and the death of a child has marked Us and Government Officials for lack of insite. The fault is with FDA Federal byLaws that allowed tons of Oxy Heroin to be dumped on the People Of America.

    ReplyDelete
  23. On a technical rather than content note - by Massingale just now, but this also applies to others - we seem to be having a rash of duplicate comments.

    I'm assuming this is just one of those hiccups that blogspot goes through from time to time, rather than deliberate repetition by our commenters.

    My apologies on behalf of the blog for anyone who is inconvenienced, and I also ask your patience if in the course of trying to eliminate duplicates we accidentally lose a comment, and apologize in advance for any lost comments as well.

    There is not a lot we can do administratively to correct these glitches as they occur, but please know we will do the best we can with those limited options.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You sound like an interesting guy, Massingale. I hope we hear more from you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have always disliked drug testing, because it seems so un-american. If one can't do a job due to drug use don't get hysterical and start punishing everyone with the same low standard. What about pilots and surgeons and school bus drivers?
    Alcohol is hard to detect because it is so quickly passed through one's system whereas a trace of mj can stay stuck in one's system for about a month. Personally, I know people who due to cancer and simular real ailments that require 'narcotic pain meds.' They have high tolerances and are quite sober, but they are going to flunk the standard drug test.

    I'll put it this way: Grandad at the range has been taking lortab for 3 years to wipe out the pain of his metastatic bone disease, but he's sober, and will pass any cognitive test you have him take - and he's been shooting for twenty years+. Meanwhile there's
    a healthy newby who has just picked up his first firearm a few weeks ago. If grandad seems to be cognitively impaired, and if the newby seems to be too clumsy or reckless - I'd be concerned.
    Testing is far too limited and too intrusive; sometimes common sense and open eyes and open ears are far better tools to be used.
    Also, a person can buy a firearm and be totally drug free, happy as a lark, wealthy, married to a wonderful person and kive in a fine home on a beautiful hill - but still buy a gun and misuse in
    an act of violence. One can vaguely predict what groups of people do with handguns and rifles, but it's very hard to predict individual behavior.

    Physicians have as a profession about the highest suicide rate. Should one force every physician who buys a handgun to submitt to a battery of psychological testing to determine suicide risk before they purchase a handgun? What about imposing a moratorium on gun purchases for returning combat verans and retiring police officers? They too are likely to fit the profile of certain high risk groups...

    I remember many many years ago see a man buy a Plymouth Roadrunner I was child then, but even as a child I knew the teen who was receiving the car as a gift from his father - was the last person on earth who should be behind the heel of such a car. Yeah, he totaled it in less than 6mos. and almost killed himself
    on the accident ie. he rolled it at a high speed...

    Guns are the same way. Some people are going to mess up no matter what one does to prevent it. Just allow me my 2nd Amend. Rights.
    They aren't a privledge; they are my rights. We also need less bureaucracy - not more of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your very thoughtful comment. I agree drug testing for gun purchases would be fraught with problems. Yet, I'm not happy with the way things are now. Are you?

      Delete
  26. Mikeb and this entire crew of woebegones are Liberal Fascists who desire only to CONTROL! everyone to their ideology's satisfaction, and that means disarming good citizens who would oppose them.

    Fuck them all with swordfishes. Sideways.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If it's a free government gun then I'm all for it.

    Other than that, where does it say: "The right of the people to collect welfare shall not be infringed"? I must have missed it.

    The one thing in common with ALL of the recent shootings: They all happened where people weren't allowed to have guns. Nope, not happy about that at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like you're repeating what you read on the gun blogs. The mass shootings are not all done in gun-free zones, just check the list. Furthermore, the inference that spree shooters choose those places for the target-rich environment is crazy. These guys usually go to the place of their grievance or else where the little spaceman in their head tellsthem to go.

      Delete