Harry Reid (Dem-S-Nev) says, “We do need to put in place legislation that helps prevent these deranged, these weird, these evil people who carry out such savage acts of violence. Background checks so that people who are criminals, who are deranged can’t buy a gun.”
I see several glaring problems with this:
1. Most psychologists will undoubtedly lean towards identifying anyone who is a “potential danger to themselves or others” as a candidate for being denied their right to keep and bear arms. The problem is, the vast majority of those “potentials,” as in more than 99% of them, would never go on a mass shooting spree.
2. Harry Reid’s categories are far too broad, not to mention nebulous. The “criminal” category isn’t well-defined, either. The term “convicted criminal” would be more appropriate. Even so, there are questions as to whether Constitutional rights should be restored when convicts become ex-cons. If they’ve paid their debt to society…
3. It gets into “pre-crime,” violating the Constitutional rights of Americans without any Constitutionally-acceptable reason.
4. As for the rest of the categories, they clearly include room for politicians to add anyone and everyone who ever opposed a political party or supported the U.S. Constitution, including the gentleman pictured below. That’s just wrong.
Bottom Line: You do NOT protect Americans by taking away their right to defend themselves. Our Founding Fathers got it right when they created in our Second Amendment the blanket protection, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What Harry Reid and others propose is a MASSIVE infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and raises serious questions as to his real motives.