Carry a gun? Pass a drug test.

[RecycleMichael]

We make people who drive busses pass a drug test. We make kids who play high school sports or be in the band pass a drug test. We now have states who make welfare recipients pass a drug test to get food stamps.

Why not people who want to carry guns?

[tulsa_fan]

Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not. 

Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue.  You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them?  The bad guys.  You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this?  Remember the OKC bombing?  no guns, 9/11?  no guns . . . .

I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help.  Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter.  I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....

[Hoss]

Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not. 

Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue.  You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them?  The bad guys.  You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this?  Remember the OKC bombing?  no guns, 9/11?  no guns . . . .

I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help.  Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter.  I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....

If there wasn't the impetus to address the mental health issue after Virginia Tech, why would we think it would be any different now?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[AquaMan]

Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not.  

Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue.  You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them?  The bad guys.  You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this?  Remember the OKC bombing?  no guns, 9/11?  no guns . . . .

I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help.  Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter.  I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....

Hallucinatory drugs in your system make you mentally ill. Meth in your system makes you mentally ill. One could argue that just putting drugs in your system means you are ill. So if you have meth, coke, hash or heroin in your system do you think that right to carry a gun supersedes the rights of the community to safety?

You don't have to be too smart to figure that one out.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not good at diving into a big ol debate with you all, I don't pretend to be as smart and I sure as heck don't have the time to go digging out facts to back up my stuff, but I'm going to go with the fact that owning a firearm is a guaranteed right under the constitution . . . Driving a bus, getting a welfare check or playing sports is not. 

Everyone wants to control who gets the guns, that is NOT the issue.  You can make a law to remove every gun, then guess who still has them?  The bad guys.  You think the Newton guy if he was set on that horrific deal wouldn't have found an alternative way to cause this?  Remember the OKC bombing?  no guns, 9/11?  no guns . . . .

I think you focus on a solution for the real cause of what happened in Newtown, it wasn't that he had access to guns, it's that he had severe mental health issues and needed help.  Same thing on the Auroa CO shooter.  I could have supported a rush to find solutions for those issues....

Hold those thoughts.  You understand perfectly.  Now, if some of the others around here could get some reality....

[AquaMan]

Bus drivers have to take random drug tests because they are in physical control of a 10,000 lb deadly weapon, carrying children, among puny little 2000 lb vehicles.

If only the founding fathers had foreseen buses we could have protected their rights as well.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hallucinatory drugs in your system make you mentally ill. Meth in your system makes you mentally ill. One could argue that just putting drugs in your system means you are ill. So if you have meth, coke, hash or heroin in your system do you think that right to carry a gun supersedes the rights of the community to safety?

You don't have to be too smart to figure that one out.

And what, in any planet or known universe makes you think for an instant that you have the right to have a gun under any of those circumstances??  You know for a fact, yet continue to spew this crap from the Brady Bunch that somehow it is perfectly ok, or that ANYONE advocates that it is ok for someone under the influence, to carry or use a gun.  You know it isn't.  It hasn't been for many decades.  And yet, you continue to try to confuse reality with the Brady Bunch propaganda - even when you know it is not true.  And you know it is not true, because it has been discussed here a lot.  Just ignored by the Brady-istas.

And not just if you have it in your system - it goes beyond that - if you are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any unlawful substance - regardless of whether it is in your system at that point or not.

IF for some really stupid reason, like maybe too lazy to verify it yourself, google up "4473 form" and READ the conditions that are required to obey Federal law regarding owning/possession of a firearm.  And ALL the states require at least that minimum level, and some even more.

[AquaMan]

Your "easy" button is way too obvious.

Before you get too crazy on me, read the original post. Do you believe that people who own guns should be drug tested? Simple enough. We all would agree that would be not only not feasible but intrusive by government.

Nonetheless you have to address the obvious. If you continue to hammer away that mental illness is the real problem and drugs are intimately involved with mental health, and 40% of your population is using at the current moment and 60% of your population owns guns,..do the math...it implies a discussion void of name calling might be in order.

I have never followed Brady law enthusiasts. I have much respect for the man though and their motives.

[Gaspar]

We make people who drive busses pass a drug test. We make kids who play high school sports or be in the band pass a drug test. We now have states who make welfare recipients pass a drug test to get food stamps.

Why not people who want to carry guns?

I don't think it's a bad idea.  Wouldn't' curb any crime, because the folks shelling out the money and time to get a conceal and carry are typically not the people committing crime.

I think the other provisions mentioned above would actually be more effective in decreasing gun crime.  If all welfare, snap, and section 8 housing recipients were required to be clean of illegal drugs, it would probably have two effects. First, dealers would have a more limited clientele, and second, addicts would have incentive to be functional producers in order to abuse.  Perhaps they would improve their quality of life and lessen the emotional urge to use.

I am still amazed at how liberals are attempting to focus on everything except causation, when it comes to gun controls. The incidents of gun violence in the US have actually plummeted over the past 20 years, and a direct correlation can be made to increased gun ownership, and carry permits.  https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7z5k0xtztt5vh1/NVAT_Report_20-Dec-12_10-37-23AM.xls We have far fewer criminals willing to attack a woman walking on Riverside at night because chances are (especially if she is a member of my family) she is armed.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Your "easy" button is way too obvious.

Before you get too crazy on me, read the original post. Do you believe that people who own guns should be drug tested? Simple enough. We all would agree that would be not only not feasible but intrusive by government.

Nonetheless you have to address the obvious. If you continue to hammer away that mental illness is the real problem and drugs are intimately involved with mental health, and 40% of your population is using at the current moment and 60% of your population owns guns,..do the math...it implies a discussion void of name calling might be in order.

I have never followed Brady law enthusiasts. I have much respect for the man though and their motives.

The discussion about guns has been resolved in the real world since the original "assault weapon" ban.  It is still being trotted out, NOT as a serious discussion point, but as an "agenda of power and control" point.  A real discussion would start with the mental health issues - which may NOT be the final topic - but IS the place to start, then move to other things if they become obvious.  A real discussion does not start with 30 round magazines.  That is insanity in a real world context - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.  (Much like our drug laws, too.)

[RecycleMichael]

Nothing has been "resolved".

I don't care if you own a thousand guns. If you carry a gun on you while shopping, at the movies, etc., I would hope you wouldn't be on the influence of drugs. I think it is reasonable to ask for drug tests for people who want to carry guns around on their hip.

I am not a proponent of drug testing in general, but it seems to be a condition of employment at many places. If my kid has to pass a drug test to play trumpet in the band, why not have people carrying guns into shopping areas pass a drug test?

[tulsa_fan]

Drugs don't cause or create a mental illness . . . . the may termorary alter your mental state, but that is NOT a mental illness, and I'm sure people who have battled with real mental illnesses would be happy to argue that fact with you.  Regardless, I don't think a drug test should be a requirement of carrying a gun.

So if I choose to smoke some weed at home, but when I'm out (and sober) with my family, I shouldn't have the right to carry my gun anymore?  I think a drunk with a gun is just as dangerous, so you shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol ever if you want to carry a weapon.

It is a crime to carry a weapon while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

[Gaspar]

It is a crime to carry a weapon while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Actually, yes.

[Townsend]

Actually, yes.

Actually, yes what?

[Conan71]

Actually, yes what?

It's illegal to carry while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The only problem with drug testing to carry is how often do you test?

(not speaking to you specifically T just adding in)

Ironic that people can't be troubled with the notion of having to get an annual prescription for pseudoephedrine which would help curb the meth problem because it would be a hardship.  Yet, in order to carry a weapon to protect yourself against an attack by someone on meth or some other substance, getting regular drug tests wouldn't be considered a hardship?  Why not regular drug tests for anyone with a driver's license?  That's probably a greater nuisance to the general public considering 25 to 30,000 people are killed and upwards of 700,000 injured due to impaired driving every year.  Guns account for about 11,000 homicides a year, less than 1/2 the number killed as a result of impaired driving.

In other words, cars are a bigger threat than guns to your safety and well being in the possession of someone under the influence.

Gaspar makes a good point that only law abiding gun owners would submit to the tests which would likely turn up very few violators.  Those who are found in violation should be stripped of that privilege.