What gun control measures do you support?


PDA






Hoplophile
September 1, 2008, 03:52 PM
Just checking to see who supports what. Feel free to share yours.

Edit: Let's hope we see a lot of option one.

If you enjoyed reading about "What gun control measures do you support?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ilcylic
September 1, 2008, 04:11 PM
I usually restrict myself to using both hands. Gives me way better control of my gun.

Triphammer
September 1, 2008, 04:16 PM
Gun control supports?
Fence post, car hood, walking stick...

Picard
September 1, 2008, 04:18 PM
I voted absolutely none, but I do agree with an age restriction of 18, not 21, to purchase a firearm. That is it as far as restrictions should go IMO.

As for felons, with the vast illegal trade of prohibited items in the U.S., we should assume that any and all people who really want a gun can get their hands on one. Anyone who is able to freely walk the streets should be able to buy a gun. If a person is a threat to society with a gun, then he is definitely also a threat without one and should be locked up. If hes out, he should be a free man.

crushbup
September 1, 2008, 04:21 PM
I do not support and restrictions, and voted accordingly. However, there are some restrictions that I can live with, though I won't like them (i.e. I won't start a revolution over needing to show that I'm 18 or older)

LaVere
September 1, 2008, 04:23 PM
I wanted to check this [] Convicted, violent felons only.
but I feel the absolute and forever prohibition could be wrong. I feel there should be way to rescind that, after XYZ fulfilled. And that it should not cost thousands of dollars and lawyers. What happened when you were 18 and you now are say 50 with no other problems and XYZ fulfilled. Why not give back his rights to guns and voting what ever else.

RtHG77
September 1, 2008, 04:32 PM
I believe restrictions on NFA weapons should be a bit looser, but I'm fine with the government keeping track on how many full-autos and silencers are floating around out there. I mean its one thing for the village lunatic to have a .22 single shot, but its another thing entirely if he's walking around with a full-auto Uzi.

Same principle as its OK to give the village pyro a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene, but you don't dare give him a flamethrower.

Just drop the age-limit to buy NFA weapons to 18 and ditch the six-month background check, and allow import and manufacture for the civilian market again.

I do agree with the general attitude of this board on felons... If they're too dangerous to own a gun, keep em' locked up. If you can trust them on a street, let them have guns legally.

sacp81170a
September 1, 2008, 04:33 PM
Convicted, violent felons only. But give them an avenue to petition for their rights back upon sufficient rehabilitation. The current system is as unconstitutional as any other system of gun control. Rights may be stripped by due process, just as they must be restored after any penalty has been satisfied. If you're gonna let 'em back out on the street, ya gotta let 'em have their rights back.

I said "junk guns" because to me a "junk gun" is one that is so poorly made that you're risking your own safety by firing it. Require at least some standard of safety and reliability just as you would with any other potentially hazardous product.

Maelstrom
September 1, 2008, 04:34 PM
It doesn't say "Convicted Felons" but only those of the more entertaining "Violent" type. I say screw 'em.

You don't want to lose your rights to vote or own firearms?

Should have thought about that before you raped that underage Nun.

joffe
September 1, 2008, 04:34 PM
I like a two-point sling on my rifle, and I use both hands on a pistol.

No, but really, voted for 'none'. See sig.

Firethorn
September 1, 2008, 04:40 PM
LaVere, I think much the same; however I figure that one line polls like this don't go too in depth.
I voted for the felon option because it's the closest to my beliefs. While yes, I think that there should be a restoral process for their rights; I also think that restricting some non-violent felons from owning a gun is probably for the best as well.

After all, burglary of an unoccupied residence isn't violent, but might indicate a more serious problem than a bookie or grifter.

mr.scott
September 1, 2008, 04:44 PM
I voted for the convicted felon, but there should be a caveat that it should only be for violent offenders, and then their should be a time limit. 10 years after you get out you're eligible if you have not had any more convictions of any kind. Misdemenor or felony.

Eric F
September 1, 2008, 04:48 PM
What a tangled web we weave..........

I think 18 and up should be able tu purchase with out restriction and be able to carry. Violent felons......a review of their case say after 10-15 years for re-enstatement. NFA well ok but I do have reservations on stuff with explosive yeild grenade launchers and cannons and the like. Just my thoughts though

R.W.Dale
September 1, 2008, 04:51 PM
WOW 66% of THR members have bought the liberal line and believe at least some form of gun control works

firefighter4884
September 1, 2008, 04:58 PM
Absolutely none for me.

I personally think that if someone is a violent criminal who should be prohibited from having firearms, then there is absolutely no reason not to let them out of jail at all. If they are let out of jail, then society considers their debt paid, and they should go back to being full members of that society.

As far as not trusting the village crazy with a full auto uzi, until he uses it, he hasn't done anything wrong. And when and if he does use it, you throw him in jail (or sentence him to death, IMHO) and throw away the key. He's still innocent until proven guilty, just like the rest of us.

I might be able to live with the 18 to purchase, unless accompanied by an adult, but I do know some people under the age of 18 who are responsible enough to own and carry a firearm who are under 18 years of age.

--Jim

guntotinguy
September 1, 2008, 05:01 PM
Absolutely none

Duke Junior
September 1, 2008, 05:04 PM
Absolutely none.

Drgong
September 1, 2008, 05:05 PM
Convicted, violent felons only, as in that if a convicted Violent Felon is cought with a firearm, give them 10 years.

That and I actually don't mind the NFA system if it was for distructive devices only.

walking arsenal
September 1, 2008, 05:05 PM
I voted for restrictions on CCW.

The education classes for CCW, i think, are worthwhile and beneficial to most people who are starting out and a good refresher for us "veterans".

If it were up to me id support the same deal for hunting. A lot of people don't seem to know how to shoot or how to select the proper firearm for the game they are pursuing up here or even handle a firearm properly.

Eric F
September 1, 2008, 05:07 PM
I personally think that if someone is a violent criminal who should be prohibited from having firearms, then there is absolutely no reason not to let them out of jail at all. So where do you intend to keep them with the over crowded jail system now?

Age restriction to me is a must......no 12 year old should be able to walk into a gunstore and walk out with a pistol rifle shotgun or other firearm. They lack the maturity and responsibility to own one. And whats wrong with saying violent felons shouldnt have guns? Its a proactive form of gun control.

WOW pretty brave walking arsenal.......hope you can take a gang keyboarding...........But I am with ya!

Werewolf
September 1, 2008, 05:07 PM
I, of course, support all gun control measures that Agent Schmuckatelli, of the most fine ATFE supports.

After all - it is for the children.

Fire-4-Effect
September 1, 2008, 05:10 PM
No form of gun control. It is a right, not a privilege. I would hate for this thread to get in the hands of the anti's. Who knows how they would spin the numbers in this poll. I could see it now, a reference to this site in some anti-gun rag somewhere:

"According to members of "The High Road", a strong pro 2nd amendment web based discussion forum, gun owners think there should at least be X form of gun control"

You get the picture.

romma
September 1, 2008, 05:13 PM
I put down convicted violent felons. I think they need to remain in prison until such time they can be trusted in society again.

Punkermonkey
September 1, 2008, 05:19 PM
At this time I do not support any gun control laws. Although no guns for violent felons sounds like a good idea, I can not think of a single crime they could commit with them that is not already illegal.

csmkersh
September 1, 2008, 05:26 PM
This is what I support for gun control:


Trigger cotrol
Sight picture
Target awareness
What's down range

TCB in TN
September 1, 2008, 05:30 PM
NONE!

If a felon is rehabbed enough to be on the street he/she is rehabbed enough to have access to all their rights. Not like the prohibition on ownership stops them now! Either keep them in jail or allow them to exercise their rights!

razorback2003
September 1, 2008, 05:31 PM
People convicted of violent felonies have no business possessing firearms. Many cannot get their voting rights restored, so they can't legally own or carry guns either.

I would like to see the post 1986 machine gun ban removed to increase the supply of legal machine guns.

Lewis130
September 1, 2008, 05:32 PM
Maybe make gun ownership for over 21s a legal requirement, and encourage people (preferably with cash) to carry a concealed weapon.
How many criminals do you think would have the balls to mug/rape/assault/et cetera if there was, lets say, a 90% of the victim carrying a gun?
Might go catastrophically wrong, but then again, it might work. Not that it'll ever get a chance to, with so many gun-grabbers about.

benzy2
September 1, 2008, 05:37 PM
Exactly. The point of the penal system is to rehabilitate the person back to be a functioning citizen. I would rather tax the person, have record of their purchase, and be able to more easily identify any future infractions they may make with a registered firearm than to make them purchase it illegally. I do agree that a person should be 18 or with parental supervision and I don't mind having to take education to conceal carry. A person with no firearm experience concealing is a bit scary to me and as such I can understand having to take a safety/basic skills test first. You can't drive a car without knowing how to use it and when it comes to firearms in public I feel the same way. Education is important.

Walkalong
September 1, 2008, 05:41 PM
Felons.

Under 21, unless you in in the military, then your age is waved..

Millwright
September 1, 2008, 05:43 PM
I know first hand felons can get firearms in the most hoplophobic state on the continent - NJ. But I'll accept that restriction with the proviso it be used to target "violent felons in possession" to keep them out of society. Alas, as it stands now, gun restrictions target "those that didn't do it" nor present a threat to society.

BTW, just what sort of "threat" does a "silencer" pose ? Except to those in the business of selling hearing appliances, that is.... >MW

The Viking
September 1, 2008, 05:46 PM
None. Gun control fails to work it's magic over here, that's for sure...

scythefwd
September 1, 2008, 05:49 PM
I voted for a couple of options actually. Convicted violent felons - on the fence about this one.

Under 21 purchase / ccw - I have had too many friends shot by people with no criminal background but with known gang affilations. One to be specific. The restrictions I support are a background check. Then again, I think all sales should need a background check that is accessable, anonymous, and inexpensive for every person.. not just gunstores. Yes, I beleive that a background check should be mandatory for Face to Face transfers outside of the family.

jakemccoy
September 1, 2008, 05:50 PM
I can't support any gun restrictions. Any restriction only restricts law abiding citizens and nobody else. It's not an easy concept to grasp initially, but I believe the concept to be true.

I can tolerate restrictions on firearms to convicted, violent felons. The reason I don't support such restrictions is that my support would be my given "inch" and the resulting screwed up legislation would be the "mile" taken by the government.

As a pro-gun person, the proper starting point for negotiations is zero restrictions. Realize that if you start with what you can tolerate, you'll end with more restrictions than you can stomach. I'm from California. I know how it works.

Werewolf
September 1, 2008, 05:52 PM
All y'all who support legal purchase of firearms by felons being illegal are living in a pink sky, blue bunny world. Criminals by definition don't obey the law. Felons who want firearms will get them. They'll get them without much fuss or bother - in fact less fuss and bother than you because they don't have to get BIG BROTHER'S permission. Cash and carry, that easy.

So why bother not permitting them to just go in a gun store and buying one (which most wouldn't even if it were legal - paper trail and all)? All that accomplishes is putting the sale price into the hands of another criminal, depriving a law abiding citizen of a sale and the government of a bit of tax revenue for no net gain. The felon gets his gun anyway.

But then I suppose making it illegal for felons to purchase guns in a gun store fools all the sheep, dummies, antis, and others into feeling really, really good about their masters and how much they love and care for them. After all they are trying to keep all those evil guns out of the hands of criminals, aren't they?

Officers'Wife
September 1, 2008, 05:55 PM
I support none.

To me the restriction of a violent felon is a sign that the government has breached the social contract to keep those dangerous to society out of society.

Such laws at worse give the gov too much power and at best are a sign of the gov's inability to govern.

Selena

sqlbullet
September 1, 2008, 05:56 PM
"The right of the people" is a phrase used by the framers to denote rights which the people possess independent from the government. It is not comparable to voting rights, for instance, because voting rights are bestowed by the government. Our right to arms is bestowed by our existence, and the ability of man to fashion and use tools.

Any restriction we allow the government to place on the inherent right is contrary to the nature of man as a tool user. Such restrictions upset the correct balance and result in undesired consequences, usually negative.

My 2Ę.

Realbigo
September 1, 2008, 05:56 PM
I'm fine w/ NFA restrictions. We've all heard (or told) the story about seeing the guy on the range w/ every piece of junk he can find hanging off of his M4gery, or AK w/ a foot of scope shooting all over the paper from the 7yard line. Now imagine if he could just walk in and buy the shortest barrel length, in full auto.

TAB
September 1, 2008, 06:01 PM
So all those of you that said you don't want any restrictions... are you ok with your neighbor shooting M2 in thier back yard, when ever they want?

I don't know about you, but I personally like my hearing.

jakemccoy
September 1, 2008, 06:02 PM
There's a difference between the meanings of "support", "tolerate" and "fine with". The original question uses the word "support". Yes, words matter. Consider, for example, the Second Amendment.

Regards,
-Jake

Werewolf
September 1, 2008, 06:02 PM
Now imagine if he could just walk in and buy the shortest barrel length, in full auto.OKAY...

I'm imagining it? Sounds like he'd have a lot of fun with his new full auto, M4gery!

What's YOUR POINT?

Are mall ninja's more prone to commiting crimes with their firearms than YOU perhaps? If so - how do you know?

Werewolf
September 1, 2008, 06:05 PM
So all those of you that said you don't want any restrictions... are you ok with your neighbor shooting M2 in thier back yard, when ever they want?

I don't know about you, but I personally like my hearing.That's a red herring if I ever read one. Shootin' an M2 off in one's backyard is NOT about gun control. It IS about noise control, about interferring with a person's right not to be annoyed unecessarily, their right not to have their hearing damaged unecessarily. It's about a communities right not to have 700gr 50 caliber bullets landing at random in the streets. It is about basic civility.

Werewolf
September 1, 2008, 06:08 PM
Any restriction we allow the government to place on the inherent right is contrary to the nature of man as a tool user. Such restrictions upset the correct balance and result in undesired consequences, usually negative.

Ding - ding - DING!


Folks - WE have a WINNER!

TAB
September 1, 2008, 06:11 PM
Ding - ding - DING!


Folks - WE have a WINNER!



So any one should be able to go down to the paint store, pick up something with a MEK base, and spray it all day long into the air, becuase restricting sales of said product, resticts the "nature of man as a tool user".

theotherwaldo
September 1, 2008, 06:14 PM
I'm pretty much against federal regulations on firearms.

I do think that violent criminals should have to prove themselves in some way to regain their civil rights, and that further violent acts should have heavy additional punishment whether guns are involved or not. The problem is, most violent crimes are not federal crimes and, as such, should not be under federal regulations.

So it shouldn't be up to the Fed if ex-cons have guns, it should be a state or local concern.

I'm not as concerned about state and local laws. First, these lawmakers must face their public, which leads to moderation in positions. Second, you can take your guns and move- probably to Texas, like me.

MEH
September 1, 2008, 06:16 PM
"Absolutely none"

That would be me!

ctdonath
September 1, 2008, 06:23 PM
Perhaps violent felons SHOULD be allowed access to guns - that would dissolve the illusion that somehow words on paper actually prevent such access. As it is, most people are comfortable with the notion "oh, felons can't have guns" when in fact felons have no trouble getting guns; this fantasy should be shattered.

Threeband
September 1, 2008, 06:23 PM
I find a sling helpful.

ctdonath
September 1, 2008, 06:25 PM
The only restrictions should be those actions where the actor would be justified in getting shot for doing them.

Werewolf
September 1, 2008, 06:26 PM
So any one should be able to go down to the paint store, pick up something with a MEK base, and spray it all day long into the air, becuase restricting sales of said product, resticts the "nature of man as a tool user".The act of buying and possesing MEK, or any other thing for that matter, should not be illegal.

If a thing is used in an irresponsible matter with undesirable consequences then that use should be punished.

Making the mere possession of a thing illegal assumes that the one possessing it is necessarily irresponsible and/or evil and will misuse it.

That's a hell of a thing to assume about people.

I know - lets prohibit the purchase of meat! After all it is full of fat and will cause us all to become obese, be lazy as a result, lose our jobs and go on welfare thereby costing all the vegetarians out there to have to pay higher taxes to take care of us lazy meat eaters.

OR we could just make it so people are held accountable for their actions.

You choose - oh wait - you already have. Lucky for the rest of us you don't get to choose for everyone.

streakr
September 1, 2008, 06:27 PM
Federal/state licensing like drivers license, commercial DL, pilots license, etc. You can't register a car/truck/plane (boats) without your DL.

This was everybody is properly educated and license renewal will require written / functional tests for the license. But you can buy whatever you want (FA, NFA, etc) as long as you have your license. Just like a vehicle!

You may think the government will then be able to track your firearms and purchases. THEY ALREADY KNOW!!!

s

Dmack_901
September 1, 2008, 06:30 PM
The NFA covers a lot of ground; from .22cal pen guns to machine guns, to silencers to hand grenades and RPGs.

TAB
September 1, 2008, 06:31 PM
The act of buying and possesing MEK, or any other thing for that matter, should not be illegal.


So, I'm a very rich person, I should be able to walk down to the hardware store and buy a nuke?

Would it matter if I am very anti goverment and mentally unstable?

Like it or not, there are something the general public should not be able to walk into a store and walk out with it.

6_gunner
September 1, 2008, 06:37 PM
I voted "absolutely none," because that was the closest. I think that one should have to be over 18 to purchase a firearm. That's the only gun control regulation that I support: no guns for children.

If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they are too dangerous to be a free member of society. Keep them in prison or the looney bin until they're legitimately rehabilitated. If someone is trusted to roam free, then he/she should be trusted to own a firearm, vote, and enjoy all other rights and duties of a citizen.

TRGRHPY
September 1, 2008, 06:38 PM
Any gun restriction should have to seperate criminals from law abiding citizens. To make a law that encompasses everyone doesn't work. Once that could be accomplished my vote would be "none". Law abiding citizens should be able to purchase whatever their pocketbook can afford. Criminals shouldn't get anything unless/until they meet some criteria.

Shooting in the backyard? c'mon, let's talk about issues that are actually a problem to the restriction of guns.

TAB
September 1, 2008, 06:42 PM
If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they are too dangerous to be a free member of society. Keep them in prison or the looney bin until they're legitimately rehabilitated. If someone is trusted to roam free, then he/she should be trusted to own a firearm, vote, and enjoy all other rights and duties of a citizen.



So we should lock up the current VP? he has proven that he can not safely handle a firearm.

Officers'Wife
September 1, 2008, 06:46 PM
Hi Realbigo,

Now imagine if he could just walk in and buy the shortest barrel length, in full auto.


And should this person use that weapon in a manner that shows a disregard to the peace and dignity of the state s/he should be arrested and confined for the good of society. Straight out of the 'Social Contract.'

I've known people that if they carried an M2 heavy machine gun in the back of their truck I wouldn't pay any mind to it. I've know others that make me nervous if they pick up a butter knife. It's not the tools it's the people!

Selena

px4storm
September 1, 2008, 06:46 PM
Convicted, violent felons only!

I want to say absolutely none since I know a repeat felon will get a gun illegally anyway, however I feel that if the felon continues to commit crimes then this can be an additional charge to add and they can keep him in jail longer.
I don't feel this will have any affect on us law abiding citizens whatsoever. It would probably be good to make an exception of some sort for those who made a "youthful" mistake.

RP88
September 1, 2008, 06:48 PM
definitely violent felons. I also belive that we should restrict them from being able to cut deals so that they only serve two years of a fifteen-year sentence before being back on the street as well, but of course that won't happen, because that just makes too much sense for a liberal.

BruceRDucer
September 1, 2008, 06:51 PM
I picked ABSOLUTELY NONE, because it isn't clear to me that gun control advocacies restrict themselves to sensible propositions, and also because current laws already restrict gun ownership in regard to felons.

/:)

PILMAN
September 1, 2008, 06:53 PM
I'm against all restrictions.

Aran
September 1, 2008, 07:00 PM
Absolutely none.

VPLthrneck
September 1, 2008, 07:02 PM
Convicted, violent felons. The main part being "violent."

I've never understood the concept of not allowing someone who is 18 the ability to purchase a handgun. At 18 you can vote, join the military, get a driver's license, buy tobacco products, and if you're a male you have to register with the selective service (personaly I think that should be everyone 18+), and in most states buy a rifle. But you can't but alcohol or a handgun--sorry makes no sense with me.

And the "junk gun" arguement--what agency or person is going to be granted the power to make that decision. To one person a Hi-point is junk, but to another a Glock is, and another it's Beretta. So what's the standard? This is where the market gets to make the decision. If you make something that proves to be untrustworthy, then the market will be the deciding factor (no sales=no future for the product)

JImbothefiveth
September 1, 2008, 07:08 PM
I support restrictions on violent felons and on certain types of weapons.
Some people will say that's infringement, but violent felons have had their right taken away by something called "due process".
No nukes as they will lead to tyrrany and death on a massive scale.
Only restrictions on junk guns is that they must be safe to fire.
Shall-issue CCW, at least until I research the effects of no-permit CCW on crime.
If you're 18, you're old enough to CCW. So I didn't vote on those last three, because saying yes is far more away from what I'm thinking than saying no.

ReadyontheRight
September 1, 2008, 07:13 PM
None of the above. Convicted, violent felons should not have access to an automobile, a bow/arrow, a hatchet, a hammer, a butterknife, a television remote control or a tweezers. They should be incarcerated.

If they are somehow "safe" enough to get out of prison...they should be able to excercise their rights. It's the person that's dangerous, not his tools.

Good poll, but IMHO, the rest of the options are not even worth debating from a Constitutional perspective.

As far as shooting in your backyard. It's a matter of noise and safety, not gun control.

yokel
September 1, 2008, 07:18 PM
The NFA and GCA monstrosities have been on the books for so many decades now, many folks apparently choose to accept them as the Holy Writ and carved in stone.

Of course, we desperately need these Acts of Congress in order to avert the decline and apocalyptic collapse of civil society, with such devastating consequences...

Blackbeard
September 1, 2008, 07:29 PM
Convicted violent felons
Age restrictions (21 was the only option given).

No form of gun control. It is a right, not a privilege.

Yes, it is a right, but you can lose this right just like the others through due process of law. If the DC sniper ever gets out of prison, should he be able to buy a rifle legally ever again? Sorry, I don't play that.

Aran
September 1, 2008, 07:31 PM
The government didn't give you the rights, they shouldn't be able to take them away.

Blackbeard
September 1, 2008, 07:32 PM
If they are somehow "safe" enough to get out of prison...they should be able to excercise their rights. It's the person that's dangerous, not his tools.

Good point, except people aren't released from prison based on anyone's estimate of whether they are "safe" to release. They get out when their sentence is up.

Blackbeard
September 1, 2008, 07:33 PM
The government didn't give you the rights, they shouldn't be able to take them away.

Why not? That's what governments are for. The government didn't give you the right to life, but it certainly can take that away, and rightly so.

stevekl
September 1, 2008, 07:35 PM
Firefighter4884 Said:
"I personally think that if someone is a violent criminal who should be prohibited from having firearms, then there is absolutely no reason not to let them out of jail at all. If they are let out of jail, then society considers their debt paid, and they should go back to being full members of that society."

I don't say this often enough but you just changed my mind.

I voted yes on the violent convict part of the poll but now my mind is changed.

Duke Junior
September 1, 2008, 07:40 PM
Lets re-check the 2nd Amendment.
What does it say?
What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
That's why my answer is, and always will be, "absolutely none" to the OP's question.

rfurtkamp
September 1, 2008, 07:42 PM
Old-west-style working is fine with me. You get let out of prison? Here's your guns back.

You want a machinegun? Enjoy.

Nail the irresponsible users, not at the cost of screwing those who are not.

Is society really safer because Mr. Mall Ninja can't have the auto switch, or is it just a matter of bias against people owning and shooting guns you don't like, don't see a 'need' for, or don't want 'others' to have?

BCC
September 1, 2008, 07:48 PM
I don't think felons, mental defects or under 21's should be able to own or carry handguns.

I think any business or property owner should be able to decide whether or not firearms are allowed on their premises.

I'm not a fan of 'junk' guns, but that should be a choice.

And anybody commiting a felony with a gun should get life.

Other than that, unrestricted.

Eric F
September 1, 2008, 07:56 PM
The reason..........every one should have guns............Violent felons should not have guns.........a 3 year old should be alowed to have a gun...........old folks cant drive and there fore should have guns..................


There has to be rules or no one is acountable for any thing. To be honest I would rob a bank every day if it were legal but its not so I dont.

This includes laws and rules on guns. Can any one give me a good reason to allow a convicted violent felon a gun that just got released today? They just proved they can not be trusted in society. We must use common sense no 5 year old need a gun either. Absolutes never work for every situation.

In short these threads are very opinionated and I respect all opinions on this, I just feel like there needs to be some rules if for nothing else to keep folks in line based on fear of loosing gun rights. Like felony ofenses=loss of gun rights. Hence forth I will not rob a bank murder people or deal large quanties of drugs. I dont want to loose my gun rights. OF course this can be taken to an extreem also like making not recycleing a felony......I am guilty. Again common sense.

Gunnerpalace
September 1, 2008, 08:03 PM
:banghead: No wonder we are losing right's I'm done with this thread.

Gordon Fink
September 1, 2008, 08:08 PM
I support none of them, though I agree that we should do our best to disarm violent felons while they serve their sentences.

~G. Fink

JCMAG
September 1, 2008, 08:19 PM
Yes, it is a right, but you can lose this right just like the others through due process of law. If the DC sniper ever gets out of prison, should he be able to buy a rifle legally ever again? Sorry, I don't play that.

If the DC sniper is determined by due process of law that he no longer poses a threat to society, then yes, he should be able to buy a rifle.

If there is doubt that he is no longer a threat, then he shouldn't be given the opportunity to purchase a rifle as they are not generally sold in prisons.

I believe any minor, accompanied by a parent or guardian within good standing of the law (ie., not a fugitive from justice, etc.), should be able to purchase a long arm and ammunition.

I believe at 18 any adult should then be entitled to the full rights of an American Citizen and be able to purchase arms and ammunition of whatever flavor and configuration that their will and their finances permit.

Let us all be cognizant of an essential truth of a free society whose citizens are possessors of liberty: The government cannot prevent you from acting, it cannot deprive you of choice, in so far as any recourse for affecting that action is refused from you; it cannot anticipate your action nor actions taken against you; to possess a right is to possess the ability and resources to act, whatever that action may be, within the bounds of your liberty. I am not against reformed felons owning firearms anymore than do I favor government psychics telling the ATF who future felons will be so that they can be immediately disarmed.

If a convicted violent felon possesses a firearm, even illegally, and he uses that firearm to defend himself, is he in transgression of the law?

If that is the case, then it is presumed that the law was against his life, for that was the action he took: defense.

It is a right reserved by all who walk, crawl, or roll upon this land. I would sooner abolish the death penalty than to deny any free citizen the right of defense of life, liberty, and property.

Eric F
September 1, 2008, 08:25 PM
If the DC sniper is determined by due process of law that he no longer poses a threat to society, then yes,

Problem is plenty of folks get out of jail that are "less of a threat" and basically are let go because the system has a full jail. Just the way it is. So the big fantasy of if they cant be trusted with a gun then they shouldnt be let out of jail doesnt work.

I'm done with this thread.
+1


As a some people here are so pro gun any time any one does not 100% agree then the person who does not agree is 100% anti gun. And its just not true.

I dont have any use for a shotgun does this make me anti gun.................no! But because I say I dont have any use for a shotgun some one will make that out to mean I am anti shot gun and there fore anti gun. Some folks are just too narrow minded.

4v50 Gary
September 1, 2008, 08:44 PM
Convicted, violent felons.

jerkface11
September 1, 2008, 08:54 PM
If they can't be trusted they shouldn't be out on the street. A law won't stop them from getting a gun.

JCMAG
September 1, 2008, 09:15 PM
I don't think you anti-gun or anti-civil rights based on your views. Using your own analogy, that would make me anti-autoloader because I prefer revolvers.

But for the sake of clarifying my statements so that they are not misunderstood, I must persist. Let it be known that you and I are not more or less than the other pro or anti anything, but perhaps are perceiving the concept of criminal justice differently.

Problem is plenty of folks get out of jail that are "less of a threat" and basically are let go because the system has a full jail. Just the way it is. So the big fantasy of if they cant be trusted with a gun then they shouldnt be let out of jail doesnt work.

That the local, state, and federal governments have neglected their duties in facilitating an increased demand in the prison system does not negate an individual's liberty -- that is, their debt to society repaid in whole or part, their liberty has been restored to them.

When I referred to society deeming them appropriate to be free, I was referring to the system of parole -- that is, folks who have been interred for a long period of time but are released early for one reason or another.

And I totally agree with you, but perhaps in not the way that you intend. I don't see prisons as a means of reforming criminal behavior -- mostly for want of empirical evidence. It is a system of crime and punishment, of which citizens who have offended society and violated the liberties of other citizens through their own conscious and willful action are punished with the intent that they should not err again.

When that punishment is fulfilled and their liberty restored, they should have every liberty restored as they are no longer any different from any other citizen.

Naturally, we are talking about convicted, violent felons who are no longer incarcerated. These are rapists, murderers, batterers, the whole gamut of society's worst examples. Many of them serve very long sentences. These are not the individuals (God keep this statement true) that have their punishments reduced due to overcrowding. These are the individuals who go through lengthy appeals and parole meetings in order to lessen or negate their punishments.

After their debt to society is repaid, they are returned to liberty, just like the shop lifter or marijuana connoisseur or prostitute who only served a minor sentence.

If the former-prisoner is not safe to own a firearm, then he is not safe to own a knife, or a hammer, or a piano, or money in order to illegally obtain a firearm, or a knife, or a hammer, and so forth.

As unfortunate as it may be, his punishment has been administered, he is a free man. If he is a dangerous killer and his debt to society unpayable as marked by a calender within a penitentiary, then his remaining there is irrational and should therefore pay with an asset that would satisfy his debt.

But we must be pragmatic with these things, and therefore do I not intend any intense argument to erupt from this disagreement. Truly, it is a philosophical difference between you and I and nigh everyone on this forum and elsewhere as to what exactly are our "rights" and what exactly is the purpose of the prison system.

It has nothing to do with someone being "anti" gun, but instead a deeply and equally valid view of liberty and the criminal justice system.

A pragmatic solution may be, perhaps, that instead of irrevocably denying a former violent felon the right to keep and bear arms for the remainder of his life (however long that life may last defenseless against the retributions of his former society and his current, likely rough, society that he is demoted to due to his nasty criminal record and social stigma) perhaps it would be more constructive to place former prisoners on probation (prohibiting them of many vices that may be conducive to further transgressions against their fellow citizens) for a certain period of time until he has proven that his liberties are no longer conflicting with those of his fellow citizens.

I am certainly open to new ideas as to how to protect our citizenry from the depravity of others. I am not, however, very keen of systems that limit rights without exemplary cause and evidence. But as I said before, we must operate conservatively and with much pragmatism or we will only know consecutive failures at any extreme.

moooose102
September 1, 2008, 09:34 PM
the gun controll i support is using both hands when shooting a pistol! and a steady rest if possible when shooting a rifle!

geekWithA.45
September 1, 2008, 09:49 PM
History, the law, and I all support making the gunrights of convicted, violent jerks to be highly conditional and provisional. Even the Founders understood that gunrights were for the peacable.

I do not support the way in which it's done now, where the transportation of a refilled helium cylinder, the max penalty for which is a half megabuck fine and five years in the slam results in permanent gunrights revocation.

Even if you swapped in a bona fide, violent crime, I still believe that there should be some room for reconsideration after some significant period of crime free life.

cliffy
September 1, 2008, 09:51 PM
Rapists, Pedaphies, and convicted Murderers do not need legal, easy access to firearms, since they'll aquire them through blackmarket resources anyway. Honest citizens are the current target of anti-gun radical groups. Obama would like an enslaved nation of non-firearm owners, because we'd all be so EASY to control and dictate to. 1939 Poland is something I simple cannot forget, when Polish people where disarmed. German conquered Poland with "LITTLE RESISTANCE" shortly thereafter. We live in a real world of violence and terror, so please don't attempt to disarm our people. My militant friends and I would become angry. America is my country, so "Don't Tread on ME." cliffy

Drgong
September 1, 2008, 09:54 PM
To those who say that preventing violent felons from getting firearms is pointless, I never saying that felons won't have guns, just throw them in jail if they do so.

By the same argument most other laws are rather pointless, rape will happen, so I guess we shouldn't punish rapists...

Convicted Violent felons lost there rights of citizenship, which includes a social contract that you will follow laws that are justified. (and if you break a law as civil disobedience, you take the punishment) A convicted rapist WILL get a gun if he wants one - but that does not mean that we should not lock him up if he has a gun.

However if someone shows that they are a peaceable citizen over X number of years after a violent crime, they should have rights restored.

freakshow10mm
September 1, 2008, 09:55 PM
Absolutely none.

Well, just a few. I think all public places should be legal to carry in. If private property owner doesn't want firearms on their property that's their right and I fully support it. The only government controlled area I can see is the area of a prison where the cells are.

3pairs12
September 1, 2008, 09:56 PM
I was somewhat torn between none and convicted violent felons, but if they have served there time and are trusted in society again they should be able to regain their rights. So I ended up voting none.

freakshow10mm
September 1, 2008, 09:56 PM
Convicted Violent felons lost there rights of citizenship, which includes a social contract that you will follow laws that are justified. (and if you break a law as civil disobedience, you take the punishment) A convicted rapist WILL get a gun if he wants one - but that does not mean that we should not lock him up if he has a gun.
If he shouldn't "morally" have a gun, then he shouldn't be let out of jail/prison. Felons are people to and the Constitution applies to them as well. All of it.

41magsnub
September 1, 2008, 10:02 PM
I voted no on convicted violent felons and the under 21 ccw thing though it should have been 18.

A felon should have the ability to get gun ownership back after a set time or a specific appeals process, but right away? Forget it, I live in reality and the current reality is felons are not released because they are rehabilitated, they are released because the jails are full and their time is up. Fix that problem first. As far as them getting guns anyway, that is true but why make it easier?

For the under 18 CCW I would wager more are unable to handle the responsibility than are able to. I do believe they should be able to own whatever their parents permit them to own and do whatever on private property they want to.

Drgong
September 1, 2008, 10:08 PM
Felons are people to and the Constitution applies to them as well. All of it

Constitution applies to citizens - and historically felons lost most rights, ranging from sitting on Juries, Voting, and other rights, including gun ownership. I doubt any of the founding fathers would agree that non-peaceable citizens should have the right to arms, even though they would be upset that one could not get a machine gun easily.

if you commit Murder, rape, treason, or other Felonies, you lost your rights to be a full citizen till you have proven that your reformed, and that requires that eventually you are released from state holding cells and given a chance to show that your reformed, but that does not mean you should have your rights restored at the moment of release.

Quite simple way of handling that.

To buy a gun you just need to show the seller a voter registration card and photo ID card showing your a citizen- and just don't give felons the right to vote until they have proven themselves peaceable citizens. (and that includes machine guns) If a felon lives for X number of years (Say 10) without being convicted of a crime, they get fully rehabilitated and can sign up to vote, and thus, buy a firearm.

JDoe
September 1, 2008, 10:12 PM
I voted none but was tempted to vote for restricting convicted violent felons only. There isn't any point in sending a reformed violent felon back to prison for peacefully possessing a gun while other criminals ignore the law and arm themselves as they please.

Officers'Wife
September 1, 2008, 10:29 PM
Hi Eric,

Problem is plenty of folks get out of jail that are "less of a threat" and basically are let go because the system has a full jail. Just the way it is. So the big fantasy of if they cant be trusted with a gun then they shouldnt be let out of jail doesnt work.

Then you agree that the restrictions on felons is a result of the government's breach of the Social Contract. Thank you for proving my point.

Selena

pkoch62
September 1, 2008, 11:10 PM
Restrictions on violent felons only. Stay out of trouble for five years post-release, you're good to go.

Atomic, biological, and chemical weapons prohibited, anything else is fine.

freakshow10mm
September 1, 2008, 11:15 PM
if you commit Murder, rape, treason, or other Felonies, you lost your rights to be a full citizen till you have proven that your reformed, and that requires that eventually you are released from state holding cells and given a chance to show that your reformed, but that does not mean you should have your rights restored at the moment of release.
If they are not under department of corrections custody they are free men and should have the same rights as any of us.

Someone gets a 5 year sentence. They are a prisoner for 5 years. When they are released, they are free, aka a citizen. All rights restored. If you don't want them to have guns, don't release them. Either sentence them to life or execute them.

ReadyontheRight
September 2, 2008, 12:15 AM
I still have not seen an answer to why a convicted, violent felon shoud ever have a right to drive...but not have the right to own a gun. Statistically, driving is a lot more dangerous than shooting. Legally, driving is a privilege...RKBA is a RIGHT.

Keep 'em in prison if they are too dangerous to legally carry a gun.

Eric F
September 2, 2008, 01:40 AM
still have not seen an answer to why a convicted, violent felon shoud ever have a right to drive...but not have the right to own a gun.
Keep 'em in prison if they are too dangerous to legally carry a gun.


The simple answer is this, If you restrict ther privilage of movement all they could really do is live in the inner city where they could walk a few blocks to do all of their daily life, work buy clothes groceries ect. America as a whole has a big mass transit issue compaired to europe. IF you restrict their ability of driving they could never become a "reformed" member of society by the very nature of how america is today.

The jail system is just not made to acomadate this line of thinking.

IMO!!!!!! life in prison is just not a do-able thing. Unless it is in a labor camp of some sort and if you are that bad off where you could not work as a team member(life in confinement) then your life is useless. This opens a whole nother discussion really, so we start killing criminal members of our society, how long would it be befors we convict and sentence people to death for stuff like running progun websites like this? How would it be any diffrent than countries we fought in the past like Germany in WW2? no we are not targetting a specific race for death but we are targetting a people with a diffrent line of thinking(criminals) see where this leads to?

There is no single really great answer to any of this. But some where in the middle there is a compromise on both sides that most of can live with......I think........now what that is, is for you the individual to decide.

GarandOwner
September 2, 2008, 02:25 AM
I think that SOME minimal gun control is a good thing. Before I get flamed, This is what I mean:

- Age restriction is a good idea. Think of how immature you were before you turned 18, think of how immature you were before you were 21. Yes all people are different but the vast majority of people should not be able to get a firearm to use without adult supervision (Anyone younger than 21/18 can still get a gun with their parents to be used under proper supervision)

- Registration for concealed carry. It is not so much that I think you should have to register to conceal carry, as much as I think it is a good idea to require some sort of safety class. Not everyone has had the benefit as the rest of us to learn shooting safety from a veteran. What we consider common knowledge (4 rules) might not pop into a novices mind if he was never taught it before.

And thats it, restriction on type of guns, magazine capacity, rate of fire and all that other crap does nothing to desuade criminals for the simple reason stated many many times: Criminals dont abide by the law, so what makes gun laws any different

ColinthePilot
September 2, 2008, 02:43 AM
I voted felons only. By being a convicted violent felon, you've given up your rights under the Constitution. You will be put in prison, losing the most basic right of freedom, and all other rights that go with it. Most of the time, a felon has taken or deprived another person of their basic rights. They deserve no less in return. You may no longer roam the country as you please, no longer vote and you've proven that you are a violent person, so should not be in possession of anything that will aid your violent ways. Don't like it? Don't commit a felony.
I do agree that criminals who serve their debt to society should be free men with all the rights that go along with that. But does that include those on probation? Have they paid their debt?
I also agree that if they're a danger to society, they should remain in jail. That would mean that felons still couldn't have guns. No one is pushing for guns for prisoners, right?

ArfinGreebly
September 2, 2008, 03:26 AM
You know, I don't mind having a system of FELON control. If you have a violent felon, then you control him.

Problem with the current system: in order to "prevent" felons from buying guns, we have to keep a list of them, and then we have to make everyone who's not a felon PROVE he's not a felon.

Which applies to . . . cars? Chain saws? Axes and knives? Rat poison? Booze? Crowbars? . . . No?

Just . . . guns.

So, right, I can buy a hunting bow if I'm a felon, but not a gun.

You know, there's a pattern here. Pretty much everything listed above can be used to murder someone, but only one of them makes good sense as a self defense weapon.

And that's the one felons "can't buy" at a store.

Which makes it necessary to keep track of everybody, so that everybody can prove he's not a felon.

I think it's pretty well settled that a violent felon who wants a gun is going to have one.

So we pass a law that pretends to control felon access to firearms, while achieving only the addition of barriers to ownership for regular folk.

You wanna have a law restricting access to A-bombs? Well, I wouldn't be able to defend my house with one anyway.

Look, there was a time when, on leaving prison, you gave a guy back all his stuff. Including his hog leg and carbine.

Somewhere along the line, somebody got this clever idea that you could keep repeat offenders from doing it again if you just kept them from having guns.

Ha. Sure. That's certainly been working well all these years.

Guns are hardware. They belong in a hardware store. They're sporting goods. They belong in a sporting goods store. You might need one of something happens to yours out in the boonies. They belong in general stores and gas stations.

And you know something?

At one time, that's exactly where you found them.

We didn't lose access to guns because we all became bad people. We lost access to guns because politicians felt they needed more protection from us.

They didn't trust the citizens who elected them.

So, far as I'm concerned, just roll back all the asinine legislation and start over from somewhere around 1955.

Heck, even 1933.

Did we, as a society, become less violent as the number of restrictions increased? Uh, no.

So, that's not working then, is it?

So it's time to quit doing more of that and doing it harder and doing it with more money.

I would much prefer to presume that everyone I see on the street is armed, just as I, myself, am armed.

Much simpler.

CliffH
September 2, 2008, 04:03 AM
None.

Age restriction on handguns for those under 18, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. On their 18th birthday they get to vote, register for selective service and buy a handgun. Or, better yet, they're given one or more by family & friends.

I personally know a "violent" felon. His "violent" felony? Making fireworks in his home. He also has the tools and knowledge to make his own full automatic rifle. I know him well. He's NOT a threat to society and has fully discharged his sentence, yet can't own a firearm.

If felons are such a problem and are being released too early because the prisons are over-crowded, enlarge the existing prisons or build new ones! Then keep them incarcerated until they're no longer a threat. While you're at it, have the prisoners do something profitable, maybe some type of light manufacturing, to help support themselves and the new/bigger prisons.

I don't agree with requiring permits for CCW either. I'd much rather prefer open or concealed carry to be a person's own choice - with no permits or licenses required. The only training I would like to see for either method of carrying is a few hour course (4 hours or less) on when & where carry is allowed - such as local businesses that have posted their property as gun free zones. Carrying, either open or concealed, should be allowed in all public places, including government buildings.

Why shouldn't I have access to full-auto weapons? Are you afraid that, because I own one, I'll nut-out and take out the neighborhood? A full-auto isn't required for that. It might make it a bit easier, but it's not impossible without one. And if you are afraid that I might nut-out, there are so many non-gun related laws on the books now that I'm sure a charge could be found that would remove the "preceived" danger. But that sets you down the path of "I thought he might do something bad, so I had him locked up". Unless you're a mind reader........

Regarding shooting full auto in your back yard: Common sense and consideration for others should take care of that situation. Since some might not be good neighbors, a local sound ordinance should suffice to keep it to a minimum. Got to admit, if one of my neighbors was shooting FA in his back yard I'd be knocking on his door - with a hand full of $ bills to pay for any ammo he'd let me shoot up.

The way I see it, life isn't safe & none of us are getting out of it alive. The possibility of dying in/on a motor vehicle is greater than dying from being shot. I just can't see even trying to legislate all of the possible "accidents" out of existance, it can't be done. Take life as it comes and quit trying to wrap yourself (and everyone else) up in safe.

An armed society is a polite society.

Off topic, but too good to not post somewhere:

A nephew is an ER nurse. They had a gang member come in last night with a through & through on her buttocks, recieved in a walk-by shooting. While being patched up she was complaining about how violent it's become and how no-one respects anyone else anymore!

71Commander
September 2, 2008, 07:35 AM
Absolutely none.

cornman
September 2, 2008, 08:16 AM
36% Absolutely none? Sorry, but how does one justify this type of argument? So, children should be able to buy anything they want? Criminals should be able to carry? Rocket launchers should be sold at walmart?

71Commander
September 2, 2008, 08:24 AM
36% Absolutely none? Sorry, but how does one justify this type of argument? So, children should be able to buy anything they want? Criminals should be able to carry? Rocket launchers should be sold at walmart?

All liberal DU talking points.

In case you don't realize it, criminals do carry.

As to the rocket launcher statement. LMAO.:barf:

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 08:28 AM
Children should be under supervision from their parents anyway. Kids could mail-order machine guns back before '68, never seemed to be a problem then.

If a convicted criminal is trusted to be outside of prison, then there should be no problem trusting him with a gun. In other words, if he can't be trusted with a gun, then he should not be out of prison.

And yes, rocket launchers should be sold at walmart. :)

JohnL2
September 2, 2008, 08:39 AM
Lose faith in the populace, strengthen the system.
I think we have the database and bandwidth technology to make tracking work. Or at least denial of purchase for nefarious intent.
I think the whole legality issue of open carry and carry conceal is rather silly. Also the fact that when I purchased my revolver a little while ago I was escorted out of the store and then my pistol was handed over to me. A gent walking to the front doors observed the whole thing and burst out laughing and shook his head. He knew it was ridiculous too. All for liability sake.
Sometimes the law just sucks the common sense out of the room.

mike101
September 2, 2008, 09:48 AM
Krochus said:

"WOW 66% of THR members have bought the liberal line and believe at least some form of gun control works"

I don't think it's "buying the liberal line" to try to prevent those convicted of a violent crime, or those who have been judged a mentally defective 'danger' from buying a gun. Sure, if a criminal wants a gun, he's probably going to get one, but there's no sense making it too easy for him.

Now I'm talking about a real conviction for a real violent crime here, like assault with a deadly weapon, or armed robbery. The "liberals" would take your guns away for having a loud fight with your girlfriend.

Some people will say that if a person can't be trusted with the same rights as the rest of us, they shouldn't be walking around free. I agree. But in the real world, they let criminals out of jail early all the time due to prison overcrowding. I don't agree with it, but it happens.

Come to think of it, the people who are so concerned that the criminals might be cramped, are the same people who are always clammoring for our guns. This is another debate we continually have with the antis on the anti-gun blogs. They think keeping criminals in jail is draconian.

R.W.Dale
September 2, 2008, 09:51 AM
I don't think it's "buying the liberal line" to try to prevent those convicted of a violent crime, or those who have been judged a mentally defective 'danger' from buying a gun.

Ever been kinda down by being dumped by your wife or girlfriend?

If so then you my friend fall under whatever definition of mentally defective the medical profession sees fit to bestow.

Drgong
September 2, 2008, 10:25 AM
Question to the group who thinks there should be no regulations whatsoever, would you accept that all violent felons get a long probation with a rule that they cannot own a firearm as part of the probation?

71Commander
September 2, 2008, 10:29 AM
Question to the group who thinks there should be no regulations whatsoever, would you accept that all violent felons get a long probation with a rule that they cannot own a firearm as part of the probation?


If they can't be trusted with a gun, keep them in prison.

If they are convicted of a crime that sends them to prison, make them serve the full term and then release them, restoring their rights. Probation and rehabilitation are liberal programs.:barf:

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 10:32 AM
No. If they're in society, they should have ALL their rights restored. Probation or not.

Scoutsout2645
September 2, 2008, 10:33 AM
I agree with the age restriction going down to 18--if you're old enough to enlist and become required to use full auto heavy machine guns and *gasp* pistols, then you're old enough to purchase a pistol in the civilian world.

The only "restrictions" on carrying that I would like to see is a requirement for someone to take an NRA (or similar) firearms safety course and have some form of annual shooting qualification. This way we don't get some guy who has never seen a gun outside of TV/the movies who will pick up a Glock ('cause it's cool) and wind up shooting himself (or worse--me) in the leg when he draws it with his finger inside the trigger guard. If we require police, who carry everyday and--as many here have stated in other threads--are no more special than any other citizen, to qualify with their weapons 2 to 4 times a year then why shouldn't the rest of us have to do it at least once?

Regarding the issue of violent felons...apparently many of you don't understand the purpose of the penal system. Felons are not imprisoned until they are "safe to return to society" any more than your speeding ticket fine will render you unable to speed again. The current concept is punishing you for what you did, not preventing you from doing it again. There is minimal rehabilitation in modern prisons as these programs usually cost more than simple warehousing and, with mandatory minimum sentences, there is often NO post-release supervision. The result is that sentences are issued based on a formula of X degree of crime merits Y amount of time with a minimum time Z actually inside the jail. Essentially the BG is "benched" for a short time only to be returned to the game rested, stronger, (often) more violent and with fewer options for legitimate employment. THIS is the reality of the world we actually live in, and is why I endorse restricting firearms from people who have proved they are unwilling to abide by the rules you and I follow everyday. Yes, criminals will still get guns, but we don't need to make it easier for them...just like pedophiles will still attack children, but you wouldn't want a law requiring them to be hired as kindergarten teachers.

And for the "mentally defective" issue...umm, krochus, a clinical depression (one that is actually treated and medicated--not just alleged) will NOT prevent your access to firearms EVEN IN NEW JERSEY--I personally know several people for whom this is the case. However, being so upset from being dumped that you beat the crap out of her or you start stalking your ex- and begin having fantasies of homicide/suicide, etc. SHOULD preclude you from having access to kitchen knives, let alone guns. If THIS is what you mean by "a little down", perhaps the "mentally defective" label might not be too far off. Irrationality exists at both extremes and people who support the propaganda of the "black helicopter" extremists are just as damaging to the cause as those who believe the left's propaganda that none of us should be allowed access to matches without a state issued license--"for the children" of course.

ronwill
September 2, 2008, 10:35 AM
I chose convicted violent felons, however, I would support restricting verified mental instability where the individual is shown to be a danger to themselves or others.

TAB
September 2, 2008, 10:35 AM
so who desides if they are safe to own a firearm?

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 10:37 AM
Regardless of whether a violent felon is rehabilitated from his tenure in prison, if he's released back into society, he is once again a free man - he should be afforded the right to keep and bear arms just like the rest of us. If he so chooses to abuse that right and go shoot and kill someone, well that is a capital offense and he ought to be locked away for the rest of his life, if not sentenced to death.

Nobody said liberty is safe, for you or anyone else. But that doesn't make it any less vital.

TAB
September 2, 2008, 10:39 AM
since you forgot what you said in a post, on this page i'll qoute it for you...

If a convicted criminal is trusted to be outside of prison, then there should be no problem trusting him with a gun. In other words, if he can't be trusted with a gun, then he should not be out of prison.



so who desides if they can be trusted?

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
September 2, 2008, 10:46 AM
I would be for "some restrictions" but not the ones you have listed (as is).

Prohibition on violent felons.
I think current system of lifetime ban on felons is not only useless it is unconstitutional. With a minor change it could not only be useful but constitutional.

Say right now a violent felon gets 5yrs and when he gets out he can't have firearm.

Let's change that to felon gets 15yrs w/ 10yr suspended as probation. So he serves exact same amount of time. Now when he gets out he is on probation (i.e he is still serving his time but not in prison). Probation is a privilege; the cons has been sentenced to 15yrs. he has been given the opportunity to only serve 5 of those years in prison. During that time he can not own a firearm and must meet other criteria for probation. He should get health does of reality counseling. Say he decided to commit another robbery.

He will get 5yrs for robbers + 10 years of suspended sentence + 5 yrs for use of firearm in felony + 5 yrs for felony possession of firearm. 1 Robbery = 25 years. Repeat offenders quickly go to jail for long time. If someone will commit a robbery w/ 25yr sword handing over his/her head they will do it no matter what and should spend rest of their life in jail.

Instant Background check system could be replaced w/ a smaller database of violent criminals on parole. Violent Criminal + On parole = no firearm. Everyone Else = firearm.

There should be no prohibition on non-violent felons ever. If not paying child support is a felony is some states. Not that I advocate dead beat dad (personally I think they are scum of the earth) but they are no more/less likely to be violent.

NFA
I would support the NFA; mainly because I feel it will never be overturned so I think our resources are better spent reforming it.

Current NFA is a joke because of the 86 ban.
1) Remove 86 ban. It is unconstitutional. MG from 86 are no more dangerous than MG from 85.

2) Remove all fees. A right can't be taxed. All costs to implement the program should be borne by govt, just like voting.

3) Remove local signature requirement. If local LEO wants to be updated on changes to weapons locations they can query the NFA database.

Age limit
I believe age limit is fine but it should be 18. If you are old enough to use firearm in combat and die for your country you should have right to self defense. I also believe there should be no restrictions on anything past 18. 18 is the age of majority. 18-20.9999 should not be a 2nd class citizen. Drinking, firearms, conceal carry, open carry, etc should all be allowed at 18.

Under 18 limit is fine by me as long as parent/guardian can buy a weapon as gift for minor.

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 10:49 AM
so who desides if they can be trusted?

Generally speaking (in our current system), the warden, the parole review board, and somewhat preemptively, the judge who did the original sentencing.

TAB
September 2, 2008, 10:53 AM
So a judge can tell what some one is going to be like years from now after going thru what most would call a very traumatic exp while in jail?

please explain to me how they would know that, hell explain to me how any one could know that.

308win
September 2, 2008, 10:55 AM
Felons should be allowed the possibility of owning firearms, voting, and any other rights forfeited only after:


They have served the sentence and any parole/probation;
A waiting period of X years depending on the nature of their crime;
Made full restitution to the victims;
Petitioned for restoration of rights with the victims having the right to present a case for denial.

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 10:56 AM
What is there to explain? How does anyone tell who can be trusted, and when? Would you prefer that every violent felon simply be locked up for the rest of their lives, to play it safe?

Scoutsout2645
September 2, 2008, 10:58 AM
OK--since it looks like the primary bone of contention among us is the "violent felons should have guns/violent felons should not have guns" issue, I have a realistic question for the "no restrictions ever" crowd:

GIVEN THAT recidivism rates for violent crimes run between 50-75% depending on what data you look at, and
GIVEN THAT restricting felons from guns is to prevent convicted criminals from gaining easier access to deadlier weapons when committing crimes;
What punishments do you advocate for that first offense to prevent repeat offending on release?
What punishments do you propose for a second offense?
What punishments do you propose for crimes committed with a firearm? Should there be different punishments if no one actually gets hurt?

Remember that:
A) the Bill of Rights has several Amendments after the 2nd and there's this tricky prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" in there, and that
B) the average prisoner costs between 20-40K per year to incarcerate, and to expand the already overwhelmed probation system nationally would (conservatively) cost millions--the costs of which would have to be supported by tax increases that you and I would have to pay.

I'm truly curious to see what your alternative solutions would be.

Officers'Wife
September 2, 2008, 10:59 AM
Hi 308,

Excellent plan, a bit Orwellian but excellent. But does the Constitution grant the government that kind of authority?

Selena

TAB
September 2, 2008, 11:02 AM
What is there to explain? How does anyone tell who can be trusted, and when? Would you prefer that every violent felon simply be locked up for the rest of their lives, to play it safe?


you said

If a convicted criminal is trusted to be outside of prison, then there should be no problem trusting him with a gun. In other words, if he can't be trusted with a gun, then he should not be out of prison.

I want you to explain how that system would work. In other words, since there is a trust issue, who desides if we can trust them?

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 11:05 AM
It's really very simple, TAB. When a prisoner is released into society, ALL of his rights are restored. To trust a man to drive a car, to rent an apartment, to be able to invite people into that apartment, to own kitchen knives, to do any of the things a free person can do, but not trust him with a gun - It's just plain stupid. And ineffective, to boot, as is noted by the huge number of convicted felons who have guns and aren't legally allowed to anyway.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
September 2, 2008, 11:08 AM
OK--since it looks like the primary bone of contention among us is the "violent felons should have guns/violent felons should not have guns" issue, I have a realistic question for the "no restrictions ever" crowd:

That is the million dollar (billion dollar?) question.
If felons are to get 100% gun rights the second they come out of the door then prison sentences should be substantially longer (maybe as much as 5x longer) to account for the felons who (at an alarmingly high rate) do re-offend.

The problem is that will not stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Trying to give someone 50 to life for 1st time armed robbery likely will result in an appeal all the way to SCOTUS who will rule "it is cruel and unusual punishment".

While 70%+ of violent felons do re-offend that means 30% don't and they are paying an "unusal" price for other peoples crimes.

I think a good compramise is reasonable sentence and long probation.

Right now 5yrs + never have firearm. Usually for most within 6 months they re-offend (a lot w/ firearm).

I would change that to 15 year sentence w/ 10 on those years suspended as probation. Same amount of time BUT since felon is in probation their movements, actions, rights can be controlled. They are simply serving part of their sentence at home, in halfway house, under supervision instead of being in prison.

Do to the combination of:
Cruel & Unusual Punishment = unconstitutional.
Prohibiting a Citizen from having firearm = unconstitutional.

IMHO this is the only measure that is constitutional.

Criminals on probation CAN constitutionally have their rights infringed. Why? They are still inmates, they just happen to not be in jail. Their sentence was 15 years. Until they serve every day (either in jail or on probation) they haven't "paid their debt to society". It is a privilege to be at home and not in jail for last 10 years on a 15/10 suspended sentence. If they don't like the restricts they are free to return to prison for the remaining 10 years and when they serve the full 15 have all their rights back.

The probation/parole system should get MUCH more funding.
Substantial drug checks = their is high correlation between drug absue & violent crime.
Anger management
Job Counseling /assistance = there is a high correlation between lack of gainful employment & violent crime.

If at anytime the inmates doesn't want to put up with the restrictions on his/her movement, behavior, rights they are free to return to prison. Once their time is served (either all 15 in prison, or 5 in prison + 10 parole) they have all their rights returned.

In someone hasn't offended again in 10 years, now has good job, no substance abuse problems, owns property, is financial secure then likely they are the 30% that won't offend. I have no problem with them owning a firearm.

TAB
September 2, 2008, 11:09 AM
So when some one has done thier "time" they are to be trusted.

When do you want a convicted serail rapist to move in with you and your faimly? He can be trusted with a gun after all, he must be able to be trusted with your wife or duaghter.

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 11:10 AM
TAB, how does the right to purchase and own a gun equate to the privilege of living in the same house as me and my family? You're really losing me here.

Officers'Wife
September 2, 2008, 11:12 AM
Hi Scoutsout,

I'm truly curious to see what your alternative solutions would be.

It's simple yet complex. To start take the law out of the hands of the lawyers and put them back in the hands of the people.
Repeal three quarters of the criminal code until all that is left are crimes against the person and property. Doing that frees up the time of enforcement to concentrate on the crimes that actually insult the peace and dignity of a peaceful society. Making the odds of getting away with such crimes much less.

Get rid of 'let's make a deal' prosecution. Plea bargins deny even the illusion of justice and make the court system a joke.

Item last: elimination of 'good time' for incarcerated felons. Substitute, further prosecution of unacceptable behaviors inside the prison system either though the legal system or administration that a quilty verdict would yeild even more time behind bars.

Selena

TAB
September 2, 2008, 11:15 AM
TAB, how does the right to purchase and own a gun equate to the privilege of living in the same house as me and my family? You're really losing me here.


Let me put it another way.

lets just say your CPA, got cuaght cheating on his clients taxs, inculding yours. Not only that, but he embesled money from you. he goes to jail, for lets say 5 years. Gets out, calls you saying "hey, I'm out and starting back up my partice, will you let me do your taxs again?

Do you let him do them?

NG VI
September 2, 2008, 11:17 AM
WOW 66% of THR members have bought the liberal line and believe at least some form of gun control works

I just think it would be great if we would actually enforce sentencing laws we have for known criminals caught doing bad stuff while armed. It's just a good way to keep them locked up longer. I don't really support anything else, junk gun laws are almost always a euphimism for "let's start at jennings and work our way up to Taurus and Rossi, then in five years we will get Ruger, Glock, and CZ"

General Geoff
September 2, 2008, 11:36 AM
Do you let him do them?

How does the right to purchase and own a gun equate to the privilege of doing my taxes?


Rights are not negotiable. Private contracts are.

308win
September 2, 2008, 11:42 AM
As it stands, existing laws aren't a deterrent to persons with criminal intent, and none of the alternatives will cause a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm if they so choose. Any law is going to result in another charge to add additional time if convicted.

71Commander
September 2, 2008, 12:01 PM
What is there to explain? How does anyone tell who can be trusted, and when? Would you prefer that every violent felon simply be locked up for the rest of their lives, to play it safe?


Not a bad idea.

TAB
September 2, 2008, 12:02 PM
Not a bad idea.


so tell us how much do you want YOUR taxs raised to pay for that?

71Commander
September 2, 2008, 12:06 PM
Eliminate most social programs to deadbeats. Make em get a job.

fspitzdorf
September 2, 2008, 12:15 PM
Absolutely none. As far as ex felons are concerned. If they are fit enough to return to society then they have obviously been reformed and are therefore worthy enough to possess and use any firearm responsibly. No you say? Then keep them locked up until they are. Simple.

Drgong
September 2, 2008, 12:37 PM
In many states felons are NOT given full rights folks - and it is fully legal. In NC they have decided to give rights after probation, but if a state says a felon cannot vote, guess what, it is LEGAL to do so.

Vote = gun ownership, and don't allow felons to vote till they proven themselves as good members of society.

Scoutsout2645
September 2, 2008, 12:46 PM
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Senior Member

While 70%+ of violent felons do re-offend that means 30% don't and they are paying an "unusal" price

Actually, since restrictions are applied uniformly to all violent felons, it would not constitute unusual punishment. An argument could be made at "cruel punishment" but since that usually refers to psychologically and physically damaging punishment, not revocations of liberty, the SCOTUS probably wouldn't buy it (if it went that far).

The problem is not LE or the penal system, it is the taxpayers that protest when politicians either raise taxes or appear "soft" on crime. Here in NJ, some counties (typically the urban "blue" counties) have tried an experiment with "drug courts" which handle drug cases (which tend to have the highest recidivism rates) only and require a combination of treatment and monitoring over incarceration. It is initially more expensive per convict, but boasts a lower recidivism rate making it cheaper in the long run. However, it faces a lot of opposition in other counties (typically suburban/rurual "red" ones) because it "puts those druggies back on the streets" and requires higher taxes because treatment and job training cost more than warehousing (of course, in the long term, costs will eventually go down as imprisoned drug offenders get released, re-enter the system through the drug courts, and eventually stop re-offending at such high rates). Since most politicians won't last the years it would take to see concrete results from this program due to "voter anger", the traditional concept of imprisonment stays in place and the problem doesn't get fixed.

The quote "freedom isn't free" is very popular until it starts to hit your wallet.

For Officer's Wife:

Repeal three quarters of the criminal code until all that is left are crimes against the person and property. Doing that frees up the time of enforcement....Making the odds of getting away with such crimes much less.

I'm assuming that what you're referring to is A) traffic laws, B) drug laws and C) crimes of office (bribery, official misconduct, etc) since the rest of the criminal code is ONLY crimes against people and property. By the way the last two are closer to around 15% of the code, not 75% as you allege (traffic laws are separate from criminal laws).

I would love to debate the consequences of eliminating ANY regulation of our driving conduct with you, but that's WAAAY off topic. I would also debate the merits of total legalization of all drugs, which you clearly endorse, but again we're getting off topic. As far as "getting away" with crimes, the problem is not the numbers of crimes on the books. It is an issue of a lack of evidence, lack of witnesses, legal restrictions on "proof", legal limitations on "probable cause" limiting our ability to search or question...indeed a broad spectrum of limitations on the agents of the State that, I have no doubt, you yourself would probably endorse on strict Constitutionalist grounds (oddly, putting yourself in the same bed as the ACLU, just climbing in from the other side.)

Item last: elimination of 'good time' for incarcerated felons. Substitute, further prosecution of unacceptable behaviors inside the prison system either though the legal system or administration that a quilty verdict would yeild even more time behind bars.


And we're back to funding...the real reason for pleas, "good time", early parole, etc. is that THESE THINGS SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY REDUCING INCARCERATION COSTS. I kicked around some numbers (non-scientifically) recently to examine the effect of extended incarceration and, just for NJ, came up with an annual taxpayer hit of $5-1200 depending on the percentages you use for recidivism rates and numbers of taxpayers. I did NOT factor in the costs of having to build additional prisons and the costs of their support infrastructure. This cost would also go up annually with inflation. I know any politician pulling that here would have a very short career....how would that fly in YOUR state?
Also this goes back to releasing inmates into the public with no parole monitoring (not that THAT is very effective currently, anyway). If you serve 10 years of a 10 yr sentence because you're a problem child inside or because of mandatory minimums, you get put out on the streets with absolutely NO supervision, NO restrictions and NO accountability beyond what you had BEFORE you went to prison--and if you had to go to prison in the first place, we all know that those restrictions clearly had no effect.

Soybomb
September 2, 2008, 12:47 PM
So for the now 254 of you who said "Convicted, violent felons only." I feel like I have to ask you the same question I ask antis all the time. Why do you think the guy thats planning to either do or threaten violence on another person with a gun will respect the laws that say he cannot have a gun? It seems like the guy who is willing to point a gun at me and possibly pull the trigger isn't going to be bothered by gun ownership laws any more than breaking the speed limit. If it won't keep them from owning a gun (and I think we'd agree that the bad guys will get guns) then whats the point?

Gun control doesn't stop criminal behavior.

CliffH
September 2, 2008, 12:52 PM
.....would you accept that all violent felons get a long probation with a rule that they cannot own a firearm as part of the probation?



If it's part of their original sentence. Our laws and sentencing requirments need a major overhaul.


B) the average prisoner costs between 20-40K per year to incarcerate, and to expand the already overwhelmed probation system nationally would (conservatively) cost millions--the costs of which would have to be supported by tax increases that you and I would have to pay.

There are numerous ways a prison can be made to pay for itself. Farming, assembly line work, light manufacturing (kids toys maybe) are just a few that came to mind as I'm typing. And I don't see how anyone could call having a prisoner work for his room & board "cruel & unusual" since the rest of us have to do it daily.

edited to add:

On my early comment about an 18 year old handgun purchase restriction - I meant that as purchase only. Anyone under 18 should be able to own a handgun, if the parent or guardian feels the child can handle the responsibility. If a child can be trusted with a long gun, why restrict them from owning a (usually) less powerful hand gun?

Training and applying for permission to carry and/or follow-up training can be so costly that too many folks are or would be unable to carry. It just cost my wife and I (combined) almost $600 to get our Texas CHL permits! We're retired on a limited budget, that much cash hurts! And there are folks who are in a worse financial position than we are. Permits should be free or not required at all. And follow-up training? Come on! Do you need follow-up training to drive? Can we say "Personal responsibility"? If you're going to participate in any potentially dangerous endeavor, make sure you know what you're doing. As a society, it seems as if we're getting away from being responsible for our own actions and depending more and more on the government to tell us what to do and when to do it.

Scoutsout2645
September 2, 2008, 12:55 PM
No, it will keep that criminal from using a gun about as much as it will keep a drunk convicted of DWI from driving. What it WILL do, is allow enhanced penalties if the felon uses a gun again, allows the police to arrest the felon carrying a gun while en route to commit a crime, and makes it tougher for him to get a gun in the first place--not impossible, just tougher. Short of mind control (which I'm SURE you're not advocating....are you? :rolleyes: ) it's all we can do.

TAB
September 2, 2008, 12:55 PM
having worked on a assembly line, I can tell you, it is cruel and unusual.

Doing the same thing hundreds of times a day, drove me crazy. I lasted two weeks.

Scoutsout2645
September 2, 2008, 12:58 PM
There are numerous ways a prison can be made to pay for itself. Farming, assembly line work, light manufacturing (kids toys maybe) are just a few

Mmmm Hmmm...and when these jobs were going to be lost through NAFTA no one complained about that either, right? Everyone's happy about how China's low wages undercut the American worker too, right?

Arrogant Bastard
September 2, 2008, 01:15 PM
I consider it a given that criminals will not abide by any gun laws. If you don't trust a felon to vote or carry weapons responsibly and legally after he is released, then don't release him; otherwise, restore full civil rights upon release from prison.

The only restrictions that might make sense is on people who are law-abiding, but have poor impulse control -- poor impulse control + guns is a bad idea. However, practically, this opens up a very slippery slope. Perhaps a "No under 21 unless accompanied by parent or legal guardian" -- with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances.

I support laws that attempt to ensure that those who have or carry firearms are at least minimally proficient with them, and familiar with gun laws in their state.

I don't believe the right to carry, concealed or otherwise, should be restricted from most locations, except in circumstances where one deranged individual with little regard for his own life can endanger many others (e.g., on an airplane). I don't believe one's right to self-defense should end because of alcohol, but I do believe if one is in such a state that you pose a greater danger to innocent bystanders than to your assailant, you have no business carrying, and this should be backed up by law. This goes along with my opinion of limiting the right to carry to those who could be considered law-abiding, but with poor impulse control. I disagree with barring carry in establishments deriving more than half their income from the sale of alcohol. Rather, it should focus on the individual. If I am in a bar, and I have one beer, or none at all (because I am the DD), I should not be denied my right to carry because people around me are drinking.

CliffH
September 2, 2008, 01:27 PM
having worked on a assembly line, I can tell you, it is cruel and unusual.

Just because you didn't like it, it's cruel and/or unusual? There are thousands of non-criminals who do it daily. And who says that prison has to be fun or easy?

...and when these jobs were going to be lost through NAFTA no one complained about that either, right? Everyone's happy about how China's low wages undercut the American worker too, right?

If the prisons are in the US, and the prisoners are making products used in the US or sold to other countries, I see the US profiting from it. The money stays here, or even comes in from the customers outside of the US - instead of us sending our money to another country. And our taxes should be lower, 'cause we're not having to support the prisons/prisoners.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
September 2, 2008, 01:43 PM
Actually, since restrictions are applied uniformly to all violent felons, it would not constitute unusual punishment. An argument could be made at "cruel punishment" but since that usually refers to psychologically and physically damaging punishment, not revocations of liberty, the SCOTUS probably wouldn't buy it (if it went that far).

By your logic changing the statute to say all crime in any form has a punishment of at least 50 yrs to life would be neither "cruel or unusual"? Hardly. First time robbery 50yrs, first time car theft, 50 yrs. It is never going to fly.

People say lock them up until they are no longer a threat. Such a subjective punishment would never be found constitutional. Could you imagine a judge saying "having been found guilty of robbery, you are hereby sentenced to an unlimited amount of time of incarceration until you are found fit to return to society".

Who makes that determination. Based on what? A criminal in prison knowing he needs to be "good" to go home and not having a financial incentive to commit crime likely will not. Does that mean he is safe? Does that mean he is not going to commit crime? Hardly. Anyone who thinks so if a fool. So how would you determine if a criminal is safe?

The truth is there is no way to know. Even substantial jail time is no guarantee. One person may be "scared straight" after spending a single night in jail. Another will re-offend as soon as he/she gets out no matter how long they were kept in prison.

Maelstrom
September 2, 2008, 01:47 PM
I've long suspected that quite a few of you were off your rockers, but some of you "enlightened" individuals are espousing the idea of nuclear-capable ten-year-olds.

I just don't think I'm willing to agree to that.

Before you laugh at that idea. The Olson twins had enough money to buy nukes by the time they were one. And there are countries that would have sold to them.

In fact, perhaps there's one or two here who want nukes for themselves...

I just never thought I'd lose my life to a rich, pre-pubescent idiot with a temper who wields the power of the sun.

mike101
September 2, 2008, 02:06 PM
Krochus asks:

"Ever been kinda down by being dumped by your wife or girlfriend?"

Sure. Who hasn't? But I never had to go before a judge because of it. I'm talking about people with a serious enough mental disorder, to land them in court, and be ajudicated as mentally ill, and a potential danger to themselves and others, as in 'certifiable'.

Didn't Cho fall into that category?

Soybomb
September 2, 2008, 03:15 PM
The only restrictions that might make sense is on people who are law-abiding, but have poor impulse control -- poor impulse control + guns is a bad idea. However, practically, this opens up a very slippery slope. Perhaps a "No under 21 unless accompanied by parent or legal guardian" -- with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances.
What problem would this fix? Most states allow 18 year olds to buy handguns in private sales. 18 year old buy rifles. Are these young people with legal guns doing bad things at some irregular number? I'm all for trying to fix problems but lets be sure there are actual problems.

I support laws that attempt to ensure that those who have or carry firearms are at least minimally proficient with them, and familiar with gun laws in their state.
As above I have to ask what problems are we fixing supporting this? Most states require no training to own firearms and gun accidents are quite rare. Can it be demonstrated that states with safety or testing requirements like CA have fewer gun accidents than states that dont? The same for concealed carry. Many states don't require training or classes. Can it be demonstrated that these states have problems with concealed carry that don't exist or don't exist in the same numbers in states with mandated testing or training?

Don't support gun control just because you think it sounds like a good idea. It needs to actually do something to even be considered.

Nitrogen
September 2, 2008, 03:16 PM
convicted, violent felons only, and only if they specifically have that right removed as a condition of release.

If they are fully released, having served their complete sentence, the right should be restored.

71Commander
September 2, 2008, 03:20 PM
I don't understand this under 21 BS. If a 18 years can fight and die for his country, he can fight for his life and the life of his loved ones at home.

simpleguy
September 2, 2008, 03:21 PM
Nitro, good on you, I agree. Though I also voted to get rid of junk guns.

Officers'Wife
September 2, 2008, 03:50 PM
I'm assuming that what you're referring to is A) traffic laws, B) drug laws and C) crimes of office (bribery, official misconduct, etc)

Traffic laws are financial tools not criminal law. Crimes of office are crimes against property under color of law. If you want specifics, drug laws, so called victimless crimes such as gambling, public intox, prostitution,et al. And yes I know about Denmark don't even bother.

And we're back to funding...the real reason for pleas, "good time", early parole, etc. is that THESE THINGS SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY REDUCING INCARCERATION COSTS. I kicked around some numbers (non-scientifically) recently to examine the effect of extended incarceration and, just for NJ, came up with an annual taxpayer hit of $5-1200 depending on the percentages you use for recidivism rates and numbers of taxpayers.

And with fewer inmates the cost would become a push. Plus, with real enforcement the executive branch would become a true deterrent to crime further lowering the numbers.

It goes back to risk/gain. If a person sees crimes being committed with only a 10% chance of consequence that crime is more profitable than real work. Up the odds of getting caught you lower the incident of those crimes. The so called 'war on drugs' has caused a criminal niche in supply that has further increased violence much the same as prohibition in the twenties. Yes, addicts will steal to support their habits. That's a crime against property and since the LEO's are no longer wasting time and resources on drug supply crimes the addicts will be more likely removed from society via incarceration.

Selena

Officers'Wife
September 2, 2008, 03:54 PM
Hi Tab,

having worked on a assembly line, I can tell you, it is cruel and unusual.

Doing the same thing hundreds of times a day, drove me crazy. I lasted two weeks.

It may be boring and repititious but it is honest labor. When honest labor is declared 'cruel and unusual' this country is in real trouble.

Selena

Werewolf
September 2, 2008, 05:11 PM
:
Not a bad idea.

so tell us how much do you want YOUR taxs raised to pay for that?Deleted by Werewolf: Too radical.

sqlbullet
September 2, 2008, 05:13 PM
I find the perspective of our society very interesting. In essence, we are denying an entire (rather large) class of people the full right of self-defense.

I am not a big fan of Lyndon Johnson. I am a fan of this quote. "You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and harms it would cause if improperly administered."

So, consider for a moment. You grab your gun bag, and head to the range. You get pulled over for speeding, and the bag is on the seat next to you, and is not locked, only zipped. The officer asks about the contents, and you tell him it is your range bag, with your gun. Now, imagine that you have either, three or more guns in the bag (common for me) or you have accidentally left a magazine in the gun.

Congratulations....You are now guilty of criminal possession of a dangerous weapon, a violent felony, in many jurisdictions. Not only is your trip to the range today destroyed, but, based on this thread, you no longer have the right to a gun.

So, think carefully, not about how you define 'violent felon', but how a bureaucrat who thinks no one should have a gun will define this phrase.

FLA2760
September 2, 2008, 05:31 PM
This is a good thread. I voted for VIOLENT felons. Others that have a non violent felony should be able to have their rights restored through a standard process.

ArfinGreebly
September 2, 2008, 05:36 PM
You know, I see a LOT of "talking past each other" here.

Some of us ask "explain why it's okay to make every law-abiding citizen prove he's not a felon" and there is no response.

Instead, we see arguments that we can't improve on this system of letting untrustworthy felons out because keeping them is expensive.

We see arguments explaining why bad people shouldn't have the tools of violence. We see nothing that explains how you tell good people from bad people.

We see it suggested that we should keep the bad people (the ones we've caught) in prison until we feel we can trust them. It is argued that this is cruel and unusual.

But it strikes me that it is actually MORE cruel and unusual to intervene every time someone -- a law-abiding citizen -- wants to buy a defensive tool and say, "prove to me that you're not a criminal."

One part of my training is business data analysis.

When stuff isn't working, we're trained to look back at the historical data to determine when it WAS working, and what has changed since then.

Why is this so hard?

We used to be able to mail order guns. We used to be able to buy just any old damn thing. It didn't matter whether you'd done jail time or even for what.

And the crime stats for those years . . . ?

Way better than the crime stats we have now.

And, what everyone seems to be missing is this: the regulations didn't follow a general increase in societal violence, the regulations preceded increases in violence.

Now, from a business analysis point of view, I would say a person managing this state of affairs would have to be nuts to want MORE regulation in the face of that analysis.

You know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

We find that, in states where the carry laws have been relaxed, allowing more people to carry, we have reductions in violent crime.

And yet, what I'm seeing here is this continued insistence that, if we just wish hard enough, and make the right kind of rules, criminals will start following the rules.

It's not like we have to WONDER what it's like when the population has unrestricted access to weapons. That is, in fact, how it used to be.

It distresses me considerably to see how many people have been so throughly fooled by the propaganda crafted by governments.

I see red herring arguments and strawmen about OMG kidz will have missle launchers!

Natural selection isn't always pretty.

Sure, in a fever of suddenly relaxed rules in a climate of pervasive social rudeness and me-first indulgence, there's gonna be some fallout. There will be some people who can't think from one end of a concept to the other.

Some morons are gonna die. Some idiots will take innocent people with them. And this has been true throughout history.

The system will self-correct though. The more intelligent will recognize that, with EVERYONE armed, certain kinds of behavior are terminally hazardous to their health.

Eventually (and probably sooner than later) a certain politeness will settle over society. Heinlein's truth will, at last, be borne out.

And, as a society, we will be the stronger for it. As a race, we will be more robust for it. As people, we will, of necessity, become more civilized toward one another.

Not everyone will live through it.

Well, naturally selection isn't always pretty.

There will always be those whose mantra is save the morons! and those who complete the bumper sticker with "collect the whole set."

JImbothefiveth
September 2, 2008, 05:38 PM
Lets re-check the 2nd Amendment.
What does it say?
What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
That's why my answer is, and always will be, "absolutely none" to the OP's question.

Well, is the whole prison system unconstitutional? After all, it deprives U.S. citizens of the right to liberty, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and sometimes even life.:rolleyes: RKBA is just another right, and it can be removed by due process.

I also don't think the government has the authority to increase someone's prison sentence just because "we feel they are dangerous". Should we imprison people because "we believe they are dangerous" if they have not been convicted? Let's see, that guy has a different religion, that guy is an NRA member, and that guy is from a different political party, we must imprison them!:banghead::rolleyes:

And I really don't think that George Washington would want gang members and drug dealers perverting the second amendment!

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 2, 2008, 05:39 PM
Using BOTH hands.:):)

Duke Junior
September 2, 2008, 06:16 PM
And I really don't think that George Washington would want gang members and drug dealers perverting the second amendment!

Jimbo,just re-read the 2nd Amendment over again.
Duke over and out,10-7.
Shall not be infringed.
Got it now?:D

ArfinGreebly
September 2, 2008, 06:19 PM
We're not doing personal comments today.

In fact, we're not doing them any day.

Posts containing personal remarks often disappear in a puff of digital smoke.

Members who persist in making personal remarks sometimes do the puff of smoke thing, too.

Must be a high-voltage thing.

Let's be careful out there.

KBintheSLC
September 2, 2008, 06:20 PM
I voted "convicted, violent felons only"... borderline on "none whatsoever".

The second amendment is a right, and says nothing about restrictions. Even felons will quickly be removed by way of Darwin... anyway it's not like our stupid laws stop them from getting guns in the first place.

Blackbeard
September 2, 2008, 06:23 PM
Let's look at it this way. In our ideal world, everyone has total gun freedom. In the Brady's ideal world, guns are totally banned. The real world is going to be a compromise position somewhere in the middle. Do you want to choose where that falls, or do you want the Bradys to? Our hard-line stance isn't going to win any sympathy among the fence-sitters.

Scoutsout2645
September 2, 2008, 06:31 PM
Happiness:

By your logic changing the statute to say all crime in any form has a punishment of at least 50 yrs to life would be neither "cruel or unusual"? Hardly. First time robbery 50yrs, first time car theft, 50 yrs. It is never going to fly.


Actually, legally speaking, the issue of imprisonment is what would be judged as "cruel and unusual". The extent of the term of imprisonment is determined under a principle termed proportionality. This is why we have gradations in punishment--both theft and homicide are considered crimes where incarceration was a fair punishment, but imprisoning someone for life on a theft charge is disproportionate to the crime and would be challenged on this merit. So, we have a system where a 1st degree crime/A felony/whatever your state calls it gets a more lengthy period of incarceration than a 4th degree/D felony/etc. It still is not a sentence intended to reform or rehabilitate, just to punish in a manner and degree proportionate to the crime.

ArrogantBastard:
The only restrictions that might make sense is on people who are law-abiding, but have poor impulse control -- poor impulse control + guns is a bad idea. However, practically, this opens up a very slippery slope.

1) a great many convicted felons are in prison precisely because they have poor impulse control--"I wanted his watch so I punched him and took it"..."he looked at me wrong so I shot him"...etc. Unfortunately we cannot punish a person for what he might do, only for what he has already done (and before people jump all over this--a convicted felon has already committed his crime, therefore opening him to the punishment of losing the right to vote and the right to possess guns).
If a standard of poor impulse control is all we need, let's also apply that to getting a driver's license, using alcohol, having children...poor impulse control+all of these things is also a bad idea.
(side note--saw your namesake in the local liquor store this weekend and had to try it. Very nice.)

Officer's Wife:
Traffic laws are financial tools not criminal law. ... If you want specifics, drug laws, so called victimless crimes such as gambling, public intox, prostitution,et al.

I will disagree with the intent of traffic laws as financial tools, but sadly have to agree that in some jurisdictions they are abused to become such. Incarceration as punishment for traffic violations (as well as DP or misdemeanor offenses) is seen as excessive and disproportionate, therefore financial penalties are all that is left as a punishment. It's not a great answer, but it's all we have available.
As far as the second part, you essentially want Amsterdam with open carry and casinos. Gotta say I'm basically on your side here.

ArfinGreebley:

I absolutely agree with you about open carry, but the arguments that people make regarding "it was better in the old days" don't carry water. Society has changed significantly in the last 100 yrs. Population density has increased significantly, demographics have changed, general attitudes about responsibility and accountability have changed...and not for the better. I remember not needing to lock my front door as a kid (and we didn't have guns in our neighborhood, either)--no way I'd do that today, even though I live in the same "good" neighborhood. While part of me finds an appeal to the Darwinian "natural selection through firepower" argument, the reality is that we don't live in a society where the majority would tolerate the "innocent" body-count that would go up before we reached Heinlein's truth. The reality is that a LOT of victims would be killed before that equilibrium is reached, and that criminal acts-by necessity-would need to jump to lethality IMMEDIATELY to prevent a counter-strike (no more "give me your wallet", now it's "boom"...rifles through victim's pockets). Such a scenario could play out to your utopia a-la Heinlein, or a Mad Max-like dystopia where visits to the grocery store require Kevlar and running gun battles. Personally, I think it'll fall somewhere in the middle where order will exist, but where more innocent people will be hurt than bad guys.

Blackbeard: +1

ArfinGreebly
September 2, 2008, 06:36 PM
The real world is going to be a compromise position somewhere in the middle.
Well, there's a little problem with this formula.

I'm in my home, secure in my person and possessions, and a bad guy shows up at the door.

He wants all my money.

I don't want him to have any of my money.

If a "real world" compromise consists of the two of us negotiating how much of my money he should get, then we have a morally busted world.

We started out with our rights intact. We have been "compromising" for decades. And every single time we do, we lose more rights.

I work in an industry that supports casino gaming. We've come up with a variety of random number systems that guarantee that you'll get back 97% of your money when you play these games.

Which, seen from the other side, is a guarantee that the "house" will always get 3% of your money.

But that's okay, because it's a compromise. The casino actually wants all of your money, but is willing to settle for 3% each time you play.

Pop quiz: how many times can you play a game, using a starting amount of $100, losing a guaranteed 3% each time through, before you're broke?

Answer: it doesn't matter, because eventually the casino will have it all.

And, if we continue to "compromise" our rights with those who want to take them all, how many compromises will be required before we lose all our rights?

It doesn't matter, because . . . eventually the agents of tyranny will have them all.

Compromise sux.

You heard it here first.

Realbigo
September 2, 2008, 06:51 PM
For my doubters, I'm more than comfortable w/ Full Auto anything. If you've seen it, there's a real possibility that I've fired it at one time or another. If it would do any actual good, I'd be up for a IQ test to go along w/ that ATF background check. If you want to stand next to some ignoramus w/ a full auto on range and let him spray away w/ no regulation, you have the fun, i'll be in the back being anal for the regulations. Cause we all know that common sense doesn't come w/ your new rifle.

JCMAG
September 2, 2008, 07:10 PM
I, too, nearly agree with Nitrogen.

It is very bracing to read of so many freedom-loving Americans discuss, quite civilly (or as civilly as the internet may allow), the philosophical dilemma of their rights. I say dilemma because so many varied interests and beliefs are congregating in what may appear a tug of war. This diversity is responsible for collaring radicalism in either extreme of beliefs and conducive to a healthy republic.

:)

pharmer
September 2, 2008, 07:26 PM
Currently, 122.97% response. Outstanding. Joe

Zedo
September 2, 2008, 07:28 PM
"Convicted, violent felons . . . " what? Besides being a sentence fragment, it doesn't explain itself.

If you're legal to own it, you're legal to carry it. Period. CCW is just short of allowing states to register guns -- by registering the owners.

The operating concept in "shall not be infringed" is that the people control the guns, not the state.

JCMAG
September 2, 2008, 07:32 PM
Currently, 122.97% response. Outstanding. Joe

I believe this is one of them polls where you can select multiple responses. How this works I do not know, but apparently neither does the poll. :D

Officers'Wife
September 2, 2008, 07:38 PM
Hi ArfinGreebly,

I have nothing to add to this thread after that. Nicely done.

Selena

dmxx9900
September 2, 2008, 08:52 PM
No gun control whatsoever if you are in prison then you have no rights till you are released and considered safe to be in society again.
Bans dont work like a new assault weapon ban I will still get a certain type of gun even if its not legal anymore you just get it through secret connections and keep your mouth shut about it.
Age restrictions do not work I am 18 and I bought a Yugo AK a few days ago am I any more dangerous if I bought a Sig Sauer pistol before 21 then I am with a Yugo Ak rifle at 18.
And there are always ways to get around them same with alcohol age limit I find ways to get around it or if nothing else works I violate it.

At some point gun control becomes stupid,worthless, and annoying thats why I dont support any gun control since it infringes on peoples rights no matter how little the restriction.

Soybomb
September 2, 2008, 08:54 PM
Let's look at it this way. In our ideal world, everyone has total gun freedom. In the Brady's ideal world, guns are totally banned. The real world is going to be a compromise position somewhere in the middle. Do you want to choose where that falls, or do you want the Bradys to? Our hard-line stance isn't going to win any sympathy among the fence-sitters.
Arfin's comments reflect most of what I wanted to say, but neglected a few. Do you really believe the brady group has any interest in compromise? The goal of gun control groups is for no one to have guns except police and military. Look at DC. They had the strictest gun control laws in the nation and the gun control people are outraged that Mr. Heller might get to keep his revolver at his home to protect himself.

Don't give them anything because its just footing to take the rest of it.

10 Ring Tao
September 3, 2008, 12:28 AM
I support the restriction of certain kinds of firearms, such as NFA weapons.
Artiz, autmwnd, Bajee, BCC, belus, burningsquirrels, CombatArmsUSAF, ditchdigger, Dmack_901, Gatordad699, gunflask, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, JImbothefiveth, Joe Sacco, lenziggy, penny, Realbigo, retgarr, RtHG77, tblt, TurnerJim

I support the restriction of "junk guns".
autmwnd, bbftx, BCC, benzy2, expatqatar04, Fred West, Inspector, KelVarnson, paintballdude902, porterdog, Reddog1, sacp81170a, simpleguy, Tamren, tblt, TurnerJim, Wopasaurus

I support a registration system.
Artiz, autmwnd, BCC, burningsquirrels, butters, Fred West, GarandOwner, Inspector, Sgt.Dusk, ToeRag, woodybrighton, xMetal

I support restrictions on open carry or concealed carry.
BCC, benzy2, Blakenzy, jim85255, MJRW, model4006, NukemJim, Scoutsout2645, Sgt.Dusk, taliv, Vaarok, walking arsenal, Wopasaurus, xMetal

...Have some 'splaining to do.

No, really, I'm genuinely curious to see the why, and the amount of misinformation, behind these votes.

Those who'd like to dictate purchase ages are getting askew glances, too.

bdickens
September 3, 2008, 09:41 AM
I'm a staunch advocate of strict gun control.

















I believe you should strictly control every gun you shoot.

Aka Zero
September 3, 2008, 09:58 AM
I think some things should be controlled.

Smaller children should not own guns. Showing off "my new gun" to friends could be bad. So age 16 for rifles, 21 for pistols.

Felons should not be able to have guns, unless some requirement is met. Repeat felons should be a no go, and if caught with a gun, a nice long sentence.

But I think any good citizen of the right age should be able to own any weapon that any other person on the world can own. Full autos, silenced, high cap. No huge tax, no lengthy forms.

And gun registration would be a good idea, but has too many holes. But like cars, if all of them were in a system, tied to your name, no one would use them for crimes. But for some reason, criminals don't follow the law.... wonder why...

Eric F
September 3, 2008, 10:10 AM
Wow so far this thread has mostly revolved around felons and gun rights or no restrictions at all for anything, What about mentaly deficient folks, you know the 50 year old person with a 10 year olds mentality, should this kind of person be allowed to have a gun? Does this person really have the knowledge wisdom and responsibility it takes to be a responsible gun owner? OR should this kind of person be restricted?

Scoutsout2645
September 3, 2008, 10:18 AM
For 10 Ring Tao:

I'll explain MY vote for you, since the OC/CCW question was worded to allow a large grey area of opinion from simple age restrictions to a total ban.

A) I endorse carrying, in all states, for any legal citizen over 18 y/o who is not a convicted violent felon or judged psychologically violent/dangerous or mentally non-competent.

B) Anyone who chooses to carry MUST: 1) take and pass a basic firearms safety course,the content and length of which to conform with similar NRA courses, and 2) qualify with his/her weapon/s at least once per year but no more frequently than that State's police are required to qualify. The qualifying round of fire shall be no more stringent than required by that State's Police Training Commission (or similar body) for the minimum qualification of police forces.

I feel that this would weed out the known problems (criminals and psychotics) and the potential problem of untrained or unknowlegable gun owners, while restoring the right to carry to the states that currently do not have this.
It also takes much of the wind out of the anti's sails--if it is safe for police to carry off duty, why is it not safe for a law abiding citizen who meets the same standards as the police to carry?

ilbob
September 3, 2008, 10:23 AM
I am in favor of each law abiding citizen controlling his own firearms, and those who are not law abiding should be in prison.

taliv
September 3, 2008, 10:39 AM
I support restrictions on open carry or concealed carry.
BCC, benzy2, Blakenzy, jim85255, MJRW, model4006, NukemJim, Scoutsout2645, Sgt.Dusk, taliv, Vaarok, walking arsenal, Wopasaurus, xMetal

tao, this was the only option which seemed to address WHERE you can carry, and I do support some restrictions on where you can carry.

Drgong
September 3, 2008, 10:52 AM
let me do the flipside of "Well if they are a danger, just keep them in jail"

So if someone holds up a store at age 18, your saying keep them in prison for approx 65 years (life) for that action?

At some point in time, you will have to release some prisoners who may be a danger as it a affront to liberty to put someone in jail for life just becuse "they are a danger to society" as where do you draw the line of being a danger to society?

We have (When it works) the best system so far developed, where if your liberty can only be removed when a group of your fellow citizens agree that you broke a law that was passed by a democraticly elected officals. However when one is released from prison, one does not automatic become full citizens, a felons for a time are put into the same catagory as children and instutionalized persons, those who have a subset of rights.

Will a law prevent dangerus felons from getting guns - no, just as a law will not stop someone from forcing themselves sexually on a women. However, the law sets out punishments for breaking such a law and I have no problem if a convicted felon who has not had rights restored getting a parole violation and or a additonal ten years if cought with a gun. Yes, they will get a gun, but they can go to prison over it.

Felons do not have the same rights as law abiding citizenship, Voting, where they may live and associate with, Searches without a warrent, and so on.

Just give a Felon ten years of probation (with the Felon paying the cost of the Probation officers on a pro-rated basis), as when one is on probation one does not have full rights, for example, a probation officer can come in and search your residence. If they stay crime free in ten years, they get full rights back, including gun ownership.

JohnBT
September 3, 2008, 11:35 AM
"What about mentaly deficient folks, you know the 50 year old person with a 10 year olds mentality, should this kind of person be allowed to have a gun? "

I had guns in my closet when I was 10, so I suppose I had a 10-year-old's mentality.

I think convicted felons should have their rights restored after they serve their sentence AND after they reimburse their victims.

John

Scoutsout2645
September 3, 2008, 11:53 AM
Drgong:
Just give a Felon ten years of probation (with the Felon paying the cost of the Probation officers on a pro-rated basis), as when one is on probation one does not have full rights, for example, a probation officer can come in and search your residence. If they stay crime free in ten years, they get full rights back, including gun ownership.


I'd say that this is a compromise I could live with. I'd like the frequency and degree of monitoring increased, but this satisfies the principle of not making a proven criminal's future crimes easier to commit, while also satisfying the idea that a person can change his ways and become a productive citizen.

What penalties do you propose for repeat offenders, or those who violate the terms of probation(test "hot" in a drug test, get caught associating with gang members, etc) without committing an actual "crime"?

71Commander
September 3, 2008, 11:58 AM
Drgong. You keep bringing up that liberal mantra. Probation is a liberal idea that has no value in a civilized society. If a 18 commits a crime worthy of a life sentence, let him serve life. You say if a dangerous felon has a gun while on probation, put him in prison for 10 years. I say, don't let him out.

What's so hard to understand?:confused:

Drgong
September 3, 2008, 01:25 PM
What is so hard to undestand that the concept of life in prison for any offence is simply a unworkable for costs alone, let alone the obsene punishments that would be handed down. I guess someone who gets in a fist fight deserves life in prison, what about man who committs manslaughter? There are punishments other then life in prison due to the fact that some crimes are worse then others.

If your willing to say that a man who gets in a fistfight or commits manslaughter deserves life in prison, then fine, your being logical about it, but I don't agree.

I don't think that criminals deserve rights commonly enjoyed by law abiding citizens, but at some point in time, since we don't have a prison colony to send them to, we have to release a few of them back into the public. Probation has been around in it modern form since 1841, (and has older common law roots).

The facts are that felons are released on a DAILY stream due to the fact that they have served part of there punishment. If you want them armed that is your opinon, do not expect me to agree untill they show they are peaceable.

71Commander
September 3, 2008, 01:42 PM
I guess someone who gets in a fist fight deserves life in prison

Nice red herring.

If the sentence calls for life, do life. No where did I say that all crimes are life sentences. Me thinks you see what you want to see. If the crime committed calls for 20 years, make them do 20 years. Not 10 years and then probation.

After their sentence is served, restore their full rights and privileges.

IndianaBoy
September 3, 2008, 01:52 PM
If a person has committed a violent crime so heinous that they cannot be trusted to own a gun, they should either be in jail, or hanging from a tree.

IndianaBoy
September 3, 2008, 01:56 PM
So if someone holds up a store at age 18, your saying keep them in prison for approx 65 years (life) for that action?

At some point in time, you will have to release some prisoners who may be a danger as it a affront to liberty to put someone in jail for life just becuse "they are a danger to society" as where do you draw the line of being a danger to society?

Let me see if I understand you.

An adult makes a decision that 75 dollars in a cash register is more valuable than the life of the clerk and customers in the store...

And it is an affront to their liberty to put them in jail and throw away the key?

I wonder if the murdered hotel clerk in the nearest town to me would agree with you. After all... she only lost her life. It would be WRONG to ask the same of her killer. :rolleyes:

Tarvis
September 3, 2008, 02:04 PM
I knew if I went to the last page there would be some juicy conversations.

I'm gonna have some fun with this one:
The major problem with gun control is it's like the "One Ring." Just as Gandalf said he would use the ring in his desire to do good, so would I allow the creation of a law banning violent felons from using guns. Through me, however, gun grabbing liberal do-gooders that know more about what is good for me than I do would use that slippery slope to increase the restrictions. In the background there will always be the general non-gun enthusiast public (Boromir) that think they are doing the right thing, and Smeagle (Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton etc.) that wants the power for themselves.

Drgong
September 3, 2008, 02:06 PM
Straw man arguement - if someone is murdered then they are not facing just armed robbery charges.

Then agian, what about a bar fight? life in prison? What about jaywalking? (yes, those are stawman arguments as well.)


Just going to leave now and say that your wasting your time and poltical capital arguing that violent felons deserve gun rights.

Phil DeGraves
September 3, 2008, 02:13 PM
WOW 66% of THR members have bought the liberal line and believe at least some form of gun control works


No, we have not bought into the liberal line. We just don't believe that we should be complicit in selling a gun to a convicted felon if we don't want to.

Scoutsout2645
September 3, 2008, 02:17 PM
71Commander:
If a 18 commits a crime worthy of a life sentence, let him serve life

That's fair, but that is neither what Drgong was saying, nor what others (or you, according to your next sentence) are saying.

The philosophy of "lock 'em up forever" crowd ignores the fact that, according to the precedents in our legal system, you can't lock someone away for life for a lesser crime--violent felony though it may be. Their argument is that, if an 18 y/o commits a crime not worthy of a life sentence, we should still apply an indeterminate sentence of "until he's safe to return to society". The reality is that, by endorsing THAT belief, you ARE violating the "cruel and unusual" part since two people, who commit the same crime, can get drastically different sentences.

But, lets ride that slippery slope all the way down. If someone commits that felony that would have gotten him 10 years now gets, as in your quote, I say, don't let him out., then why not just execute him? If he is so dangerous that he can't be released, if committing any felony warrants a probable life sentence, why would it not merit a death sentence? Lets expand this to other areas of law...permanent revocation of driving privileges after your 1st speeding ticket because you might speed again?

If prison is now no longer a tool of punishment but a place to banish for life those who might be dangerous, then why not proactively remove all individuals from society whose thoughts and words show harmful intent?

I understand that, now, these questions/examples may seem absurdly extreme but it is these extremes that you have to look at when examining a law because over time that is where these laws may wind up.

Soybomb
September 3, 2008, 02:23 PM
B) Anyone who chooses to carry MUST: 1) take and pass a basic firearms safety course,the content and length of which to conform with similar NRA courses, and 2) qualify with his/her weapon/s at least once per year but no more frequently than that State's police are required to qualify. The qualifying round of fire shall be no more stringent than required by that State's Police Training Commission (or similar body) for the minimum qualification of police forces.
Thats a wonderfully elaborate plan. I suspect the cost and hassle would keep many people from carrying but that aside, why do you think it is necessary? We have a couple states where people can just conceal a gun if they legally own it, several states where you can open carry a gun with no permit, and states where you can get a carry permit without training or testing. Do these places have a safety problem from their more loose requirements? If there is no problem....why all these restrictions and regulations? I'm all for well thought out solutions but I think there needs to be a problem before we come up with great ideas to fix it.

JImbothefiveth
September 3, 2008, 02:25 PM
Jimbo,just re-read the 2nd Amendment over again.
Duke over and out,10-7.
Shall not be infringed.
Got it now?

Reread the whole constitution again. Put this in context. You also have the right to liberty, and life, but those can be stripped away with something else mentioned in the constitution. It's called "due process". I also urge you to look up "jury of peers".

Rereading the second without re-reading the rest is going to produce some flawed interpretation at best.

71Commander
September 3, 2008, 02:26 PM
then why not just execute him? If he is so dangerous that he can't be released, if committing any felony warrants a probable life sentence, why would it not merit a death sentence?

Not a bad idea.:evil:

You can talk all you want about traffic tickets, no one else is. It has no bearing in this discussion.

ArfinGreebly
September 3, 2008, 02:39 PM
Yes, a little hyperbole . . .

So, tell me, O wise social engineers . . .

Why is it that I have to keep proving I'm not guilty of something?

Please?

Oh, and has anyone else noticed a tendency to legislate common sense in some of the proposals? You know, oh, gosh, we have to keep guns away from ten-year-olds. Well, let's look back ninety years . . . were ten-year-olds buying guns? Was that ever a problem? Did they have a law for that? If so, what?

Mental illness.

Explain to me, again, why it is that I have to keep proving that I'm not crazy?

Please?

How is that common sense?

If you're going to restrict the sale of something, how about simply applying the same kind of criteria used for cars or boats?

Here's the thing: any law or regulation which, by default, imposes special requirements on ordinary normal people -- especially of a nature of making them prove their innocence -- is a serious infringement of liberty.

Think about it. We want to control terrorism. Libraries have books which terrorists could use to learn bomb making. The "arts" of chemistry are certainly subject to abuse. Therefore: anyone wishing to check out a book on chemistry or any of several related fields of study must first provide evidence that he's not a terrorist.

Hey, it's "common sense," isn't it?

No, no, you see, you're just not getting it, we only want to enact legislation that imposes restrictions on FELONS, not good people like yourselves. Oh, good. So, can I buy a gun? Uh, that depends. Are you a felon?

So, keep the felons in prison until they're done being felons.
Oh, we can't do that, there are too many of them! It would bankrupt us!
Uh, okay. and there are too many of them because . . . ?
Well, you see, nearly everything is a felony nowadays, and we have to make sure that people who do bad things -- like, you know, serving trans fats at fast food restaurants, cheating on taxes, smoking evil plants, selling cigarettes to "prohibited persons," or disparaging socialism -- are properly labeled so they can be properly controlled . . . say, you're not a socialism critic, are you?

So, how to control the population?

How about this proposal: find reasons to label "special" classes of people (felons, "mentally ill," and so on) who "need to be watched," but allow them to mingle with the general population. Now, any time someone wants to engage in an activity that you think will challenge, question, or undermine your authority, make him prove he's not on the list of "special class" people.

Now you have a way to gather data on potential trouble sources while asserting that you're only trying to protect everyone from the bad people.

Now, it might take a few decades of indoctrination education in order to sell the idea that it's your job to take care of everyone, but keep at it, because eventually you'll have enough believers that you can ridicule those who insist on seeing to their own welfare (and their own defense).

So . . .

Somebody please explain to me: why is it that you want to make the default assumption that I'm either crazy or guilty of something?

Scoutsout2645
September 3, 2008, 03:04 PM
Soybomb:
Regarding cost and hassle--my quals are a 60 round day fire, 40 round night fire, I can be in and out of this part in 30 mins. I don't know about you, but burning 100 rounds during a session at the range is not uncommon for me. As far as the initial course, I'm not losing any sleep by requiring a person to have rudimentary knowlege about the safe use of that deadly weapon he wants to carry around me.

As far as "the point" of these restrictions/etc: right now many states functionally do NOT allow carry. If the mindset is to improve or expand the application of RKBA to states like CA and NJ, not just defend it in places like TX, then we need to create proposals that will address the concerns of these populations.
In my opinion, showing that the agenda is one of careful and responsible gun use is far more productive to the cause than advocating giving full auto AKs to every prisoner upon release. We will always lose to the hard core antis, but our stance and the policies we advocate can either win over moderates through responsibility or will alienate them into believing that we are all just a bunch of gun nuts.

ctdonath
September 3, 2008, 03:13 PM
Anyone who chooses to carry MUST: 1) take and pass a basic firearms safety course,the content and length of which to conform with similar NRA courses, and 2) qualify with his/her weapon/s at least once per year but no more frequently than that State's police are required to qualify
A gun is a point-and-click interface. It's not hard to understand. Like a bicycle, once you know how it's hard to forget. Proficiency may take training & practice, but close-range "stop or I'll shoot" is really not that hard.

Who are these people whom I am to convince I'm good enough with a gun to be allowed to carry it? What gives them final say on my rights? I have hundreds of hours of training, and have taught police - why must I bow to them? What assures their motives are assurance of proficiency, and not oppression?

why is it that you want to make the default assumption that I'm either crazy or guilty of something?
Worth repeating. Why are only the cooperative forced to cooperate, when non-cooperation is so easy for those who would be denied should they cooperate? And why do I have to prove myself to you - especially when I in turn doubt your integrity, competence, motives and authority?

It's called "due process".
And "due process" begins with the onus on the accuser to warrant pursuit of denial of rights to a particular individual. It is NOT up to the subject to come forward and say "please inflict due process upon me".

I say, don't let him out.
At some point you have to let him out unless he's deemed "that dangerous". The law simply must acknowledge that once out, he will have access to certain items, regardless of whether he's "allowed" to.

We just don't believe that we should be complicit in selling a gun to a convicted felon if we don't want to.
Nobody is saying you must sell to anyone.
Some of us are saying nobody should have authority to stop you from selling to people whose felony conviction is stupid (ex.: simple possession of a new 30-round AR magazine in NY; yes, that's a felony). Some "felonies" are far from worth losing rights over.

Soybomb
September 3, 2008, 05:54 PM
Regarding cost and hassle--my quals are a 60 round day fire, 40 round night fire, I can be in and out of this part in 30 mins. I don't know about you, but burning 100 rounds during a session at the range is not uncommon for me. As far as the initial course, I'm not losing any sleep by requiring a person to have rudimentary knowlege about the safe use of that deadly weapon he wants to carry around me.
Who is paying for the initial training class? Who is paying for the person that gives your qualifications? Who is paying for the people involved with processing all this additional paperwork for permits? Why do I have to give up my saturday to sit through some perfunctory class? I guess its a "to each his own thing" but I do think its a pretty serious matter to make it harder for people to exercise their right to self defense.

As far as "the point" of these restrictions/etc: right now many states functionally do NOT allow carry. If the mindset is to improve or expand the application of RKBA to states like CA and NJ, not just defend it in places like TX, then we need to create proposals that will address the concerns of these populations.
In my opinion, showing that the agenda is one of careful and responsible gun use is far more productive to the cause than advocating giving full auto AKs to every prisoner upon release. We will always lose to the hard core antis, but our stance and the policies we advocate can either win over moderates through responsibility or will alienate them into believing that we are all just a bunch of gun nuts.
Man I didn't know you could pack so many tons of hyperbole in such a small space. Why do we have to give away freedom or make carry harder? Why can't education be an option? Is it really that much worse to say "what you're worried about doesn't happen, here is a mountain of evidence to look at." If you're willing to base concealed carry restrictions around imaged concerns instead of real events...I don't even see a reason to campaign for it. You might as well just go along with the shootouts over parking spaces at that point.

CliffH
September 3, 2008, 06:14 PM
The philosophy of "lock 'em up forever" crowd ignores the fact that, according to the precedents in our legal system, you can't lock someone away for life for a lesser crime--violent felony though it may be. Their argument is that, if an 18 y/o commits a crime not worthy of a life sentence, we should still apply an indeterminate sentence of "until he's safe to return to society".

That's not the way I've read the posts concerning this. My stance is that, if the person has served his entire sentence in jail/prison he should have all of his rights reinstated upon release.

None of this "early release for good behavior", "early release due to over-crowding", etc. Serve the entire sentence. If the sentence involves probation after release from prison, so be it - all rights are restored after successfully completion of his probation.

An argument could be made that denying a felon the right to bear arms could be sentencing them to a potential death sentence after release from prison.

I have a couple of problems with required training.

Who's going to pay for the ongoing "training" and the necessary ammo? Me? Why? So I can prove to *someone* that I can handle a firearm without shooting myself in the foot?

As has already been stated: check the safety records of those states that do not require training of any sort for open carry.

Are the "training" classes going to be scheduled around my schedule? I've got more important things to do most days.

I'm not looking to appease or negotiate with the anti-gun rights folks. I want to be able to exercise my rights without interference from them or anyone else.

308win
September 3, 2008, 06:36 PM
Who's going to pay for the ongoing "training" and the necessary ammo? Me? Why? So I can prove to *someone* that I can handle a firearm without shooting myself in the foot?

There were people in my CCW class whom if I encounter when out and about, I will be someplace else as soon as possible. Granted, the training wasn't in depth (12 hours) but it was enough to convince me that there are people I don't want to be around if there is a chance they are armed.

Learning to correctly, safely, and in an ideal world, responsibly handle a firearm is not an unreasonable burden nor is it an unreasonable expectation.

If you shoot yourself in the foot that is too bad; if you shoot me in the foot that is unacceptable behavior and you will be hearing from the nastiest personal injury lawyer I can engage.

MJRW
September 3, 2008, 06:39 PM
...Have some 'splaining to do.

No, really, I'm genuinely curious to see the why, and the amount of misinformation, behind these votes.

Those who'd like to dictate purchase ages are getting askew glances, too.


Well, actually, I don't have some 'splaining to do. A question was asked, I answered.

I'm not an absolutist when it comes to guns rights. I'm close, but not quite. I would really like a way to force competency upon people who wish to own or carry concealed. Or maybe make certain levels of stupidity a crime. I haven't come to a complete conclusion about what my recommended solution would be, but those answers fit best my general belief.

JImbothefiveth
September 3, 2008, 06:48 PM
Then agian, what about a bar fight? life in prison? What about jaywalking? (yes, those are stawman arguments as well.)
I know you weren't addressing me, but I thought I'd add, I beleive to lose your RKBA you must have commited a serious crime. Not a bar fight, not copyright infringement, not going 1 MPH above the speed limit.

CliffH
September 3, 2008, 08:09 PM
Learning to correctly, safely, and in an ideal world, responsibly handle a firearm is not an unreasonable burden nor is it an unreasonable expectation.


Yep. And that's where personal responsibility comes in - not state mandated training.

Again, who pays for the training & ammo? And do I have to take a day (or more) off work to attend?

Here's a thought - take drivers ed training annually. Minimum of 12 hours required. You pay for the instructor, test administrator, gas & training area. And you have to take the test on two seperate days, one of 8 hours, the last 4 hours on the next day. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a God-given right.

FYI, the "shoot myself in the foot" statement was a reference to the cop who shot himself in the foot after claiming he was the only one in the room qualified to safely handle a firearm. Having everyone who desires to carry go through state and/or federally mandated firearms training that mimics LE's training may not have the desired effect.

Again, check out the stat's for those states that do not require training before allowing open or concealed carry. I have. You may be surprised - hopefully pleasantly surprised.

Duke Junior
September 3, 2008, 10:51 PM
Duke
"Jimbo,just re-read the 2nd Amendment over again.
Duke over and out,10-7.
Shall not be infringed.
Got it now?"
Jimbo:"Reread the whole constitution again. Put this in context. You also have the right to liberty, and life, but those can be stripped away with something else mentioned in the constitution. It's called "due process". I also urge you to look up "jury of peers".

Rereading the second without re-reading the rest is going to produce some flawed interpretation at best".

All well and good,Jimbo.
See Arfin's post #163.
I wish to remain in good standing.
Best wishes,Duke.

Richbaker
September 3, 2008, 10:54 PM
2-hand Weaver stance provides the best control. Just my opinion....

ChrisVV
September 3, 2008, 11:24 PM
No violent felons,

Stevie-Ray
September 3, 2008, 11:30 PM
Convicted violent felons only. But that's only because they are in prison. When they are released, they should regain all their rights. After all, are they not considered reformed and their debt to society repaid? If not, back to prison where they again lose their rights.

brigadier
September 3, 2008, 11:39 PM
If you support banning convicted felons from owning guns, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite.
By supporting that, you are saying that if you stray a little too close to a county jail building while looking for the right building (easy to do in a nearby county, who has the inmate workers in a small, simple looking building right next to the courts) then they should never be allowed to own a gun again.
Banning repete offenders for violent crimes like rape or violence makes more sense, though with the current registration system, I feel much more comfortable knowing which rapists are armed and with what, then having to gamble. Once you ban something completely, you forfeit control over it. As long as felons are allowed to buy and register guns, the police can much more easily keep an eye on what equipment to commit crimes they do and don't have and respond much more easily to the situation. Though I am strongly against registration because of the dangers it poses with governments, I can honestly admit that this is one of the few gun control measures that actually works.
FWIW, my brother ran in street gangs during the 1990s. At 12 years old, he had a Cobray SMG. As far as I know, it's still in circulation in the black market, though probably trashed by now.

ctdonath
September 3, 2008, 11:46 PM
I'm not losing any sleep by requiring a person to have rudimentary knowlege about the safe use of that deadly weapon he wants to carry around me.
What gives anyone the power to judge ME re: handgun use?
You may want to require evaluation - what are you going to do if I refuse to submit to your requirements? imprison me? do you see where this is going?
Why should I cooperate with you? by hindering my right to "keep and bear" arms (threatening punishment until I submit to your requirements), I count you among those facilitating my enemies (hindering my defense against them).

Guns are not a complex subject, really. Point-and-click interface, whoever it's pointing at when the trigger is pulled may die. Why must you hinder those who understand this obvious fact?

By what Constitutional delegation of power must I submit to you?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?

Stevie-Ray
September 3, 2008, 11:46 PM
If you support banning convicted felons from owning guns, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite.
By supporting that, you are saying that if you stray a little too close to a county jail building while looking for the right building (easy to do in a nearby county, who has the inmate workers in a small, simple looking building right next to the courts) then they should never be allowed to own a gun again.And if that's what you think, then you simply can't read. The choice is convicted VIOLENT felons. That's a mite different than the example you cited.

jackdanson
September 4, 2008, 02:50 AM
Convicted violent felons only. But that's only because they are in prison. When they are released, they should regain all their rights. After all, are they not considered reformed and their debt to society repaid? If not, back to prison where they again lose their rights.

I agree.

Phil DeGraves
September 4, 2008, 09:18 AM
When they are released, they should regain all their rights. After all, are they not considered reformed

No, they are not considered to be reformed. They have simply been out of circulation for awhile. The VAST majority of crime is committed by recidivist criminals.

eflatminor
September 4, 2008, 09:23 AM
The only restriction I would support pertains to children. If a state wants to pass laws restricting the freedom of children (currently defined as under 18), I wouldn't oppose it. ANY other restrictions, I'm against.

It's time for the government to stop meddling in the lives of adult citizens "for our own good".

Phil DeGraves
September 4, 2008, 09:32 AM
I think convicted felons should have their rights restored after they serve their sentence AND after they reimburse their victims.


How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?

Phil DeGraves
September 4, 2008, 09:44 AM
Nobody is saying you must sell to anyone.


If I am an employee of a gun store, I would in fact be REQUIRED to sell a gun to a violent felon under the "no restrictions" rule if he wanted to buy one or be sued for discrimination. And yes, there are some "felonies that aren't worth losing your rights over" but we are talking about VIOLENT felons.

JohnBT
September 4, 2008, 09:45 AM
"If you support banning convicted felons from owning guns, you are either ignorant or a hypocrite."

Actually it's because we're not smart like you. :barf:

I still say convicted felons need to do their time AND pay back their victim or victims. Doing their time might repay their debt to society, but it doesn't do a thing for the loss to the victims in terms of time, money, merchandise, medical bills/treatment, etc.

Why do so many worry about the poor old crooks and not the victims of the crimes?

John

JohnBT
September 4, 2008, 09:49 AM
"How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?"

I'm sure you can think of something if you try a little longer. I'll give you hint to get you started - pay for counseling for the victim or victim's family if the victim is dead. Cash is always a good way to say you are truly sorry.

Hint number two - pay or reimburse the funeral expenses. That's a novel thought, kill somebody and get stuck with the bill for the autopsy and the funeral.

John

TAB
September 4, 2008, 09:52 AM
"How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?"

I'm sure you can think of something if you try a little longer. I'll give you hint to get you started - pay for counseling for the victim or victim's family if the victim is dead. Cash is always a good way to say you are truly sorry.

Hint number two - pay or reimburse the funeral expenses. That's a novel thought, kill somebody and get stuck with the bill for the autopsy and the funeral.

John

ugh yeah, that will make them feel better.

Phil DeGraves
September 4, 2008, 10:48 AM
"How do you "reimburse" a murder victim or a rape victim?"


You give up your rights, just like you took them from someone else. And that means that if you are allowed outside to see the light of day again, you have NO RIGHT OF PROTECTION, legal or otherwise, from predators or relatives of your previous victims.
And NO RIGHT to own a firearm.

If that were the case, more violent criminals would opt to remain in prison where they belong.

Hoppy590
September 4, 2008, 10:52 AM
none.

if your a convicted felon and a "danger to society" enough to be barred from owning a gun, why were you let out of prison?

also if you give them "convicted felon" they will take "misdemeanor" and "accused"

Phil DeGraves
September 4, 2008, 11:08 AM
if your a convicted felon and a "danger to society" enough to be barred from owning a gun, why were you let out of prison?


Who knows? But that doesn't change the fact that they do it.

Phil DeGraves
September 4, 2008, 11:09 AM
kill somebody and get stuck with the bill for the autopsy and the funeral.


And who is going to MAKE them pay?

Hawk
September 4, 2008, 11:15 AM
I find the concept of restricting "junk guns" to be profoundly unsettling.

We mostly stood aside or cheered when Bryco / Jennings / Lorcin went under but it's simply not good practice to throw someone else's baby off the sleigh.

Most of us figured that out with the '94 AWB but there were (and are) still too many that won't fidgit until their own ox is gored. Whether that ox is evil black rifles, Hi-Points and MPA or whatever, everybody's "solid citizen" firearm is somebody else's "junk".

I'd expect that to Josh Sugarman they're all junk and he'll happily work his way from Lorcin to Hi-Point to Barrett to Bushmaster to Blaser to Holland & Holland.

To some that appreciate fine English side-by-sides, your Mossberg 500 is a junk gun.

I personally find MPA's product to be trashy and their advertising to be offensive but at least I've learned a lesson: they have a right to be there so long as they're conducting themselves legally. I'll not be party to tossing them under the bus. I wish I'd figured that out earlier than I did.

Drgong
September 4, 2008, 11:25 AM
If a gun is truely Junk (say Talon) they will be sued out of existance. There IS a need for a sub $200 gun that not used.

Scoutsout2645
September 4, 2008, 12:16 PM
CliffH: I agree with you on no early release, but I see a LOT of people saying variations of "if they're not reformed/safe to be in society, then they shouldn't be released". Since the purpose of prison is punitive NOT reformative this attitude could absolutely mean a life sentence for that first robbery, as opposed to a 4-8 year sentence required by statute.

Stevie-Ray: see above. There's a HUGE difference between "paying your debt" and being "reformed". Say I get sentenced to 5 years for burglarizing a home, and I serve all 5 years inside. The week I'm released I move into my mom's house (your neighbor) and break into your house to get money for my drug habit (based on an actual case I handled).
Did I "pay my debt"? Yes. Am I "reformed"? No. Should I have been released in the first place? You tell me.

As far as the "felon" issue--stop selectively listening. The issue is violent felons. A "bar fight" is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions that I've looked at--unless you're talking about totally losing control and caving the guy's head in or stabbing him with a knife, but then it's no longer "just a bar fight", is it? Theft is a felony, but it's not a violent felony and would therefore not preclude you from RKBA or voting. The Hi-cap-magazine-as-a-felony issue is moot, because (in this hypothetical world we've created) ownership of any weapon and any accessory by a non-violent felon is legal, therefore not a felony.

Brigadier: By supporting that, you are saying that if you stray a little too close to a county jail building while looking for the right building (easy to do in a nearby county, who has the inmate workers in a small, simple looking building right next to the courts) then they should never be allowed to own a gun again--?????
What does this have to do with anything? If you legally possess the gun, how does walking near a convict (or building containingconvicts) suddenly become--anything? If I drink a beer in a restaurant where children are eating, does that constitute "providing alcohol to minors" in your world? I don't mind arguing points, and I know that this can get emotional here, but let's try to keep some rationality please.

Scoutsout2645
September 4, 2008, 12:39 PM
I'm trying to synthesize the stance of those opposing my viewpoint--mainly those advocating no restrictions--so I can understand it better. It seems to boil down to 2 basic stances.
I'm sure you'll let me know where I'm wrong :):

A) Prison should be reformative, not punitive, and prisoners should not be released until they are "safe", even if this means life sentences for lesser crimes. Since all people outside of prison are now "safe" people, anyone can get a firearm.

or:

B) No restrictions at all, despite the fact that the system is what it is. Rapists, robbers and murderers who are released after serving a full sentence should be allowed to own guns as soon as they hit the street. Since my wife and I have guns too, it'll be even and I'm willing to risk my safety and my children to these predators to protect RKBA.

sqlbullet
September 4, 2008, 02:42 PM
This is a role of government question.

Those, like me, who favor no restriction, do not believe the government is endowed with the right to determine who is 'safe' to own a gun and who isn't. Doing so would grant the government the ability to restrict access to arms based on the voice of the people as prescribed by law. I view the point of the second amendment to be that the people do not have a voice in the regulation of this individual right.

I also did not accept the phrase 'violent felons'. I have investigated some of the crimes that can earn you a violent felony card, and not all of them include violence. They also vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Finally, the concept that prisons are meant to be punitive is flawed, at least based on my education in the Fred House Academy in Draper, UT, where I was trained as a correctional officer and graduated as valedictorian of my class. It is a correctional system. There is a punitive aspect due to the fact that inmates must be incarcerated, and in some instances further restricted in their movements, interactions and activities for the safety of themselves and others. However, the end goal of the system is to provide rehabilitation and a support mechanism so the inmate can correct their behavioral problems and rejoin society as a productive member. Inmates are required to successfully complete certain programs to be eligible for parole (in most cases).

However, the recidivism rates indicate flagging success in this endeavor. That is a topic for a different time.

ronto
September 4, 2008, 05:07 PM
First of all, convicted violent felons should not be out of the gray bar hotel.
But if they are, a law won't stop them from having a gun...But it's a good way to lock them up for life without parole if they get caught with one.

yokel
September 4, 2008, 06:16 PM
My view is that we should not be making policies about gun ownership, because they simply donít work. What seems to work is harshly punishing people who use guns illegally.
For instance, if you commit a felony with a gun, you get a mandatory five-year add-on to your prison sentence. Where this has been done there is some evidence gun violence has declined (albeit with some substitution towards crimes being done with other weapons).
These sorts of laws are attractive for many reasons. First, unlike other gun policies, they work. Second, they donít impose a cost on law abiding folks who want to have guns.

Officers'Wife
September 4, 2008, 10:45 PM
Hi Scoutsout,
I'd say that this is a compromise I could live with.

Trouble is you are trying to compromise with people that see a compromise as one more step towards their ultimate goal. Compromise is the new danegeld.

Selena

TheLastBoyScout
September 5, 2008, 09:41 AM
Convicted violent felons only...

But I'd much rather we go back to just hangin' em rather than catch and release... so does that count as "none"?

Eric F
September 5, 2008, 10:28 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=390596
I swung by one of my favorite toy stores last night and had something really weird happened.

Standing around with the owner and a couple of other regulars when this youngish lady comes in and starts timidly looking around. We all look at each other and you know we're all thinking "oh, first timer, let's help". So the two of us back off and the owner (a super friendly and pleasant guy) goes into his whole "make the customer feel welcome and comfortable" routine (which he's very good at).

So the woman says she's interested in a gun and eventually she points to a nice pistol in the case and says "can you tell me about that one"?

So he starts telling her about the CZ line and so forth and the question comes up "so do you have a specific purpose in mind, target shooting or...." and this woman cuts in with "well I really need something in case I have to shoot my husband".

WHAT!

She wasn't making a poor joke, she was serious as a heart attack.

The owner kinda stumbles and says "I'm sorry, what?" and this lady says "well, my husbands getting kinda rough and I think I'm going to have to shoot him".

So the owner kinda stops for a minute and then says, very quietly, "Miss, you just basically told me you are planning to shoot someone. I can't sell you a gun."

(as you can imagine, we're all in HIGH ALERT mode by now)

She gets this weird about-to-cry look in her face and says "but I NEED one and soon".

The owner says "hey lady, I tell you what, I can call the police and you can wait here and when the arrive you can tell them what is going on". Well the lady FREAKS and yells some obscenities at the owner and storms out the door (leaving her purse behind).

So we're all kinda standing there in shock for a few minutes and then the owner says "the hell with this, I'm calling the cops". We agreed that was probably a good idea.

So he phones and tells them the story and that he still has the ladies purse with her ID. The cops say they'll be right over.

AND NOW IT GETS WEIRD!

No sooner does a uniformed officer arrive and start taking notes then this big ANGRY man storms in to the store DEMANDING to see the owner and raising six kinds of hell about how some SOB at THIS STORE refused to sell guns to his wife because she's a woman and that it was her GOD GIVEN RIGHT to be able to buy a gun and somebody better damn well obey the law or they were going to get SUED!

Yup, the woman had gone back to her husband (the one she wants to shoot) and told him some BS story about being turned away for being a female, etc.

So the cop takes this guy aside and gets him calmed down and sets the record straight. Then the guy basically says "Oh, I wonder if she's stopped taking her meds again".

WAIT, WHAT?!?

So this guy was coming in to demand that the owner sell a gun to a person undergoing psychiatric treatment who had expressed a desire to kill him?!? Oh man I can just guess what that household is like!
__________________
Well after reading this I must ask what the
Quote:
what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand

folks think of this? This is my exact arguement for some gun control is necessary.................
here is a good excuse for basic gun control..........now what do you think?

Werewolf
September 5, 2008, 12:29 PM
here is a good excuse for basic gun control..........now what do you think?Not much...

That was a unique situation. The gun store owner stumbled into doing the right thing.

I can't think of any law that would have prevented the lady from buying a gun except one that would be so onerous as to be anathema to law abiding citizens who should not be restricted at all.

jjohnson
September 5, 2008, 12:34 PM
I almost checked "absolutely none."

But... the way I see it, citizens are allowed certain civil rights. Convicted felons surrender some of theirs. They can't vote and have other restrictions.

So... in that respect, they don't enjoy the full rights of citizens. But as far as I'm concerned, for those of us who ARE citizens.... no restrictions. Period.

Eric F
September 5, 2008, 01:05 PM
That was a unique situation. The gun store owner stumbled into doing the right thing.

So for the sake of arguement, By restricting her rights to gun ownership, the right thing was done? HMMM intresting,

any one else want to key in on this?

RobMoore
September 5, 2008, 01:22 PM
I don't think so. Replace "crazy lady" with mild mannered and battered housewife, who because of our jacked up legal system, has no real way of keeping said abusive husband from killing her next time he gets good and drunk, apart from a useless restraining order. She says she needs the gun in case she has to shoot her husband, are you going to tell her no?

Eric F
September 5, 2008, 01:47 PM
Rob thats all fine and I agree, what if she is lieing, and also her husband did say she could have been off her meds...........so is it a lie to cover premeditated murder? Is it ok to sell a gun to some one who just said they are going to kill another person..........my point is you throw the mental health and or premeditated crime thing in there and it messes up the works so to speak.

sqlbullet
September 5, 2008, 01:47 PM
I agree with RobMoore. I own a handgun. I hope I only shoot targets with it. But ultimately, it and my AR-15 were purchased as defense weapons. The range time is for proficiency (and fun).

If this lady had turned up dead in her living room the next day, what would be be saying about the refusal to sell her a gun? What if the law had prohibited her from buying one? We see postings here all the time bemoaning a tragedy where someone wasn't armed and prepared and ended up dead.

Eric F
September 5, 2008, 02:03 PM
If this lady had turned up dead in her living room the next day, what would be be saying about the refusal to sell her a gun? What if the law had prohibited her from buying one? We see postings here all the time bemoaning a tragedy where someone wasn't armed and prepared and ended up dead.


what if ..........If this ladies husband had turned up dead in her living room the next day, what would should he be saying about the refusal to sell her a gun? What if the law had prohibited her from buying one?

Would the store owner now be an accessory knowing she was going to kill her husband?

We could what if all day long, but the facts are this she said she might have to kill her husband, Her husband said she in taking"meds" this thing can go either way. Caution to the wind either for or against gun control because once we start down this slipery slope its really hard to get back to the starting point.

In this case I think everything went as well as it could have, but for other mental cases Cho at VT being the freshest on my mind, should people like him be allowed to have firearms. I think there could be a better system and rules than currently on the books.

hardwarehacker
September 5, 2008, 04:29 PM
We should be able to arm ourselves for self defense and for sport. That right should belong to anyone who is mature enough and sane enough to be entrusted with lethal force. Those who exercise this right need to understand the potential consequences of what they are doing and be held accountable for their actions while armed.

If someone actively demonstrates that they are a threat to others, I think their right should be suspended until they actively demonstrate that they can again be trusted with firearms.

Many posts have said that prohibiting convicted violent felons from having guns won't work because they will always get them on the street. When they do, they become 'felons in possession' and can be taken off that street again. There should be a well defined legal path by which they can regain those rights, but they need to make the effort.

Someone young enough to be tried and sentenced as a juvenile should not be on the loose with firearms. Most juvenile sentences end the day the criminal becomes an adult. Don't know about you, but I am not thrilled by the idea of our local gang-banger 'car club' set toting uzis in any case.

Psychologists and therapists are in some cases expected to report clients who threaten suicide. Anyone who, by their own words or actions, makes clear that they intend to kill others should be disarmed, at least temporarily. If they can be spotted before they go fugoid, there is no excuse for letting them carry out their threats.

I like the post by streakr on page two of this thread. Issue gun-owner licenses like drivers' licenses. Available to anyone who is willing to demonstrate very basic competence, understands the laws, and formally accepts responsibility. After that, no need for transfer checks, no records of who owns how many of what or where they got them. Why not expect someone who wants to carry a lethal weapon to make at least as much effort as someone who wants to drive a car?

Scoutsout2645
September 5, 2008, 11:21 PM
Officer's Wife:
Trouble is you are trying to compromise with people that see a compromise as one more step towards their ultimate goal
Let me preface my statements by saying that, although I see an advantage in national legislation since it stops the whole "I can do X here, but can I do X there?" problem, I am a firm believer in State's rights. In your state, CCW may not be a problem--your voters agree with it, are pro-gun, whatever--so these conditions would never come into play. They are what I would like but since the majority of your voters want a more liberal policy, that's what you have.

In my state, and other anti- states, the majority of the voters don't want CCW. My premise is: how do we get CCW back on the table in a way that satisfies the majority in these states? In this case, my suggestions are compromises, but they are compromises towards our goal instead of away from it.

To repeat myself--do we want to expand our rights and carry the cause to the land of the antis, or do we simply want to entrench ourselves in a defensive position to keep the places that are already on our side? Wars are never won by staying defensive, and not trying new tactics simply allows the antis to anticipate what our fight will be from day 1.

Crazy Fingers
September 5, 2008, 11:39 PM
Come on down to South Florida and tell me you want every Cholo ganster open carrying. No sir, I think the CWP process that Florida has in place is just fine.

If you enjoyed reading about "What gun control measures do you support?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!