Arkansas Paul
Member
No worries. I definitely agree with you that all crimes and criminals are not equal. I don't think non-violent crimes should carry a prohibition on firearms either.
Prohibited Persons Beliefs
- Thread starter Bruno2
- Start date
- Status
No worries. I definitely agree with you that all crimes and criminals are not equal. I don't think non-violent crimes should carry a prohibition on firearms either.
Bruno2
Member
So there needs to be an example? A felony charge is a felony charge and the 4473 denies you the right to purchase a firearm. Sorry, I don't understand if you are going along with someone being denied the right to own a firearm over that charge or saying since it hasn't happened to your knowledge that its a non starter?
The purpose of the thread is to at least move it up to 12,455 or 12,454 on your list of things to care about.
alsaqr
Member
It's the same on my list. i'm secure in the fact that felons will not be legally packing any time soon.
Texan Scott
Member
Felony DUI is NOT attempted murder (there's no intent to kill). It's an act of reckless endangermemt of the public similar to Reckless Discharge of a Firearm. I have no problem with taking guns from someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that alcohol flips his idiot switch in ways that commonly kill others.
I don't think your analogy is valid. It's a comparison between driving drunk on public roads with merely owning a firearm. You'd have to be comparing driving drunk on public roads to firing rounds off in public (be it up in the air, into the ground, where ever) to have a valid analogy IMHO.
There's really no laws restricting the mere purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol on private land that I'm aware of. You just have to be over 21. No bans on "high capacity" alcohol, no background check to make sure the buyer doesn't have a history of DUI arrests, no requirement to prove a "need" to the state, nothing prohibiting transfers between two individuals, no safe storage requirements, nothing.
Yet DUIs alone killed 10,228 people in 2010 (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). I'm not going to even get into all the alcohol related rapes, sexual assaults, accidents, domestic violence, and so on.
Maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough, but I can't think of a single benefit to society from alcohol use. I can point to the DOJ's stat of 116,000 defensive gun uses a year quite quickly (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf), but if alcohol has a saving grace like that it escapes me at the moment.
The thing is we've tried a ban on alcohol, and not only didn't it work but the homicide rate took a nasty upward spike. We're trying a ban on drugs, and I'd have to come to the same conclusion about it as the one on alcohol. I disagree with both bans on principle.
Deltaboy1984
Member
I agree
mastiffhound
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 420
Felons can get guns in some states. If they file for a relief from weapons disability. I read an article about it awhile ago after the anti-gun crowd said felons can get guns legally. You need to have no violent offenses, have lived a law abiding life since you were released or off of probation, and you have to look like you will continue to live a law abiding life. I don't know how long as far as time till you can file.
I don't feel bad to say what I say next. Murderers, pedophiles, and rapists should never be released. You guys are right about that. They should be put to death, period. No release, just a slow walk to the gas chamber. I've said this before. I've lost a brother to murder twice now. The other two have happened to family members. It's pain that never ends, why should they get a chance to re-offend? Or get three square meals a day and a warm or air conditioned place to sleep. I've seen people do worse to dogs, 99% of those dogs have done nothing wrong to deserve it either. What do we do with that 1% of dogs who are vicious, dangerous, and violent you ask? It's called euthanasia.
We like to fancy ourselves as the civilized world. Maybe that's how it went so wrong. If executions didn't curb these types of offenders it would take them off of the street and out of the gene pool permanently. After awhile crime rates would drop. Unfortunately the bleeding hearts would say that these types can fixed, they shouldn't be put down. 237 years of United States law proves they are wrong. As far as other crimes are concerned, if the person has proven that they haven't and won't commit another crime then let them have their rights back. They're free citizens again so all their rights should be reinstated after they have proven themselves.
I don't feel bad to say what I say next. Murderers, pedophiles, and rapists should never be released. You guys are right about that. They should be put to death, period. No release, just a slow walk to the gas chamber. I've said this before. I've lost a brother to murder twice now. The other two have happened to family members. It's pain that never ends, why should they get a chance to re-offend? Or get three square meals a day and a warm or air conditioned place to sleep. I've seen people do worse to dogs, 99% of those dogs have done nothing wrong to deserve it either. What do we do with that 1% of dogs who are vicious, dangerous, and violent you ask? It's called euthanasia.
We like to fancy ourselves as the civilized world. Maybe that's how it went so wrong. If executions didn't curb these types of offenders it would take them off of the street and out of the gene pool permanently. After awhile crime rates would drop. Unfortunately the bleeding hearts would say that these types can fixed, they shouldn't be put down. 237 years of United States law proves they are wrong. As far as other crimes are concerned, if the person has proven that they haven't and won't commit another crime then let them have their rights back. They're free citizens again so all their rights should be reinstated after they have proven themselves.
beatledog7
Member
My take, FWIW:
First, as I've said many times on THR, someone who can't be trusted with a gun must not be trusted to mingle in free society because if he or she is free to mingle, he or she will be able to obtain a gun, laws against it notwithstanding. You keep guns away from bad risks by controlling those risky people, not by stripping the innocent of rights and freedom.
Second, we have far too many laws that punish people for doing something that didn't cause any harm, and thus we have far too many people taking up space in prison that ought to be used to house those who really belong there. For example:
-- Marijuana ought to be legalized at the federal level and taxed by the states, and people who market marijuana ought to be getting rich and hiring people to help them instead of going to prison.
-- As for DUI laws, there is far less risk in having a couple of beers with a pizza then driving home there is in taking an antihistamine then driving or working a long day then trying to drive through the night. Yet the first is probably illegal and certainly stigmatized, and the latter two are legal and socially acceptable.
Third, we are far too willing to allow death row inmates to linger and linger. Our legal system, in that regard, is a joke. Sentenced to death ought to mean just what it says: the person's execution is certain and expedient. The argument that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment is technically accurate, but only because we don't take the "death" part seriously.
First, as I've said many times on THR, someone who can't be trusted with a gun must not be trusted to mingle in free society because if he or she is free to mingle, he or she will be able to obtain a gun, laws against it notwithstanding. You keep guns away from bad risks by controlling those risky people, not by stripping the innocent of rights and freedom.
Second, we have far too many laws that punish people for doing something that didn't cause any harm, and thus we have far too many people taking up space in prison that ought to be used to house those who really belong there. For example:
-- Marijuana ought to be legalized at the federal level and taxed by the states, and people who market marijuana ought to be getting rich and hiring people to help them instead of going to prison.
-- As for DUI laws, there is far less risk in having a couple of beers with a pizza then driving home there is in taking an antihistamine then driving or working a long day then trying to drive through the night. Yet the first is probably illegal and certainly stigmatized, and the latter two are legal and socially acceptable.
Third, we are far too willing to allow death row inmates to linger and linger. Our legal system, in that regard, is a joke. Sentenced to death ought to mean just what it says: the person's execution is certain and expedient. The argument that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment is technically accurate, but only because we don't take the "death" part seriously.
nulook45
Member
You know
As a prohibited person i can tell you from first hand experience its all a sham to keep judges and lawers busy . I was originaly charged in 2005 with a misdemeanor domestic violence that was dropped and reduced to disorderly conduct . the judge told me he had to charge me with something so disorderly conduct was it . Truth is i got into a shouting match with my ex wife and i was trying to leave and the family didnt want me to go. the police were called and i went to jail for 5 days before seeing a judge and was denyed an attorny while i was in jail. Yet i was the one that had to be charged with something to justify everything Now keep in mind disorderly conduct is not domestic violence ok . When i try to pass a nics check i get delayed or denied every time and have to jump thru the hoops of apealing the denial which then takes 6 months at a time gun dealer doesnt want to wait 6 months to keep there books open so i miss out on alot of deals but i always get aproved . now funny thing is one of my good friends is the police cheif and he knows about it . the state doesnt care because i wasnt convicted of a disqualifying offense but as far as nics is concerned being charged is good enough wither or not your found guilty.!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:All because of a simple argument . In Ohio telling your spouse you wish she or he was dead and they belive you is grounds for a DV charge.
As a prohibited person i can tell you from first hand experience its all a sham to keep judges and lawers busy . I was originaly charged in 2005 with a misdemeanor domestic violence that was dropped and reduced to disorderly conduct . the judge told me he had to charge me with something so disorderly conduct was it . Truth is i got into a shouting match with my ex wife and i was trying to leave and the family didnt want me to go. the police were called and i went to jail for 5 days before seeing a judge and was denyed an attorny while i was in jail. Yet i was the one that had to be charged with something to justify everything Now keep in mind disorderly conduct is not domestic violence ok . When i try to pass a nics check i get delayed or denied every time and have to jump thru the hoops of apealing the denial which then takes 6 months at a time gun dealer doesnt want to wait 6 months to keep there books open so i miss out on alot of deals but i always get aproved . now funny thing is one of my good friends is the police cheif and he knows about it . the state doesnt care because i wasnt convicted of a disqualifying offense but as far as nics is concerned being charged is good enough wither or not your found guilty.!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:All because of a simple argument . In Ohio telling your spouse you wish she or he was dead and they belive you is grounds for a DV charge.
denton
Member
Actually, something a lot like that happened to Aaron Schwartz. He was legally hounded to the point that he committed suicide. His felony was violating terms of use on a computer system.
Bruno2
Member
I am willing to bet there are hundreds upon hundreds of stories just like yours. I buy at a gun shop 30 miles from my house. It's just my store. I like and trust the people there. It's a mom and pop store as well so I don't mind giving them my money like Wally World or Dick's. I get delayed almost every time I buy a new gun there. Then it's an extra 60 miles round trip and couple of hours out of my life that I will never get back.
"As for DUI laws, there is far less risk in having a couple of beers with a pizza then driving home there is in taking an antihistamine then driving or working a long day then trying to drive"
A) a DUI is not a felony... at least not your first DUI (unless you get into an accident an injure someone badly)
B) "a couple of beers" in a reasonable timeframe (3 hours) is also nowhere near the DUI limit. Impaired yes. DUI - no.
C) not sure what your antihistamine example is supposed to show.... taking one Zyrtec/Claratin does NOT have the same impairment as "a couple of beers"
Overall I'm pretty baffled how people here defend DUIs... if you get behind the wheel and are over the limit (enough to be charged with a DUI !) that's a BIG, BIG WARNING shot.
now if you are stupid / ignorant enough to do this over and over again and get charged with multiple DUIs and it gets a felony... sorry... I do NOT feel bad at all about you loosing the right to own guns....
A) a DUI is not a felony... at least not your first DUI (unless you get into an accident an injure someone badly)
B) "a couple of beers" in a reasonable timeframe (3 hours) is also nowhere near the DUI limit. Impaired yes. DUI - no.
C) not sure what your antihistamine example is supposed to show.... taking one Zyrtec/Claratin does NOT have the same impairment as "a couple of beers"
Overall I'm pretty baffled how people here defend DUIs... if you get behind the wheel and are over the limit (enough to be charged with a DUI !) that's a BIG, BIG WARNING shot.
now if you are stupid / ignorant enough to do this over and over again and get charged with multiple DUIs and it gets a felony... sorry... I do NOT feel bad at all about you loosing the right to own guns....
we are not amused
Member
While I agree that there are people who shouldn't have guns, I am against the blanket prohibitions that current law imposes.
Non-violent offenders should be exempt and domestic violence offenders should be evaluated on the actual circumstances, not blanket prohibitions,
I am saddened, but not shocked about the acceptance by members of this forum, that civil rights can be arbitrarily denied for life with little chance for review.
Suppose the civil right being denied was freedom of speech? Or the right against self incrimination? Or the denial of the need for search warrants? Or reasonable bail, Habeas Corpus, or due process?
How many of you would be okay with that?
And don't forget that the prohibition also extends to family members if they happen to live under the same roof. How's that for punishing the innocent?
Some have pointed out just how arbitrary and casual felony laws are, I can't add much to that, other than to agree with them.
Personally, I don't care if felons can buy weapons, if they want them for criminal purposes, they don't seem to have any problem getting them. If they don't want them for criminal purposes, then why should they be prohibited from having them?
I think that members of this forum really need to start thinking about the entire Bill of Rights, not just the Second. Look at the mass lock down in Watertown Massachusetts.
Is it legal for the police to order people into their homes under threat of arrest without a declaration of Martial Law? And what about ordering them out of their homes at gun point, then searching those homes, without a warrant?
What about college speech codes, or the current push to restrict Christians in the military?
We need to start standing up for all our Civil Rights, because they are slowly being eroded away.
I strongly believe every Citizen should own a weapon.
Non-violent offenders should be exempt and domestic violence offenders should be evaluated on the actual circumstances, not blanket prohibitions,
I am saddened, but not shocked about the acceptance by members of this forum, that civil rights can be arbitrarily denied for life with little chance for review.
Suppose the civil right being denied was freedom of speech? Or the right against self incrimination? Or the denial of the need for search warrants? Or reasonable bail, Habeas Corpus, or due process?
How many of you would be okay with that?
And don't forget that the prohibition also extends to family members if they happen to live under the same roof. How's that for punishing the innocent?
Some have pointed out just how arbitrary and casual felony laws are, I can't add much to that, other than to agree with them.
Personally, I don't care if felons can buy weapons, if they want them for criminal purposes, they don't seem to have any problem getting them. If they don't want them for criminal purposes, then why should they be prohibited from having them?
I think that members of this forum really need to start thinking about the entire Bill of Rights, not just the Second. Look at the mass lock down in Watertown Massachusetts.
Is it legal for the police to order people into their homes under threat of arrest without a declaration of Martial Law? And what about ordering them out of their homes at gun point, then searching those homes, without a warrant?
What about college speech codes, or the current push to restrict Christians in the military?
We need to start standing up for all our Civil Rights, because they are slowly being eroded away.
I strongly believe every Citizen should own a weapon.
"Personally, I don't care if felons can buy weapons, if they want them for criminal purposes, they don't seem to have any problem getting them. If they don't want them for criminal purposes, then why should they be prohibited from having them?"
So a convicted felon should be able to legally buy weapons unless they want to use them for criminal purposes - which of course we don't know until it happens :banghead: but we know that the person (felon) has committed a SERIOUS offense(s) in the past, had his day in court (with attorney and due process) and got convicted. lovely.
and I repeat it again: getting a felony conviction for anything is not easy. especially the way our courts operate.
smoking a joint? not a felony. being caught with a lot of weed in your car with the "intent to distribute" is a felony in many states. that being said: how about non-violent crimes where folks were distributing meth/crack/cocaine? Do we want to arm these drug dealers as well?
So a convicted felon should be able to legally buy weapons unless they want to use them for criminal purposes - which of course we don't know until it happens :banghead: but we know that the person (felon) has committed a SERIOUS offense(s) in the past, had his day in court (with attorney and due process) and got convicted. lovely.
and I repeat it again: getting a felony conviction for anything is not easy. especially the way our courts operate.
smoking a joint? not a felony. being caught with a lot of weed in your car with the "intent to distribute" is a felony in many states. that being said: how about non-violent crimes where folks were distributing meth/crack/cocaine? Do we want to arm these drug dealers as well?
Well --
Setting penalties for crimes is generally within the purview of the various legislatures. They do so within the framework of the legislative process, as part of which interested parties on both sides of the question make their views known. And politicians who support unpopular positions become vulnerable to losing their jobs.
Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm not bothered by persons convicted of serious or violent crimes not being able to legally possess guns.
Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a serious or violent crime is loss of gun rights.
That attribute of a gun makes it a particularly useful tool well adapted to evil applications, such as assuring compliance of a victim, by someone so inclined. Similarly, a gun is a particularly useful tool well adapted to worthwhile purposes, such as defending one's family, by a good person.
Perhaps other tools (clubs, knives, etc.) when chosen by an evil person to further his criminal purposes might also increase his capacity to do evil. So if our legislatures tack on additional punishment for using those tools, I certainly wouldn't complain.
But if the gun is singled out, that's okay with me too. A gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool for delivering force (for good or evil). That's of course why we all prefer guns for our own self defense.
Except that's not what we are talking about here. It's entirely possible to think differently about different subjects, even if you might think those subjects are loosely related.we are not amused said:
Not true. One may still legally possess a gun even if he or she lives with a prohibited person. He or she must merely secure the gun so that the prohibited person doesn't have access -- i. e., in a safe to which the prohibited person doesn't have a key or combination.we are not amused said:
"Arbitrary" is often in the eyes of the beholder.we are not amused said:
Setting penalties for crimes is generally within the purview of the various legislatures. They do so within the framework of the legislative process, as part of which interested parties on both sides of the question make their views known. And politicians who support unpopular positions become vulnerable to losing their jobs.
And I have no problem with them being prohibited from possessing guns.we are not amused said:
Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm not bothered by persons convicted of serious or violent crimes not being able to legally possess guns.
Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a serious or violent crime is loss of gun rights.
The reality is that people have been intentionally killed in all sorts of ways, with all sorts of improvised weapons and as the result of all sorts of fortuitous circumstances. That doesn't change the fact that a gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool for the projection of significant force at a distance.ngnrd said:
That attribute of a gun makes it a particularly useful tool well adapted to evil applications, such as assuring compliance of a victim, by someone so inclined. Similarly, a gun is a particularly useful tool well adapted to worthwhile purposes, such as defending one's family, by a good person.
Perhaps other tools (clubs, knives, etc.) when chosen by an evil person to further his criminal purposes might also increase his capacity to do evil. So if our legislatures tack on additional punishment for using those tools, I certainly wouldn't complain.
But if the gun is singled out, that's okay with me too. A gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool for delivering force (for good or evil). That's of course why we all prefer guns for our own self defense.
beatledog7
Member
I don't read any of this as defending DUIs. I read some of it as asking the legitimate question, "Why do we have laws that punish people for doing something that harmed nobody?" We do live, after, in a society that supposedly cannot punish a person for something it thinks he might do. Our current gun laws do this anyway, do they not? And don't DUI laws as well, in a way?
I'm not advocating having a couple of beers with a pizza then driving. I'm simply saying that there are myriad ways that drivers become impaired, but only the ones involving alcohol (and now the use of cell phones in many states) are illegal. That makes no sense. It makes sense to weed out people who would drive impaired, and know they're doing it, and make sure they cannot drive. That could mean incarceration, in which case they would surely not have access to guns. OTOH, it might be accomplished by simply impounding that person's motor vehicles and collecting his or her license. Yes, such a person could still steal a car, but he or she could not obtain access to one legally.
If you want to stop people from driving impaired, which is by and large a good idea, then the way to do it is to create an in-car system that keeps a car from starting and dials the police if its would-be driver cannot pass certain "alertness/sobriety" tests. The technology can't be that hard, and doing this would achieve actual prevention. Circumventing it would be possible, of course, but what law was ever made hasn't been gotten around by those with the means?
We all know most drunk drivers are not caught, and that many who are caught have already hurt someone. Those truths alone prove that current DUI laws don't really work. They stop some people from driving drunk, but mostly the people who are unlikely to drive drunk whether there is a law or not.
In any case, we ought to be asking, "What's a DUI got to do with a person's ownership of a firearm? What does tax evasion have to do with it? Or wire fraud?" If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, only those who commit violence with a gun meet the criteria for being denied a gun. The way things are going in DC, we have to be very careful advocating that all felons should lose their gun rights, as the next time we turn around we all might be instant felons at the stroke of King Barrack's mighty autopen.
I'm not advocating having a couple of beers with a pizza then driving. I'm simply saying that there are myriad ways that drivers become impaired, but only the ones involving alcohol (and now the use of cell phones in many states) are illegal. That makes no sense. It makes sense to weed out people who would drive impaired, and know they're doing it, and make sure they cannot drive. That could mean incarceration, in which case they would surely not have access to guns. OTOH, it might be accomplished by simply impounding that person's motor vehicles and collecting his or her license. Yes, such a person could still steal a car, but he or she could not obtain access to one legally.
If you want to stop people from driving impaired, which is by and large a good idea, then the way to do it is to create an in-car system that keeps a car from starting and dials the police if its would-be driver cannot pass certain "alertness/sobriety" tests. The technology can't be that hard, and doing this would achieve actual prevention. Circumventing it would be possible, of course, but what law was ever made hasn't been gotten around by those with the means?
We all know most drunk drivers are not caught, and that many who are caught have already hurt someone. Those truths alone prove that current DUI laws don't really work. They stop some people from driving drunk, but mostly the people who are unlikely to drive drunk whether there is a law or not.
In any case, we ought to be asking, "What's a DUI got to do with a person's ownership of a firearm? What does tax evasion have to do with it? Or wire fraud?" If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, only those who commit violence with a gun meet the criteria for being denied a gun. The way things are going in DC, we have to be very careful advocating that all felons should lose their gun rights, as the next time we turn around we all might be instant felons at the stroke of King Barrack's mighty autopen.
ngnrd
Member
Frank, thanks for taking the time to put together a logical and coherent argument supporting your position. I understand your position, but I do not agree with either your conclusion, or the premises on which you based that conclusion.
I would offer a rebuttal, but there is nothing more I can say on the subject. So, I will leave you with this. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Or, in other words, those willing to restrict the natural rights of society at large, in an attempt to protect the individuals that make up that society, deserve neither rights nor protection.
I would offer a rebuttal, but there is nothing more I can say on the subject. So, I will leave you with this. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Or, in other words, those willing to restrict the natural rights of society at large, in an attempt to protect the individuals that make up that society, deserve neither rights nor protection.
Bruno2
Member
Frank, no offense , but I am willing to bet a lot of people in your area share the same beliefs.
First reply got it right
Well, I see you're reduced to the usual cliches.ngnrd said:
Actually, I think a lot of people throughout this country share my beliefs -- even conservatives and even gun owners. That's why the law is as it is.Bruno2 said:
Our system offers you opportunities to change the law. The courts are open for business, so you could support judicial challenge of current law. And if you have the political power and the broad enough support of the body politic, there is a legislative solution to laws to which you object.
If the law were to change though either process, it wouldn't bother me either. That's how our system is supposed to work. However, at this time I serious doubt you could muster the political clout for to change things in Congress, nor do I think you'd be likely to make any headway in court.
we are not amused
Member
So we have all the laws on the books denying people the right to have a gun. How well are they working?
Are you in favor of universal background checks?
Perhaps needing to show cause to possess a firearm? After all, "A gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool for delivering force." Perhaps too good for civilian control?
I believe in "Natural Rights". I support the codification of those Rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and additional Amendments. I do not think one is necessarily inferior to another. Yes, that is my opinion, nor do I think they are "loosely related".
So go ahead and label me as a "right-wing whacko", but I do believe in the individual rights granted to us by our creator, and (supposedly) guaranteed to us by our Constitution.
I don't think reminding people, that restricting the rights of individuals to exercise their Second Amendment Rights, are not the only rights that are slowly being eroded away, is a bad idea.
Plus the "usual cliché" about surrendering a little freedom, for a little security, is a very important principle to at least some people, (including me!) not just some dumb cliché!
:banghead:we are not amused
Member
"Personally, I don't care if felons can buy weapons, if they want them for criminal purposes, they don't seem to have any problem getting them. If they don't want them for criminal purposes, then why should they be prohibited from having them?"
So a convicted felon should be able to legally buy weapons unless they want to use them for criminal purposes - which of course we don't know until it happens :banghead: but we know that the person (felon) has committed a SERIOUS offense(s) in the past, had his day in court (with attorney and due process) and got convicted. lovely.
and I repeat it again: getting a felony conviction for anything is not easy. especially the way our courts operate.
smoking a joint? not a felony. being caught with a lot of weed in your car with the "intent to distribute" is a felony in many states. that being said: how about non-violent crimes where folks were distributing meth/crack/cocaine? Do we want to arm these drug dealers as well?
Yes, our current laws keeping guns out of the hands of criminals are working sooo well, aren't they!
^^^
No. it's not perfect. But you are saying that felons are able to get guns illegally anyway - therefore it would make no difference if we allow them to get guns legally and no longer make them a prohibited person.
I don't even pretend that this makes any sense at all...
Kinda like saying: despite DUI laws people still drive drunk...so the heck with these laws and enforcement...let's legalize drunk driving...
No. it's not perfect. But you are saying that felons are able to get guns illegally anyway - therefore it would make no difference if we allow them to get guns legally and no longer make them a prohibited person.
I don't even pretend that this makes any sense at all...
Kinda like saying: despite DUI laws people still drive drunk...so the heck with these laws and enforcement...let's legalize drunk driving...
Bruno2
Member
No doubt some people throughout the country share you beliefs, but it doesn't seem to be the majority. The law is as it is b/c some politicians stuck their necks out thinking your assumption was right , but lost their jobs over it. The fear of losing their jobs showed up again this go around with the UBC bills. That's why it didn't pass. Repealing these laws doesn't seem to get the attention because after a couple of generations people become accustomed to the idea and it no longer seems out of place.
So if the law is as it is for reasons you listed then why didn't the UBC bill pass?
we are not amused
Member
It kind of depends on what your goal is. To end Drunk driving, or to make it harder for responsible people to drink. To many people against drunk driving, making it more difficult to get a drink is a good thing.
Is the purpose of the background checks to make it harder for dangerous people to obtain guns, or is it to make it harder for people in general to get guns.
Despite all the absolutism about violent offenders not being permitted to get guns, not all felons are violent. Nor are only felons prohibited. Ask someone who got into a fight with his domestic partner or even a college roommate. Something that ranks as a minor misdemeanor can make you a prohibited person for life. Yet the law treats them the same as a mass murderer. Also many violations of Government environmental regulations are felonies, and it is not always clear in advance what the rules mean. Should those people be prohibited too?
My point is that not all prohibited people are a danger to society, or should have their civil rights restricted for life.
My other point is that do you really believe that a violent criminal, intent on getting a gun, can't, or is even severely inconvenienced by the current law. If so, can you point to any evidence that this is so?
So what is the point of the background checks? I will point out that we got along just fine without them for two hundred and twenty two years, I will also point out we got along just fine without the Gun Control Act of 1968, for a hundred and ninety eight years. Perhaps, its time to do away with both.
- Status
Similar threads
