Who should be denied the right to own guns?

Substance abusers, one of the last people I want coming after me is some dude hyped up on meth trying to get money for his/her next fix, especially if they had gun. Now I think if you have documented clean for so many years then you should be able to own a firearm again. But until then when the chances of relapse are great and you do the worst thing that could happen to other people and yourself is to is use that gun.

Felons....

I do not think convicted felons violent or not should be allowed to own or use firearms. When you commit some crime on the level of a felony, you should lose certain rights & privileges as a US citizen.
If you start to change or distort some of these laws, then what would deter people from being involved in these crimes(murder, robbery, rape, sex crimes, fraud, theft, etc).
Some say; "only violent felons should be in prison or jail" & that's true but if you allow felons to vote, carry guns or hunt, have business or liquor licenses, etc then you negate the reasons to maintain law & order in society.

I'd add that the same should apply to those with serious mental health problems. In my state, medical doctors & therapists can not ask about firearms/CCW by law. The issues of gun ownership or concealed carry can not be subjects in adoption or foster care programs either by state law, .
That seems fair but IMO, those who seek help for major problems should not carry loaded guns around or put themselves in situations where they could have a violent outburst.
Finally, I can say that not all policies or laws are fair or properly enforced. My city police department has a "crime free" housing program with several property management companies in the area. One of the conditions for the residents is they can not have any arrests for any reason.
Is that fair? No. Would criminal court convictions or violations of court orders be fair? Yes. But to eliminate possible tenants based on being accused of a crime & adjudicated not guilty(or have all charges cut & the case closed) is discrimination. The late Nelson Mandela could not live in this housing program, but he could be president of South Africa.
As posted, we don't live in a perfect world but there are things we can stand up against if we take issue with it.

No person who is free on the streets should have any of their rights restricted.

Big problem here. We do not have enough money to keep those who should be locked up, locked up.

We have drivers going crazy with road rage causing deadly harm and just because they are not locked up it makes it OK for them to possess a firearm.

Yup, common sense is in short supply.

I am fine with the use of a WEAPON in a violent crime adding to the sentencing, but that's it. For example, the difference between burglary and armed robbery, or assault vs. assault with a deadly weapon. However, if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a gun...

THEY SHOULD ALSO BE TOO DANGEROUS TO BE ALLOWED IN PUBLIC!

That's what our prison system is for, to keep people who are a threat to public safety out of the public so they are no longer a threat. It's not about rehabilitation. If we can rehab them while they're in there, that's great. But the primary purpose is to say "we don't trust you to be in our society, so you are removed from it."

As it stands, all of these people listed (felons, fugitives, dishonorable dischargees, violent offenders, restraining order collectors, mentally ill (to include addicts), and aliens, have these options available to them:

• Illegally purchase a gun on the black market
• Steal a gun
• Use a knife (much less controlled, or you can grab one from someone's kitchen after breaking into their house)
• Use a carpentry tool or power tool
• Use sports equipment, like a golf club or baseball bat
• Use a Bruce Lee style weapon (i.e. staff, nunchucka, etc)
• Use any of the improvised weapons that are suggested in the "self defense if you don't have a gun" courses, like a sturdy umbrella, walking stick, or flashlight
• Simply be bigger, faster, stronger, or better trained in physical combat than the people they're targeting (such as a petite young college student or an elderly person)
• Use a weapon from the environment, such as a big stick or broken bottle
• Have friends with them when they attack you

The problem isn't their access to guns. It's their access to people.
Take people who are not trustworthy enough to have a gun, and put them in prison until they are trustworthy enough to be in society.

I would add at least one more to the list: *Those with mental facilities which have declined to the point of dangerous incompetence.

I have some experience with this with family members and with myself. Most of us should eventually stop driving just as many of us should stop handling firearms. I'm not to that point yet but I know I will be someday and it may not be far away. As that day approaches I'll know when to jump out. But... I often don't recognize when I should stop posting in forums.

The real problem is that some folks don't recognize, or refuse to accept, their limitations. I think we've all seen this far too many times. I guess some folks just take things too hard.

I didn't vote because I'm on the fence regarding some of the items listed.

jcwit said:

Big problem here. We do not have enough money to keep those who should be locked up, locked up.

We have drivers going crazy with road rage causing deadly harm and just because they are not locked up it makes it OK for them to possess a firearm.

Yup, common sense is in short supply.

Click to expand...

For the most part I agree, and yet the US incarcerates a higher percentage of our population than any other country in the world. Looking to other countries for ideas isn't easy in this case, since few other countries have our level of access to firearms or other freedoms.

I will confess to not voting in the poll because I don't have an easy answer. I'm not sure something this complicated can truly be reduced to a checklist of flow chart.

You can't hold up a bank, or invade someone's home with an umbrella, a power tool or any of the other things you mentioned. Makes your argument rather moot, and LARGE.
You ever hear of a car jacking with a broken bottle. Come on this is sillier than the question.
We need more tent prisons out in the Desert like Sherriff Joe has. Not too many bad guys will want to go to a facility with no Air conditioning, Cable TV, and a Gym, where they have to work all day in the 100 degree heat. There is your rehabilitation. These jails are like clubs for gangs, they hang out and get tattoos while running drugs to the ones who aren't hooked up.
Ever visit a real Prison, I have been to many, some of the guys I grew up with, chose the worn road. One time at the Correctional Facility, Downstate, they couldn't even find the guy I went to visit, the guard said last time I saw Phil, he was on the handball court. I answered, , if he's playing golf, I'll come back tomorrow, He just laughed.
If you have an OC#, you are untouchable there and the guards do whatever they are asked to do, These guys have a long reach, and if you want your family left alone you do what these gangs want. I did have to check my gun, in a locker, and when I asked for a 2nd prisoner, they got a little teste', they were both arrested for the same crime, one plead guilty and took a plea, the other plead innocent, "to the same charges", Guess who did more time, The one who plead guilty, the other one beat it on the appeal, and he was guilty. Talk about a screwed up system, you have no idea. The one who had the 100 grand for the best appeals attorney, was out in a year, the other did 3 or 4.
If you have money you don't serve time.

By the way the reason any of these guys is in jail, is that they don't have big bucks to get out, Appeals attorneys cost ten times what regular lawyers can cost. But the large percent of the really good ones, will find a flaw in the case, like the judge putting his 2 cents in during the trial, it's enough to get the whole thing thrown out.
In my friends case the judge got frustrated and because he couldn't prove conspiracy, he charged them with "Facilitation", guess what, that's illegal, the judge can't charge the defendant only the state, in this case. Overturned, but the poor sob who took the 5 year plea, did 3-4 years even though the other guy walked. Think you have been around?
Only defense attorneys and Prosecutors know this stuff goes on. The regular guy only finds out if he knows people who have gone through it, or been there themselves.
As a footnote, let me just say that Phil, died in his 928 Porshe while stopped at a stop sign after getting off the Clearview expressway in Bayside queens, around 1985, He caught a 45 under the armpit, and a 12 gauge took off half his head. It was a closed casket of course, nothing was ever in the papers about it, he had left a bunch of us 15 minutes earlier in a club In Queens. The rumor was he owed the wrong people a bunch of money.
Regardless of what he was, to his friends he was a great guy. I met him as a business man, didn't know what he did for 2 years, by then it didn't matter as long as he didn't do it when he was out with us.
He usually had a hi Power around. Guns could be picked up in a matter of minutes in NY. It's the biggest load of Bull you ever saw. ALL these guys had guns, and lawyers who could get them off any charges that stemmed from having one.
But if your asking if they should have them, hell no they shouldn't, they are violent SOB's who would shoot you in a second if they even thought you were disrespecting them, You would give a person like that a gun, there is something wrong with you.

Felons not being allowed the RKBA? Oh?

Nothing "flawed" about the poll except your opinion of it.

Click to expand...

It's not my opinion, it's the law in 1967 vs the law in 1968.

Mike1234567 said:

I would add at least one more to the list: *Those with mental facilities which have declined to the point of dangerous incompetence....

Click to expand...

That's where guardianship comes into play.

Woody

And some of you guys who think that Violent Felons should get their rights back, obviously never knew any violent Felons. They would shoot you as soon as look at you just for looking at their girlfriend or cutting in front of them on a movie line. They have been doing crime from usually from grade school where they stole kids lunch money and beat them up for protection. Career criminals are just not possible to rehabilitate.
They will take whatever is there, weather it's extortion, burglary, drugs, Holdups stickups, jewelry stores, and torture. "Few specialize". The only time they may not steal or commit a crime is when they are really flush, and even then if that see something that sticks out, they will take it just for the sake of taking.
They may have just robbed a bank or jewelry store, for a couple hundred thousand, and still will break open a pay phone for the quarters, you don't get it. It's the way they are and they can't nor do they wish to change. They don't think past right now.
They are scary beyond belief, they will do anything to anyone, sometimes just on a dare, or to show off.
It may be that some parts of the country aren't exposed to the maniacs out there, "as much". Ask a cop who patrolled Harlem back in the 70's, when people high on crack would put their kids in the oven or throw them out a window. Do you really think they are going to change? It really aggravates me when these armchair internet jockeys who never left the safety of their town say stupid things that have no place in reality.
Remember the Steinberg case, the press made a big deal out of it because the guy was Jewish lawyer, "that's the only reason", meanwhile hundreds of kids a year were being brutalized all over the city along with their crack addicted mothers who were hooking out on the gutters to pay for their pimps habit.
This is life, when you have a better way, "that you can prove works", then come forward and present it. For the time being, arming them is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

samort457 said:

Substance abusers, one of the last people I want coming after me is some dude hyped up on meth

Click to expand...

.....but the poll does not say "substance abusers", it only says "Those adjudicated to be controlled substance users". Many folks legally use controlled medication, as been judged by a doctor as a necessary alternative to disease or poor health. One cannot put all users of controlled substances in the same boat as Meth Heads.

Dead people, someone who has been admitted to a mental institution in the past 7 years, or felony charges.

The point that is overlooked in this discussion as it degrades to bunker status is that those who are denied by law the right to own a firearm have them anyway. Passing a law does not prevent an anti-social behavior from occurring, especially when those in positions of authority do not enforce the laws equally or quickly whether due to incompetence, political expediency, or outright corruption. Currently I am in the camp of repealing those laws that are not enforced, cannot be enforced, or are unconstitutional rather than passing more to "fix" some problem. :banghead:

Very true Kynoch, but that's the only way this works. Otherwise you are punishing people for crimes they may or may not commit. Then it builds on itself. Felons can't have guns because they'll kill people? becomes felons and mentally handicapped becomes felons, mentally handicapped, and anyone that owns an AR-15 ad infinitum.

"Not "sin" per se. More stupidity or addiction taxes. Perhaps the money should go to Medicare to help offset the $$$$ sucked-up by smoking related disease treatment?"

Ah, yes, the age-old dream of social engineering; that the group can modify individuals towards perfection with its mysterious hive-wisdom, without in the process modifying the characteristics (and thus, wisdom) of the group that gave it the supposed moral authority in the first place.

Consequences exist, and will always exist; the only question is who pays for them. They will be avoided by individuals only so long as they are felt by individuals free to make choices to engage or avoid the causes. Softening the impact of the consequences or reducing the ability of individuals to make their choices can only shift the burden to society at large while negating the tendency of the individual to avoid the action (or even encouraging it)

"They don't think past right now.
They are scary beyond belief, they will do anything to anyone, sometimes just on a dare, or to show off."
And that is why they would be quickly shot to death and removed from the situation permanently were the average citizen given parity of force (if not insanity). There's a reason feral animals get shot when they tangle with humans--it's because they'll just keep doing it and can influence others. I hate to sound all 'cowboy' because I certainly am (thankfully) a mere key-board jockey; but some men need to be killed rather than allowed to roam amongst us, or worse yet caged for no purpose.

Fun fact; this whole notion of incarceration=rehabilitation was borne out of early Progressive flim-flam men who got investors to pay for 'medical prisons' built in the fashion of TB sanitoria (the bedlam/sanitarium was much more like a good 'ol lifers' prison where people were just kept out of the way of society until their death in a bloodless execution ground). They were as effective then as they are now in correcting hardened criminals and dangerous sociopaths.

Before the rehabilitation nonsense made regularly releasing criminals necessary (to prove their efforts bore fruit) and made bringing in lesser criminals for 'treatment' less and less repugnant in terms of perceived human cost, prison/jail were seen as what they were; punishment. Thus, mild offenses were not seen as deserving such rough treatment, and sentences were shorter or merely fines. Serious offenses were seen as irredeemable on this mortal plane, and the offenders too dangerous to be kept around for no purpose.

Somehow, modern prisons have become some horrific cross of the two concepts, wherein society is "hard on criminals" and keeps them cooped up for ridiculously long times with violent animals who will rape, murder, and torture each other mercilessly, while expecting such atrocity will somehow render the inhabitants passive and peace-loving upon their re-introduction to a soft and naïve populace. Oh, and there's really good money to be made on fear and cheap forced labor along the way --always indicative of moral activity.

"We have drivers going crazy with road rage causing deadly harm and just because they are not locked up it makes it OK for them to possess a firearm."
I recall it being shown in some study that the vast majority of road rage stems from inattentive drivers blocking lanes like cattle or blindly making inconsiderate moves in traffic. You'd get pretty peeved even outside your car if someone loitering in front of the door to your place of work wouldn't move as you approached and asked them to. More so if they just kept playing with their phone without responding.

TCB

ConstitutionCowboy said:

That's where guardianship comes into play.

Woody

Click to expand...

No one left here but me and my old pug. I have to monitor myself. This isn't an uncommon situation... a lot of folks with deteriorating mental faculties with no one to monitor their cognitive decline. So we must watch ourselves and err on the side of caution. I won't give a stranger guardianship because they and the state will take everything I ever worked for denying my son his rightful inheritance... meager as that may be. A "guardian"? Have you ever seen what those strangers do to those they "care for"? Have you ever seen what "retirement homes" do to those they "care for"? I have and it's not for me... not ever.

Felons

Just remember that with the millions of laws on the book ANYONE can become a 'felon' if the government wants you to be labeled as such.

Good Observation barnbwt, When a person speeds up so as not to allow another into an exit lane that they will miss, if not afforded the common decency of taking their foot off of the accelerator for a second to allow the person to exit, so they can go home from a long day at work. It is really a nasty stupid thing to do. This person wishes to get off at "elm street" and what the other driver is saying in effect, is I am not allowing you to go home after 10 hours at work, to your wife and kids, who are waiting for you with dinner on the table, "just an example".
It's a really nasty thing to do, and one that I guarantee that if they weren't protected by 4000 lbs of metal going 70 MPH, they would have neither the nerve nor inclination to do so. It shows a lot about a persons character , just watching them drive a car.
Instead of saying this poor guy or gal has probably been working all day, let me make sure I give them a hand here, it's the least I can do for my fellow man. But no, the devil comes out, and if this is how they respond to this slice of their daily life, it's probably how they treat everyone and everything. Nasty pent up frustration, looking for an exit ramp to mess with someone.
But the Doge City in the 1800's style of dealing with this is not something that will work either, You can't just have people shooting it out on main street because someone took their parking spot.
Which I fear we would arrive at all too soon if that tactic were tried. Unfortunately you would have a lot of idiots who just happened to be fast with a gun.
Although it would cut down on the population explosion, pollution and littering, "just kidding", there is no answer to this other than what we now have only enforced in a manner that really worked. But we all know that isn't going to happen, so it's just a waste of bandwidth to assume any different.
Professional Bad guys, are more like spoiled children whose parents went away for a month on vacation, and left them at home alone with a ton of money and the keys to all the cars liquor cabinet, and all of dads jewelry,guns etc. That's the best analogy I can think of. An x rated version of "Risky Business".
You can't give them "like in the movie" all this stuff and expect that nothing bad will happen. It's definitely going up in smoke.
All these things in some way are indicative of socially inept and mentally deranged people, they may just be subtle hints to a larger issue, but the layers are deep and given the proper circumstances will appear more relevant if the need arises. That same person who blocks you from getting off the Hwy, will under the proper circumstance do worse to you under pressure., I wouldn't want to be stuck in the woods with them after a bad accident and have to rely on them to get through a tough time.
I am positive that someone who displays those tendencies would take all of the food and leave you to perish should they feel the need to.
Such is the society in which we live. Try as we may it's going to be a difficult if not impossible task to change it.
We need like minded people in high places to begin to fit the pieces back to where they were meant to be.
So at least vote, and write your elected officials when there is a topic that you feel strongly about. We can speak to each other all day, "and that's fine" but if you don't let those elected representatives know how you feel nothing will change.

We have the money. We just choose to spend it on other stuff.

Flechette, it's not us that's doing the choosing. It's this administration that's slowly killing this once great country, and it's so obvious that it's criminal.
If you want to solve 50% of our problems, Impeach this President, most of the rest of the slugs, will crawl back into their holes.

RE merging drivers: Get in your exit lane earlier and patiently wait, just like most other drivers, rather than passing as many others as you can and trying to force your way over in front of the line.