DHJenkins
Member
Blind people, prisoners & wife-beaters.
Who should be denied the right to own guns?
- Thread starter Kynoch
- Start date
- Status
easyg
Member
All convicted felons
No.
A 70 years old person who say committed felony mail fraud once when they were 20, and served their sentence, should not be denied the right to own a firearm.
Convicted violent felons
Maybe.
A man who was once convicted of a violent felony when he was 20, but who has served his sentence, and been crime free for 50 years, I don't think should be denied the right.
Those convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime
No.
Young guys in their later teens and early 20's often get in to little dust ups that could easily lead to a misdemeanor conviction, but that doesn't mean that they are a danger to our society.
Those subject to a violence-related restraining order
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
There are tons of guys who have restraining orders on them after being falsely accused by ex-girlfriends and ex-wives.
An merely having a restraining order against one does not make them guilty of any crime.
Those adjudicated to be suffering from specific mental illnesses
Those adjudicated to be mentally defective
No, and no.
Who gets to decided just whom has a mental illness or is mentally defective?
And who gets to decide if they MIGHT one day commit a violent crime?
Those adjudicated to be controlled substance users
No.
Just because a guy has a herniated disc in his back, and takes controlled pain-killers, it does not mean that he shouldn't own a firearm.
Those reported by psychiatrists to be suffering from mental deficiency/specific illnesses
No.
In my opinion, psychiatry is a pseudo-science at best and flat out quackery at worse!
Non US citizens and those lacking lawful permanent residency status
No.
If someone is here on a work visa or on a student visa, but not an illegal alien, and not a permanent resident, I see no reason why they should be denied the right to own a firearm.
Those dishonorably discharged from the US Armed Forces
Maybe.
I think it would depend upon why that person was dishonorably discharged.
I was a soldier for 6 years (honorably discharged), but I know that sometimes the military gets it wrong.
Fugitives from justice
No.
The Second Amendment is about allowing the people of this land to possess the tools needed to overthrow the government, should that government become tyrannical.
And a tyrannical government would certainly declare those who resist it to be fugitives of justice.
Those who participated in the Boston Tea Party were no doubt considered fugitives by the British.
No.
A 70 years old person who say committed felony mail fraud once when they were 20, and served their sentence, should not be denied the right to own a firearm.
Convicted violent felons
Maybe.
A man who was once convicted of a violent felony when he was 20, but who has served his sentence, and been crime free for 50 years, I don't think should be denied the right.
Those convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime
No.
Young guys in their later teens and early 20's often get in to little dust ups that could easily lead to a misdemeanor conviction, but that doesn't mean that they are a danger to our society.
Those subject to a violence-related restraining order
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
There are tons of guys who have restraining orders on them after being falsely accused by ex-girlfriends and ex-wives.
An merely having a restraining order against one does not make them guilty of any crime.
Those adjudicated to be suffering from specific mental illnesses
Those adjudicated to be mentally defective
No, and no.
Who gets to decided just whom has a mental illness or is mentally defective?
And who gets to decide if they MIGHT one day commit a violent crime?
Those adjudicated to be controlled substance users
No.
Just because a guy has a herniated disc in his back, and takes controlled pain-killers, it does not mean that he shouldn't own a firearm.
Those reported by psychiatrists to be suffering from mental deficiency/specific illnesses
No.
In my opinion, psychiatry is a pseudo-science at best and flat out quackery at worse!
Non US citizens and those lacking lawful permanent residency status
No.
If someone is here on a work visa or on a student visa, but not an illegal alien, and not a permanent resident, I see no reason why they should be denied the right to own a firearm.
Those dishonorably discharged from the US Armed Forces
Maybe.
I think it would depend upon why that person was dishonorably discharged.
I was a soldier for 6 years (honorably discharged), but I know that sometimes the military gets it wrong.
Fugitives from justice
No.
The Second Amendment is about allowing the people of this land to possess the tools needed to overthrow the government, should that government become tyrannical.
And a tyrannical government would certainly declare those who resist it to be fugitives of justice.
Those who participated in the Boston Tea Party were no doubt considered fugitives by the British.
we are not amused
Member
What he said!
Gym, bank robberies and the like, while they happen, are rare. Most of your violent crime, i.e. murder, home invasion, mugging, kidnapping, assault, etc. can be done with any weapon or no weapon at all.
There are a few select crimes that, yes, would be harder without a gun than with one. But in most of those cases, there are worse crimes that can be done without a firearm. For example, bank robbery is not as bad as murder.
There are a few select crimes that, yes, would be harder without a gun than with one. But in most of those cases, there are worse crimes that can be done without a firearm. For example, bank robbery is not as bad as murder.
Kynoch
member
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.
VERY insightful! Thanks for the important addition.
P5 Guy
Member
Who Should Be Denied?
No one not directly under the court's control.
In prison, on parole or probation. Other than that all the rights of a citizen should be the citizens.
No one not directly under the court's control.
In prison, on parole or probation. Other than that all the rights of a citizen should be the citizens.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Post 96....
I agree with post 96 to an extent.
Anyone could be framed or arrested unfairly for trumped up charges or bogus reasons.
My state has a formal criminal charge called; "resisting arrest without violence"
Basically, it means a sworn LE officer could say; "hey ___" "you're now under arrest". You say; "that's not fair" or "why am I under arrest", now you have a new charge.
And do not think police or patrol deputies won't hook you up. I learned that in 2012.
Arrests & convictions are two different things.
I'd add that I'm against domestic violence or PFA(protection from abuse) people buying or carrying firearms. As a security officer, I've seen a few violent episodes of couples with serious problems. I've even seen a young woman who had a guy stalk her from a AMTRAK station to our hotel.
There was nothing fake or staged about that mess.
Do spouses(men and women) lie? Sure. Do they put false information in domestic court actions or PFAs? You bet. Do all domestic violence incidents end the same way? No!
I agree with post 96 to an extent.
Anyone could be framed or arrested unfairly for trumped up charges or bogus reasons.
My state has a formal criminal charge called; "resisting arrest without violence"
Basically, it means a sworn LE officer could say; "hey ___" "you're now under arrest". You say; "that's not fair" or "why am I under arrest", now you have a new charge.
And do not think police or patrol deputies won't hook you up. I learned that in 2012.
Arrests & convictions are two different things.
I'd add that I'm against domestic violence or PFA(protection from abuse) people buying or carrying firearms. As a security officer, I've seen a few violent episodes of couples with serious problems. I've even seen a young woman who had a guy stalk her from a AMTRAK station to our hotel.
There was nothing fake or staged about that mess.
Do spouses(men and women) lie? Sure. Do they put false information in domestic court actions or PFAs? You bet. Do all domestic violence incidents end the same way? No!
JohnBT
Member
"There are a great many other tools... "
Why yes, yes there are, but this is a firearms board. Firearms tend to be more effective than your run-of-the-mill tool.
Why do I have the feeling from the poll and from some of your responses that your mind was made up about who should be banned from owning guns long before you posted the poll? Face it, a bunch of folks don't agree with you.
Why yes, yes there are, but this is a firearms board. Firearms tend to be more effective than your run-of-the-mill tool.
Why do I have the feeling from the poll and from some of your responses that your mind was made up about who should be banned from owning guns long before you posted the poll? Face it, a bunch of folks don't agree with you.
Kynoch
member
Scooter22
Member
I won't vote on any online poll like this. Its easy for the one who started it to take bits and pieces to distort the original meaning of a post and slant it anti gun.
we are not amused
Member
If they are that damned dangerous, why were they ever let out?
There is a kid in Ohio, by the name of Jordan Wiser, who is being charged with bringing a weapon (a knife) onto school grounds, who if convicted, will never be able join the army, (he was enrolled in the Future Soldiers program)or have a gun of any type. The knife was in his EMT vest, locked in the trunk of his car. He has already spent 13 days in jail, due to a Half a million dollar bail bond. He was currently taking a fire fighters course and a EMT course.
He is being treated as a violent felon, and if convicted, will be treated as such for the rest of his life.
Google his name for more information, the story was reported in both the Huffinton Post and the Daily Caller, Johnathan Turley also blogged about it.
Not all felons are violent, not all felons did anyone any harm.
Career Criminals should be in jail for life.
Huh?
Maybe they did dig into the issue and discovered that the entire concept of 'prohibited persons' and the FFL system was created by the 1968 GCA.
Edit to add: along with import restrictions, "sporting purpose", the refusal to recognize IDPA, 3 Gun, and other sports as a sport, and other ideas of dubious value
Last edited:
we are not amused
Member
What do you have against blind people, that you lump them with wife beaters and prisoners?
76shuvlinoff
Member
The dead, child molesters, rapists, and murderers. The last three should be dead anyhow.
morcey2
Member
Blind is an interesting one. I know two people who are legally blind, but can still shoot quite well. There are also devices that will allow a person to hear when they're on target while target shooting. They can't shoot without assistance, but that is absolutely no reason to deny them a constitutional right.
Wife-beaters is also an interesting one. You're in an argument with your wife and she won't let you out of the room. You move her hand (nothing else) off the doorknob so you can get out of the room. Congratulations. You just committed domestic violence assault in many states.
My opinion is that if someone can be trusted in the general population and not directly under court supervision (as P5 Guy said) they should be able to arm themselves.
That's a straw man. Odds are that if they're that violent, the already have re-acquired a gun illegally. Remember, criminals by definition don't care what the law says. I know that he's the exception, but I know at least one violent felon that I would trust more with a gun than the 95% of the non-prohibited people in this country right now. His crime was about 40 years ago when he was 19 and he spent a decade in prison because of it. He's a totally different person now, but doesn't have the ability, because he's a prohibited person, of defending his family to the best of his ability.
Matt
ConstitutionCowboy
member
"Guardian" would be a family member. A retirement home would be more like an institution.
Woody
Mike1234567
member
No one here to perform that daunting task... and I wouldn't ask them to anyway.
I have that same situation with my 94 yr old mom and 100 yr old aunt. The aunt gave her money to her sisters prior to going into nursing home and still gave the nursing home almost $200,000, they tried to get back money she legally gave her one sister 15 years ago.
They still send my mom letters, and phone calls threatening her, even though she got none of it, so far three times they put her into hospital for High BP and dizziness, we went to court and I got a judge to order them to stop. They ruled the 100 year old competent and maintained the guardianship and POA in my moms name and my other aunt. The guy got fired, from the home.
I wouldn't let up on then, and did threaten him on the phone which he brought up in court. The judge told him if he ever had done something like that to his mother , he would have done the same thing, they threw the nursing home petition out, and ordered them to stop bothering the family.
The attorney in NY for the seniors organization I used "free of charge", said that these nursing homes use the courts as collection agents, and the courts are fed up with them. I told him if he ever called my mom again I would fly to NY and meet with him outside his office.
This was after the 3d time she went into the hospital. Funny how he lost his job right after the courts verdict.
Much of this is Obama Care in action, they want every penny you ever made, even the money that you gifted to family members legally, prior to the time legally necessary. They are a bunch of thieves, meanwhile I have a cousin who I haven't seen in 30 yrs. who's mom died with money from the 100 year old aunt in the home, which was gifted improperly, he's in another state, and good luck getting that back.
They still send my mom letters, and phone calls threatening her, even though she got none of it, so far three times they put her into hospital for High BP and dizziness, we went to court and I got a judge to order them to stop. They ruled the 100 year old competent and maintained the guardianship and POA in my moms name and my other aunt. The guy got fired, from the home.
I wouldn't let up on then, and did threaten him on the phone which he brought up in court. The judge told him if he ever had done something like that to his mother , he would have done the same thing, they threw the nursing home petition out, and ordered them to stop bothering the family.
The attorney in NY for the seniors organization I used "free of charge", said that these nursing homes use the courts as collection agents, and the courts are fed up with them. I told him if he ever called my mom again I would fly to NY and meet with him outside his office.
This was after the 3d time she went into the hospital. Funny how he lost his job right after the courts verdict.
Much of this is Obama Care in action, they want every penny you ever made, even the money that you gifted to family members legally, prior to the time legally necessary. They are a bunch of thieves, meanwhile I have a cousin who I haven't seen in 30 yrs. who's mom died with money from the 100 year old aunt in the home, which was gifted improperly, he's in another state, and good luck getting that back.
Mike1234567
member
gym... The financial abuses and extreme mistreatment of people and illegal harassment of their families has been going on for decades (at least). My first witnessing of such things was about forty years ago when I was just a young kid. I've seen it many times since then.
If we're going to blame presidents, as I believe we should, then we must add Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. I'd list more but I don't have personal experience witnessing medical abuses under other presidents. It's possible things were just as bad under Kennedy and Johnson but I was too young then to understand some things happening around me so I left them off the list.
If we're going to blame presidents, as I believe we should, then we must add Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. I'd list more but I don't have personal experience witnessing medical abuses under other presidents. It's possible things were just as bad under Kennedy and Johnson but I was too young then to understand some things happening around me so I left them off the list.
blarby
Member
You can lead a horse to water........
We tax the stupid to no end, and there's no end of it in sight, and it hasn't gotten us anything but bloat. I say, nay nay.
arizona_cards_11
Member
Who should be denied the right to own guns?
No one should be denied the right to own firearms who is not currently imprisoned by the State because of a crime.
But what do I know....my views are reductionist and I'm simply too much of a rube to understand the implications of my position or dive more deeply into the complexities of the issue.
--> Anyone who disagrees with me holds a reductionist view and lacks ability to dive more deeply into the issue.
--> You disagree with me.
--> You hold a reductionist view and lack the ability to dive more deeply into the issue.
No one should be denied the right to own firearms who is not currently imprisoned by the State because of a crime.
But what do I know....my views are reductionist and I'm simply too much of a rube to understand the implications of my position or dive more deeply into the complexities of the issue.
--> Anyone who disagrees with me holds a reductionist view and lacks ability to dive more deeply into the issue.
--> You disagree with me.
--> You hold a reductionist view and lack the ability to dive more deeply into the issue.
leadcounsel
member
Never could understand how we've managed to 'infringe' so much... the language looks quite plain to me.
It's generally understood that FREE people have rights. So if you're free, you don't lose your rights.
If you're dangerous (a proven criminal or a mental health concern), you should not be free. Of course, this would probably result in locking more people up, which is also unacceptable...
So here we are.
I live in the real world where people in power will try to take rights away. So if forced to choose and give up 'reasonable restrictions,' I'd limit it to:
1. Violent ex-convicts who committed very violent crimes, and are not rehabilitated. I'm talking about the repeat offenders, serial violent people, etc. Not the one-time-stupid incident or the guy that got in a bar fight.
2. People with dangerous mental illness as diagnosed by multiple professional doctors. People that are a high risk to harm others and themselves.
That's it. Nobody else. The BS of restraining orders, DV misdemeanors, Lautenberg, hurt feelings etc. etc. needs to end and be reversed. It's a real threat on liberty.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Hee hee.
"I'm EVER so smart, and I've put my brain to the issue and came up with THE TRUTH. If you don't agree with my understanding, you simply aren't smart enough to 'get it.'"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
