pockets
Member
First, they would have to locate a pay phone to break into.........that could take awhile.
This was an entertaining read, but I am out of popcorn.
.
Who should be denied the right to own guns?
- Thread starter Kynoch
- Start date
- Status
First, they would have to locate a pay phone to break into.........that could take awhile.
This was an entertaining read, but I am out of popcorn.
.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I don't recall the 2nd Amendment saying anything specifically about US citizens. The right extends not just to US citizens, but to everybody covered by the law, although they apparently did not feel that such rights extended to numerous people and had no problem with keeping guns away from slaves and the like.
The founding fathers then passed the Militia Acts making ownership a legal responsibility, thereby making the 2nd no longer a right.
Arkansas Paul
Member
This is a topic that will no doubt have many opinions even among we extremely pro 2A supporters.
I voted violent felons. That is the only one I checked on the list.
The list of felonies is downright laughable at times. I believe if the crime did not involve violence you shouldn't be prohibited.
That being said, I'm not naive enough to think that making it illegal for them to possess firearms will actually stop them from possessing them. They are already convicted felons. They have proven that they don't give a hoot about the law or following it.
To me, it just gives us something else to tack some more time on when they are caught committing a crime with a firearm. Go ahead and tack on possession of a firearm by prohibited persons to the list of new charges. I'm cool with that for violent felons.
Many are not okay with that, and I'll not debate the topic. I'm just giving my opinion.
I voted violent felons. That is the only one I checked on the list.
The list of felonies is downright laughable at times. I believe if the crime did not involve violence you shouldn't be prohibited.
That being said, I'm not naive enough to think that making it illegal for them to possess firearms will actually stop them from possessing them. They are already convicted felons. They have proven that they don't give a hoot about the law or following it.
To me, it just gives us something else to tack some more time on when they are caught committing a crime with a firearm. Go ahead and tack on possession of a firearm by prohibited persons to the list of new charges. I'm cool with that for violent felons.
Many are not okay with that, and I'll not debate the topic. I'm just giving my opinion.
jcwit
member
Man, with the opinions expressed here I'm glad members here are not the ones governing this nation, and NO I'm not a liberal.
But Common Sense needs to prevail.
But Common Sense needs to prevail.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Common sense demands that violent criminals must be separated from society by institutionalizing, imprisoning, or executing.
Woody
Get some more popcorn, Pockets, pay phones was an example of what they did In the 70's, which was the time frame I was discussing, and just an instance of what they steal.
Anything that's not tied down. Including removing the heads off of parking meters, with pipe cutters, to stealing the US mail from drop boxes, "it's full of credit cards, and cash pay from many company's and relatives. You must live in a tree with the Keebler elves.
You need to learn more about crazy violent criminals other that what you see on TV. Hennery Hill had a poker game in Bayside every Wed afternoon, If you knew the right people and had 5 grand in your pocket, you could have come and met them. They had plenty of popcorn for you.
Most people who have opinions on violent crime are like the politicians who have opinions on gun control, they know little about it, but are willing to sit in judgment of something far beyond what they can understand. These aren't high school kids out for mischief, they are stone cold killers who would put a bullet in the back of someone's head, just because they were told to.
Anything that's not tied down. Including removing the heads off of parking meters, with pipe cutters, to stealing the US mail from drop boxes, "it's full of credit cards, and cash pay from many company's and relatives. You must live in a tree with the Keebler elves.
You need to learn more about crazy violent criminals other that what you see on TV. Hennery Hill had a poker game in Bayside every Wed afternoon, If you knew the right people and had 5 grand in your pocket, you could have come and met them. They had plenty of popcorn for you.
Most people who have opinions on violent crime are like the politicians who have opinions on gun control, they know little about it, but are willing to sit in judgment of something far beyond what they can understand. These aren't high school kids out for mischief, they are stone cold killers who would put a bullet in the back of someone's head, just because they were told to.
Last edited:
blarby
Member
Still done in areas where they use those.....what do they call them..... Coins !
Yet another liberty being robbed from us : Coins. I can't redeem a friggin stub, at least here.
AmericanPieGirl40
Member
I think this is a hard question to answer. Due to the fact that people are related to or know someone that has been involved with the law etc. Those people need to throw their biased opinions out the window. Break it down and simplify the real list of humans that should not own guns. If this could be done, it would help solve the debates etc. All we can really do is pray that people make the right choices.
That would serve no purpose, since if you go into any maximum security prison, including Federal, "which some think is a country club", not. You will find the same level of violent felons in any of them from Lake Placid to Atlanta to Fishkill or Rikers. You have to be a psyco in order to survive there. Here are just the prisons in NY,http://www.insideprison.com/state_federal_prisons_by_state.asp?state=NY,
Do you really think that there is money to build more There are about 60 in NY alone. Do you want to go interview all of these maniacs and decide who should get out and move next door to you. Because that's where they are going, Right in your town.
Maybe reality will set in and you will see just how many people are in prison and how impossible it would be to interview all of the millions, to decide who should have a gun.
I swear some people live on another planet. Stay home and thank your lucky stars that these guys and gals are behind bars and not near your family's. This liberal nonsense will get people killed. Take a ride to your local state facility and ask for a tour, then come back and tell me you want to give them back guns.
Do you really think that there is money to build more There are about 60 in NY alone. Do you want to go interview all of these maniacs and decide who should get out and move next door to you. Because that's where they are going, Right in your town.
Maybe reality will set in and you will see just how many people are in prison and how impossible it would be to interview all of the millions, to decide who should have a gun.
I swear some people live on another planet. Stay home and thank your lucky stars that these guys and gals are behind bars and not near your family's. This liberal nonsense will get people killed. Take a ride to your local state facility and ask for a tour, then come back and tell me you want to give them back guns.
Mike1234567
member
As I stated earlier, I didn't vote at all. There are simply too many unknowns and variables involved. Plus many people actually do improve during/after paying for their crimes and with maturity, etc., not to mention all the unjust convictions due to poor investigatory methods and false witnessing. There are infinite degrees of most of the choices given so I don't feel comfortable making those choices.
I'm definitely pro 2A but I do recognize that some folks should never be allowed to own any type of weapon. However, as others pointed out, "laws" don't pertain to those who won't follow them. I guess all we can really hope for is that the evil people who intend to cause innocent others harm will eventually be removed from the gene pool by those who have the skills and courage to defend themselves and others.
I'm definitely pro 2A but I do recognize that some folks should never be allowed to own any type of weapon. However, as others pointed out, "laws" don't pertain to those who won't follow them. I guess all we can really hope for is that the evil people who intend to cause innocent others harm will eventually be removed from the gene pool by those who have the skills and courage to defend themselves and others.
If somebudy can't be trusted with a gun, why would you let them loose in society.
I'm all for making any crime with a deadly weapon a capitol offense.
Think about this for a second, if speeding was a capitol offence how fast would you drive?
I'm all for making any crime with a deadly weapon a capitol offense.
Think about this for a second, if speeding was a capitol offence how fast would you drive?
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
And when moving out of a slow lane, look in your dang mirrors. And bikers, stop tailgating me; my car stops faster in an emergency and I really don't want to kill you.
As far as Dodge City shootouts and wild west fears; the antis make the same claim when any form of carry is passed, and it never bears out. The arms were restricted in the first place to reduce crime, failed, and now they claim removing them will increase violence. People fall in line when there are real consequences present, and if not, suffer said consequences. Many potential victims having guns & being able to use them is one such potential consequence. We'll never advance as a people if we keep convincing ourselves we must be domesticated rather than civilized (the adjective, not the verb
)
TCB
As far as Dodge City shootouts and wild west fears; the antis make the same claim when any form of carry is passed, and it never bears out. The arms were restricted in the first place to reduce crime, failed, and now they claim removing them will increase violence. People fall in line when there are real consequences present, and if not, suffer said consequences. Many potential victims having guns & being able to use them is one such potential consequence. We'll never advance as a people if we keep convincing ourselves we must be domesticated rather than civilized (the adjective, not the verb
)TCB
Last edited:
Onward Allusion
Member
Not just cost. Y'all have any idea how many people would be locked up for having a "mental illness"??? Good gawd, we would need more prisons that we currently have just to lock up folks with mental illnesses!
Gym, there are nice prisons belive it or not. Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff don't go to common mans prison and if they do they are shipped to another wing that doesn't mingle with general population. Furthermore crack wasn't invented till the late 80's. Also, there is plenty of money to build more prisons. Instead if doing it with tax dollars, they are privately built and staffed. The tax payer just foots the bill to house, feed, administrate etc. etc.
Hmm private prison kickstarter anyone?
Back to the topic though. Who should be prohibited from owning guns? Well, didn't "We the People" already decide this? It's majorly flawed but it works.
All felons prohibited? Sure. Some may argue "Armed Bank Robber vs. White collar Fraudster" to me there is no difference. Bank robber gets $10k, nobody hurt, money recovered, and if it's not recovered so what? FDIC is there for a reason. Robber gets 15-20.
White collar guy, steals 10 million plus. Unarmed nobody hurt. Not the case though. FDIC doesn't insure this loss. People realize that their investment is bunk. Life savings gone. What are you going to tell your spouse? Some people know what to tell their spouse and leave it in a nice suicide note...
Violent felons? Absolutley should be disqualified. Even though they will get a gun soon after release.
Mental illness? Heck no. If you have been diagnosed with a psychosis you're a no-go.
A psychosis is a major mental illness, what seperates a psychosis from a nuerosis is THE INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH FANTASY FROM REALITY. At present there are no cures and the treatments are bunk, a tranquilizer just slows the person down or puts them to sleep.
Nuerosis? This one is difficult. The guy whom washes his hands fifty times a day should still have their rights. Bi-polar disorder, formerly reffered to as "manic depression" should be prohibited for some time due to the mania that accompanies it. Certain conditions could restore rights but with afflictions like mental disorderers it's hard to gauge.
It's not bacterial or viral "trigger". If you know the lake has sewage you don't swim in it for fear of typhoid, dysentery or e.coli. With a mental disease, anything could be a trigger.
Non-residents? No, where do those guns go before you go back? Also I believe if your not a citizen you don't enjoy full rights as if you are a citizen.
Druggies? Very muddy waters. Been caught with crack or heroin? No go.
Pot? You should still retain your rights. You on a prescription for an opiate painkiller? Still have a right. ABUSE or a continual prescription of an opiate painkiller? No, you are a junky and can thank your doctor for it.
Argue what you will. What's the difference between a 20 year old heroin addict withdrawling from some horse and 60 year old guy dopesick from not getting his prescription filled? Scientifically, nothing, but society says it's acceptable for one but not the other.
Hmm private prison kickstarter anyone?
Back to the topic though. Who should be prohibited from owning guns? Well, didn't "We the People" already decide this? It's majorly flawed but it works.
All felons prohibited? Sure. Some may argue "Armed Bank Robber vs. White collar Fraudster" to me there is no difference. Bank robber gets $10k, nobody hurt, money recovered, and if it's not recovered so what? FDIC is there for a reason. Robber gets 15-20.
White collar guy, steals 10 million plus. Unarmed nobody hurt. Not the case though. FDIC doesn't insure this loss. People realize that their investment is bunk. Life savings gone. What are you going to tell your spouse? Some people know what to tell their spouse and leave it in a nice suicide note...
Violent felons? Absolutley should be disqualified. Even though they will get a gun soon after release.
Mental illness? Heck no. If you have been diagnosed with a psychosis you're a no-go.
A psychosis is a major mental illness, what seperates a psychosis from a nuerosis is THE INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH FANTASY FROM REALITY. At present there are no cures and the treatments are bunk, a tranquilizer just slows the person down or puts them to sleep.
Nuerosis? This one is difficult. The guy whom washes his hands fifty times a day should still have their rights. Bi-polar disorder, formerly reffered to as "manic depression" should be prohibited for some time due to the mania that accompanies it. Certain conditions could restore rights but with afflictions like mental disorderers it's hard to gauge.
It's not bacterial or viral "trigger". If you know the lake has sewage you don't swim in it for fear of typhoid, dysentery or e.coli. With a mental disease, anything could be a trigger.
Non-residents? No, where do those guns go before you go back? Also I believe if your not a citizen you don't enjoy full rights as if you are a citizen.
Druggies? Very muddy waters. Been caught with crack or heroin? No go.
Pot? You should still retain your rights. You on a prescription for an opiate painkiller? Still have a right. ABUSE or a continual prescription of an opiate painkiller? No, you are a junky and can thank your doctor for it.
Argue what you will. What's the difference between a 20 year old heroin addict withdrawling from some horse and 60 year old guy dopesick from not getting his prescription filled? Scientifically, nothing, but society says it's acceptable for one but not the other.
I voted absolutely no one. Why? Because it is not the government's place to deny rights.
It is the responsibility of the family and communties to police their own, not any government or government agency or entity.
Find an excuse popular enough, and all rights will be forfeited.
As a supposed "free people" why on earth would we empower any government to have any control over any of our Rights, even in the slightest, no leeway, no forfeiture, for whatever reason. Once it begins, it will not be stopped.
It is the responsibility of the family and communties to police their own, not any government or government agency or entity.
Find an excuse popular enough, and all rights will be forfeited.
As a supposed "free people" why on earth would we empower any government to have any control over any of our Rights, even in the slightest, no leeway, no forfeiture, for whatever reason. Once it begins, it will not be stopped.
jcwit
member
Sol said:
Very well thought out.
zxcvbob
Member
It makes be sad that "Absolutely no one" has so few votes.
DHJenkins
Member
First of all, when I said "blind people, prisoners and wife beaters" I meant "blind", not "partially sighted" or those who have limited vision - you know, like how it's defined in the dictionary.
Secondly, I specifically said "wife beaters" not "those convicted of spousal abuse".
Third, the blind are "lumped in" with the other two because they're one of the 3 groups I don't think need firearms.
Forgive me for speaking plainly, and if you were offended by my comments, try not spinning them into some percieved slight that you can create an argument out of.
Secondly, I specifically said "wife beaters" not "those convicted of spousal abuse".
Third, the blind are "lumped in" with the other two because they're one of the 3 groups I don't think need firearms.
Forgive me for speaking plainly, and if you were offended by my comments, try not spinning them into some percieved slight that you can create an argument out of.
IMHO it's because the poll was made by an OP who is so much smarter than us reductionist rubes who just can't dig into the issue
I didn't vote because the poll is flawed. I still stand by:
Where's the poll option "the same people who couldn't possess one in 1967"?
Back then you could have a military issue, real honest to God weapon of war, semi-auto carbine that used "hi-cap" detachable magazines shipped right to your front door
America HAD places for the mentally ill. Sanitariums and asylums were once a popular sight in America. Some still exist but not in the numbers they used to.
Many were known for their deplorable conditions and inhumane treatment of people. Many were fine, and treated people well.
Most these places didn't recieve a majority of funding through tax payers and in fact the money largely came from the Church.
Many were known for their deplorable conditions and inhumane treatment of people. Many were fine, and treated people well.
Most these places didn't recieve a majority of funding through tax payers and in fact the money largely came from the Church.
45_auto
Member
dhjenkins said:
How do you tell them apart?
NoVA Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 178
Why do we always focus on treating a symptom of the problem instead of the problem itself?
And therein lies the true problem. People convicted of felonies having guns is not the problem; people convicted of felonies who are not kept in prison while they still pose a threat to society is. Fix that and any issue about ex-cons having weapons goes away. I'm not saying it's an easy fix or that there won't be growing pains, but since when is life a walk in the park? As a society, we have lost our gumption to make the hard choices. Sadly, we've become a society that believes the path to go down should be the easiest and most convenient.
And therein lies the true problem. People convicted of felonies having guns is not the problem; people convicted of felonies who are not kept in prison while they still pose a threat to society is. Fix that and any issue about ex-cons having weapons goes away. I'm not saying it's an easy fix or that there won't be growing pains, but since when is life a walk in the park? As a society, we have lost our gumption to make the hard choices. Sadly, we've become a society that believes the path to go down should be the easiest and most convenient.
Mike1234567
member
If we're ALL armed and ready to defend ourselves/families and each other then, in most cases, good will prevail. Lawmen and law-women just need to "logically" turn their heads... unless the lawless jackasses begin to take over and they need to intervene. And if those law-persons fail to step up or are overly stupid then fire them.
Is that right? Maybe not... but I'm okay with it.
Is that right? Maybe not... but I'm okay with it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
