How free do you want to be poll

[Vern Humphrey]

"Shall not be infringed upon (no ifs, ands, or buts)" is something only a fool would support. There are people who should never be in the presence of a firearm, except when one is pointed in their direction.

One of the keys to understanding liberalism is that Liberals believe they're better than everyone else. "There are people who should never be in the presence of a firearm" -- but not us liberals of course.

The second key is understanding liberals believe they can change the world by fiat -- "If I say they can't have a firearm, they won't be able to get one." They never understand that all their laws and regulations only handicap the good guys -- the bad guys just ignore them.

 

[Salmoneye]

I voted 'No Control', as in a way, it is already like that here with face to face purchases...

I don't see any problems arrising from this situation here...

 

[leadcounsel]

Control is just that, Control... The .gov is too much about Control.

In a free society, where the 2A is guaranteed, I see control as inconsistent.

I do conceed that there are places where firearms are inappropriate, like courts, planes, etc. But limited to very very few places.

As to felons, it should be case by case...

 

[Ole Coot]

I had to go with limited control simply because I know some folks that can't have firearms and shouldn't.

 

[dprice3844444]

as long as they have the irs,we will never be free

 

[Salmoneye]

In addition to my post above...Maybe my thinking is colored by the wording of the Vermont State Constitution:

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

This was originally article XV of the Vermont Republic Constitution of 1777, which predates the Bill Of Rights by how many years?

Also, as I stated before, VT just does not seem like the lawless place most of you that voted for 'some control' expect if people legally carry concealed without licenses, classes, etc....

 

[Dr.Mall Ninja]

No carrying while in prison. Now thats a sensible gun law!

Wow I thought that this website didn't have anti's on it.

 

[NG VI]

There is already a process for felons to allow them to have their gun rights reestablished. Pretty simple and straightforward.

It's a mixed bag across the country and it tends to be both expensive and whimsical. Some people get their rights restored with no issues at all, others who by any reasonable standard should have them restored can't get it done at any cost. That's a problem.

Good for you that you would trust the guy that killed his mother for $25 to buy that last rock of meth to stand by you,

Because everybody who is convicted of any class C crime is a soulless murdering hard drug addict.

Way to keep it classy and demonstrate any level of understanding of the way the court system works. Felon is not synonymous with murderer, drug zombie, or scumbag.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Deja Moo

Wait, this all sounds so familiar . . .

"Shall not be infringed upon (no ifs, ands, or buts)" is something only a fool would support. There are people who should never be in the presence of a firearm, except when one is pointed in their direction.

You know, I seem to recall that I've addressed this before.

In [post=3164978]this post here[/post], for example. Selected portions reproduced below:

You can't prevent murder by outlawing murder. Murder is going to happen anyway. For what it's worth, murder has nearly always been unlawful. What changes over time is the definition of murder and the tools used for it, depending on who's in charge and the culture they've created.

The tradition throughout history is that the strong control and dictate to the weak. With the advent of the personal firearm, the first true equality of force in history was achieved.

The bullies have never been able to accept this. The bullies want control back. The bullies can't extort and steal and control and intimidate if their victims have the ability to fight back with equal force.

If there is one thing that has become clear over the last several decades, it is that gun control is murder.

Crime has never been solved by gun control. All you get when you remove guns is crime that is committed with different tools, and a whole set of demographics now unable to defend themselves against bullies and predators. This is not progress.

More gun legislation is not only NOT the answer, it is a COMPLETELY WRONG answer.

And, since we can't be sure who's bad, we have to treat everyone as though he is or could be a criminal, until he can prove otherwise, before we allow him to exercise a guaranteed right to own arms.

There's your real insanity: let bad people back out into the general population, don't keep track of them, and instead make everyone else prove he's NOT a criminal.

The answer is just about too simple to be expressed: a) anyone you allow to walk the streets can be trusted to own a gun, b) anyone you can't trust to own a gun doesn't walk the streets.

Criminals are bad. Your choices are these: a) fix the criminal so you can trust him, b) kill the criminal so he's no longer a problem, c) house and feed and care for the criminal until he dies.

It only becomes completely crazy when you try (d) and just let someone you know is bad loose into society.

Guns aren't the problem.

Bullies and tyrants are the problem.

Solve the right problem.

Ah, yes, I knew I'd covered this somewhere.

 

[LNK]

After reading through a lot of the comments, seems people feel like they need to control what other people do way too much. All this talk about felons killing you for your shirt off your back after you loaned him a gun to help defend you is ridiculous. Perhaps if they were that bad of a felon, they should have gotten a life sentence instead of 5 years. Where is the point that you are willing to give up your rights? Seems like everyone has drawn a line in the sand somewhere, but remember, it is a slippery slope. Give a little here, they take a little there. Next thing you know, people are discussing whether they should give some more.

I will live my life and accept the risks that go along with them. Much better to be free, I think . Will let you know if it happens.

 

[grampster]

Well, here's my notion. It would seem to me that anytime the congress considers passing a law that seeks to control the populace by banning or legislating against objects, there needs to be public hearing on the subject in the several states that must include the general population, especially those who are familiar in some way, or hold, or use those objects.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[armarsh]

When I was a kid, you could walk into a Sears, Wards, JC Penney, or any local hardware store and buy a rifle and ammo. The only question you might be asked is how long you had saved up to buy it. Violent crime was very rare. You hardly even read of if in the newspapers.

I am really saddened to see people truly believe that the current system of restrictions and background checks solve anything.

 

[Mike J]

As regard to felons I know more than one person that is a convicted felon. They work, pay bills & try to do the right thing. That these people should be denied their 2A rights because they did something they shouldn't have 20 years ago is absurd. I could understand denial on a case by case basis with violent offenders maybe but I don't view the guy who broke into a video store when he was 17 the same way.

 

[230therapy]

I voted no control because limited control balloons out to total control.

Regarding violent felons: either they are fit to return to society or they are not. If a person continually commits violent felonies when released, then that is a clear indication that person needs to be locked up permanently or killed.

If someone is fit to return to society, then he or she should have all the rights acknowledged by the state and Federal constitutions as soon as he or she leaves prison. Instead, this society has created two new classes: a criminal class and a law enforcement class. The criminal class continually loses rights and the law enforcement class continually gains rights that exceed those of the citizen.

 

[fireside44]

I feel there should be an arms market in every downtown where I can legally and easily purchase full automatic weapons, grenades, rpg's, shoulder fired missiles, and ammo by the ton. We talk about being free but our country doesn't have this whereas some other places which we consider less free do.

Felons should get guns to fire, violent felons should face a firing squad. Mental cases should be allowed to own guns, most of them are not violent nor a danger to themselves. If they are a danger to themselves they should remain institutionalized.

They were men, and in wording the second amendment, they erred.

You erred watching too much liberal television.

 

[AlexanderA]

If there were truly "no controls," the chance of misuse of guns would be much greater. Then, when unfortunate incidents took place, there would be a hue and cry for severe controls, and the pendulum would swing the other way. So, having minimal "limited controls," such as prohibition for felons, the underage, adjudicated mental cases, etc., is actually a protection for gun owners.

 

[BeerSleeper]

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, in my opinion.

In the body of the constitution, it states (not quoting verbatim here, forgive me) that no one should be deprived of any rights without due process of law. I think that justifies prohibitions to felons. I think no one else should have to submit to any restrictions, at all.

I voted 4, it was closest to what I think. I think there should be some prohibited persons, but I do not think it should be necessary to prove you are not prohibited at time of purchase (background checks).

 

[fireside44]

If there were truly "no controls," the chance of misuse of guns would be much greater.

How's that? Those current "controls" didn't stop Virginia Tech, Colombine, or any other gun massacre. It's an assumption you've made without having real world evidence to back it up.

Controls only stop misuse of firearms for those who obey gun control laws already and in doing so are not likely to be the perpetrator of a crime while using a gun. A criminal makes no distinction, hence the label "criminal".

 

[jimmyraythomason]

seems people feel like they need to control what other people do way too much

There it is! Just mention on THIS VERY FORUM that you are thinking about sporterizing YOUR k98 or Arisaka type 38 and see what you get!

 

[NG VI]

Perhaps if they were that bad of a felon, they should have gotten a life sentence instead of 5 years.

I agree with your post entirely, but I think it's worth pointing out that someone convicted of a felony doesn't necessarily ever see the inside of a prison. You can be sentenced to well under a year (the typical delineation of misdemeanor vs felony charges is if you could be sentenced to one full year or more) of county jail time and still leave a felon.

If someone is fit to return to society, then he or she should have all the rights acknowledged by the state and Federal constitutions as soon as he or she leaves prison. Instead, this society has created two new classes: a criminal class and a law enforcement class. The criminal class continually loses rights and the law enforcement class continually gains rights that exceed those of the citizen.

One of the clearest short descriptions of the road our society has been running down I've ever seen. I can't help but wonder if it has in any way affected our economy over the last ten, twenty years or so? On a gut level I just know that it has been a disaster for us, making it much more difficult for many citizens to secure a decent job no matter their training or work ethic, burdening tax payers and the 'criminal' class alike with unnecessary debt, and only 'creating' any growth in the corrections industry. What people aren't talking about is that the criminal system is being heavily used as a revenue enhancer for local and state governments.

That said, I do believe that probation has a place, and it is very much useful to supervise people post-release to determine how they handled their adjustment.

 

[devans0]

I am a law abiding person, and feel that people like me should enjoy rights that reflect my ability to behave responsibly. No restrictions on assault guns, silencers, magazines or clips.

A tier of re-earning rights for felons is OK, but I don't have a problem of restricting felons to airguns, either. Will they still get guns? Yes, but they will get to go back to prison when caught, too.

I'm surprised by the number of no-control responses.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system."

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Big Brothering

For those who endorse "some control" with restrictions on felons and other undesirables, let's have a look what the actual implementation requires.

ID. Everyone has to have ID. The ID has to be state approved and, if firearms regulations are federal (national), then the ID has to be acceptable to the feds as well. The feds are like any bureaucracy, they won't be happy with broad variations in format or validations and will want to "standardize" the process, always working toward a National ID (which they will control and monitor) and eventually becoming a key to every official interaction with government.

The vision is kind of "SSN gene-spliced with driver's license with some next-gen RFID" allowing government to "properly manage" the population and its activities. It will, of course, be promoted as a convenience to the citizenry, a protection against fraud, and an assurance that one is "properly enrolled" in all the entitlements that are one's due.

Oh, and it will guarantee that the freedom to exercise your rights is intact, since we will always know who you are.

And this makes perfect sense because . . . well, we issue federal ID to felons as well, and that makes it easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. And since there will never be any doubt that you're a good guy, we can go back to selling guns in hardware stores and gas stations, because the proprietor will always have the confidence that the ID he's scanning is legitimate, and the customer is exactly who he says he is. Because felons won't carry counterfeit ID cards, and they won't lie about who they are, and they will always go through officially approved channels to obtain their weapons.

('Scuse me while I wrestle my tongue back out of my cheek before I sprain it.)


Well, okay, since we have to concede that the bad guys might just possibly break the rules (the really, really bad ones), then I guess we can't do away with the FFL system. But most bad guys will play by the rules. Really. No, I'm serious here -- stop that laughing!


Hmmm. Okay, that's probably not gonna work out like the bureaucrats suggest, but it could work out, so we have to at least try, right? So we do the National ID thing. I mean, really, what could go wrong?

(Ow. I bit my tongue.)


What's that you say? Keep the bad guys locked up until we're certain we can trust them? Perform actual rehabilitation? Dude! You can't do that! That would be cruel and unusual punishment!

We have to let them out . . . so they can mingle with society and honest folk . . . but that's okay because we register them, and we always know where they are. How? Hey, remember that National ID?

And since we have to be sensitive to the needs of felons -- like their healthy interaction with society -- we have to continue to make sure that, when you want to exercise your rights, you aren't one of them.

Because you can never really be sure, right?

But since we're the government, you can trust us with this system.

Because gun control has done much to reduce crime.

Hey, just look at our record. We have complete gun control in Chicago and Washington DC, and look what it's done for them!


Hey, come on, we only want a little control.

And it's for your own good.

Think of the children.

 

[TennJed]

I do not break laws and tend to be a pretty nice fellow. "Some control" would not hinder or impact me as an individual.

Also I am a pretty good shot, so if I happen to encounter a crazed felon with a gun because of "no control" I can take care of that too

In all honesty I feel the most important thing in any fair society is "accurate" information and education. We, as gun owners, need to do what we can to make sure people have accurate views of firearms (or any subject for that matter). I believe if the masses are honestly well informed, the rest will (for the most part) fall in line.

The biggest problem right now is too many regular people have completly skewed views of guns. Support pro gun groups and, when you can, educate the uneducated (while being respectful), and you have done something. You can't change the world on you own, but you can be a part of it

 

[fireside44]

I find it sad that the largest number, 150, support "moderate" gun control regulations. Nice to see the media doing it's dirty work convincing everyone, including gun owners, that regulations are somehow essential.

There is no "moderate" regulation, there is only regulation, and it is detrimental to freedom. You who voted "moderate" deserve all the gun regulation that the future may hold. It's your type who have kept the ATF's, NFA's, and Brady supporters in business this long. You make me sick.