Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Might I ask how much have you read about the history of authoritarianism?
How free do you want to be poll
- Thread starter JVaughn
- Start date
- Status
Might I ask how much have you read about the history of authoritarianism?
Mike1234567
member
I was being facetious.
A couple folks insinuated that excessive drinkers shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. I wasn't lying or exaggerating about anything I wrote though.IBEWBULL
Member
Felons
When a person is convicted of a felony, they surely must know it.
If a convicted felon attempts to purchase a firearm it should be a parole violation.
My question is why are these people not being locked up?
Let us control the convicted felons after they are freed. There are avenues to clear a felony and get rights back and it should be a possibility.
In the past smoking pot was a felony in some states. But an admitted coke head is in the White House now. Sorry I digressed.
When a person is convicted of a felony, they surely must know it.
If a convicted felon attempts to purchase a firearm it should be a parole violation.
My question is why are these people not being locked up?
Let us control the convicted felons after they are freed. There are avenues to clear a felony and get rights back and it should be a possibility.
In the past smoking pot was a felony in some states. But an admitted coke head is in the White House now. Sorry I digressed.
crazy4milsurps
Member
wow, bud you went to the extreme lol
just saying, one might call a man a rapist because the woman had an alterior motive, on may call a man a murderer because he was defending a life out of the sight of others. on may be considered unstable because his peers went to far. who are we to judge everything as if we are god?
just saying, one might call a man a rapist because the woman had an alterior motive, on may call a man a murderer because he was defending a life out of the sight of others. on may be considered unstable because his peers went to far. who are we to judge everything as if we are god?
crazy4milsurps
Member
its a moral question only to be answer by the beneficiaries. LOL
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
I'm pretty sure he was using the term "god" in the colloquialism form, and not actually making a religious argument. And regardless, your response had little to do with anything being discussed here.
To get the thread back on point, I'll restate: how familiar are you with the history of authoritarianism?
Nearly all dictators and despotic government have risen to power, not through violent coups, but by being given the authority to trample rights willing by the populace. The despots promise to rid society of problems, if only they had the power to do so. Society, believing that they will never have reason to fear the government, gives the power willingly. "I'm not a Jew, I have nothing to be afraid of". "I'm a Roman citizen, I have nothing to be afraid of".
And now "I'm not a felon, I have nothing to be afraid of".
To get the thread back on point, I'll restate: how familiar are you with the history of authoritarianism?
Nearly all dictators and despotic government have risen to power, not through violent coups, but by being given the authority to trample rights willing by the populace. The despots promise to rid society of problems, if only they had the power to do so. Society, believing that they will never have reason to fear the government, gives the power willingly. "I'm not a Jew, I have nothing to be afraid of". "I'm a Roman citizen, I have nothing to be afraid of".
And now "I'm not a felon, I have nothing to be afraid of".
lobo9er
Member
Felons have accesss to cars, gasoline, power tools, medicinals/phama, Alchohal, tobaccoo, Access to schools in some cases, and lots of other potentially dangerous things and situations, but can never vote or touch a firearm. In NY the smart people in charge are starting to put misdemeanors on the same list.
Little rant on freedom, or at least the direction of the land of the free. Also you have to list non felony DWI's to be taken in consideration when you ask to put a new pistol on your permit.
Little rant on freedom, or at least the direction of the land of the free. Also you have to list non felony DWI's to be taken in consideration when you ask to put a new pistol on your permit.
Last edited:
lobo9er
Member
Safety is an illusion. So is control. The laws on the books only work if people follow them. There is "no control" already for the ones who dont follow the laws, rules and regs. We, the law abiding are the only ones that are "controlled".
Quick Shot xMLx
Member
I voted no control. The founders were very clear in their intent of the 2A. The ONLY thing I'm not completely opposed to is the background check. CCW, NFA items, mag restrictions, all that is unconstitutional.
jcwit
member
I thinking that perhaps the laws regarding felons not being able to own a firearm or to vote was put in place so as to prevent people from committing a felonious act. This would be back a century when a firearm was much needed by the populous as a means of feeding their family.
Not sure about this at all, just a thought.
Not sure about this at all, just a thought.
parsimonious_instead
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 791
Crikey... who voted for "prohibition?" 
I don't think Afghanistan's issue is a lack of judgement of others.
You have a chance of being taken seriously if you can at least write coherent sentences with a minimum of typos. Most internet browsers actually show you which words you've butchered now.
You have a chance of being taken seriously if you can at least write coherent sentences with a minimum of typos. Most internet browsers actually show you which words you've butchered now.
jcwit
member
Go back and read earlier posts, he explaines his position. lol
Seems like more than a few people don't understand that not all felonies involve violence, not even all "violent" crimes involve violence, and many 'crimes' don't involve anything at all that a reasonable person would consider to be a crime.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Or that the definitions of all of these things can change based on who is in power. It wasn't too long ago that Tea-Party types were on the verge of being classified as a domestic terrorist organization.
"Give me the power to restrict the rights of people, and I promise I will only use it against people you don't like" - The promise of every tyrant and despot.
No Control
Why? Control only affects those who do not break the law.
Honest people outnumber the criminals. The more freedoms honest people have, the less criminals will live through their crime. The fewer criminals, the safer the world becomes.
That's the bottom line.
Why? Control only affects those who do not break the law.
Honest people outnumber the criminals. The more freedoms honest people have, the less criminals will live through their crime. The fewer criminals, the safer the world becomes.
That's the bottom line.
blarby
Member
Yikes !
Isaac-1
Member
The problem is again the modern definition of a felon, there are all sorts of things today that count as felonies, I suspect many of the people that have posted to this message thread have commited at least one felony whether they know it or not at some point in their life. All sorts of crazy things can be considered felonies these could be lying on paperwork, to driving too fast (in some states driving more than 25 mph over the limit is considered a felony), maybe it was that illegal dumping of motor oil when changing the oil in your car, how about driving through a post office parking lot with a gun in your car?
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
A comparison of the destructive negotiating tactics is hardly being "classified as a domestic terrorist organization". http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/news/la-pn-bachmann-biden-20110802
As to the poll, I'm not seeing a problem with "reasonable" 2nd amendment restrictions while there are "reasonable" restrictions on the other amendments in the BoR.
MuleRyder
Member
I suspect this poll is skewed and doesn't accurately reflect opinions with posts like this where the vote was "no control" but then he says he's not opposed to background checks which is the definition of #4 Limited Control. You can't have it both ways.
aaronu
Member
Is there a 4.5 option?
In my opinion, "The People" are rational, law abiding adults of sound mind.
Last I checked, in America we presume innocence. If anything is worthy of that presumption it is the inherent rights recognized in the Constitution and its Amendments. We should assume the same for membership in "the People" and exclude only those we can prove otherwise, against a very high standard.
Those who have committed violent, felony crimes and possibly other felons who have threatened to do so IMO should not be allowed to own, carry or purchase guns.
Mentally impaired people can be involuntarily committed. A similar standard should apply for impaired people and gun ownership.
Drug addicts do what is necessary to acquire drugs. Let them choose their own hell. If they commit a crime, lock 'em up. If a drug user is a danger but has not committed any crime, commit them.
I'm OK with needing to show state ID to a gun dealer, that's all -- just to verify I am not a felon. I'm OK with the few felons/incompetents having a big "NO GUNS" watermark on their ID, with some legal recourse to remove it after judicial review. Yes an ID would be abused or forged but anything more comprehensive would likely infringe on the rights of the law abiding majority.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
In my opinion, "The People" are rational, law abiding adults of sound mind.
Last I checked, in America we presume innocence. If anything is worthy of that presumption it is the inherent rights recognized in the Constitution and its Amendments. We should assume the same for membership in "the People" and exclude only those we can prove otherwise, against a very high standard.
Those who have committed violent, felony crimes and possibly other felons who have threatened to do so IMO should not be allowed to own, carry or purchase guns.
Mentally impaired people can be involuntarily committed. A similar standard should apply for impaired people and gun ownership.
Drug addicts do what is necessary to acquire drugs. Let them choose their own hell. If they commit a crime, lock 'em up. If a drug user is a danger but has not committed any crime, commit them.
I'm OK with needing to show state ID to a gun dealer, that's all -- just to verify I am not a felon. I'm OK with the few felons/incompetents having a big "NO GUNS" watermark on their ID, with some legal recourse to remove it after judicial review. Yes an ID would be abused or forged but anything more comprehensive would likely infringe on the rights of the law abiding majority.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
What about the people who fit the profile of potential felons?
It is a known fact that people of a certain age, sex, race, education and economic level are much more prone to violent crime than others. Should people with several of these statistical factors be disqualified from owning guns because of what they MIGHT do, or should gun restrictions based on past criminal actions that have been proven in a court of law?
It is a known fact that people of a certain age, sex, race, education and economic level are much more prone to violent crime than others. Should people with several of these statistical factors be disqualified from owning guns because of what they MIGHT do, or should gun restrictions based on past criminal actions that have been proven in a court of law?
No worries bro, and it's journalist.
My apologies if you have a condition that prevents you from typing yourself.
My only real issue with you is that you appear to not understand that "felons" and "criminals" could include you with nothing more than a change of administration.
What happens when Congress passes a bill stating that anyone who has ever owned more than two firearms is now public enemy number 1?
My apologies if you have a condition that prevents you from typing yourself.
My only real issue with you is that you appear to not understand that "felons" and "criminals" could include you with nothing more than a change of administration.
What happens when Congress passes a bill stating that anyone who has ever owned more than two firearms is now public enemy number 1?
thecarfarmer
Member
A number have voiced the sentiment "but, if a guy is not being incarcerated, he should be able to have a gun - if not, then he should still be in the joint". Or something like that.
Personally, I don't agree. We have people in 'probationary' status, who're getting back into the swing of things on the "outside".
I don't think it's a bad idea to let people who've committed crimes (esp. violent crimes) have to go thru a period where they're going to have to show that they're 'squared away'.
So I voted for #4. If there'd been a "4.5"... it'd have got my vote.
-Bill
Personally, I don't agree. We have people in 'probationary' status, who're getting back into the swing of things on the "outside".
I don't think it's a bad idea to let people who've committed crimes (esp. violent crimes) have to go thru a period where they're going to have to show that they're 'squared away'.
So I voted for #4. If there'd been a "4.5"... it'd have got my vote.
-Bill
This one's obviously circling the drain.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
