ok if we dont want felons to have guns....

[thorn726]

or do we not care who has a gun period?
i am trying to keep everything totally logical here.
a general opinion, which i agree with=
gun bans do not stop criminals from using guns.

one i have a problem with=

registration of guns does not keep felons from getting guns.

see, i dont completely buy that. YES= in places, guns are everywhere, and yes felons can get them.
BUT= they cant just walk into a store, and even an irresponsible gun owner is going to think twice before handing a pistol registered to himself over to a felon, no?

MOST OF ALL= Again, sure there are places where tons of people have guns-
but for the number of homeless i am in contact with, the amount of gangsta junk i have to tolerate, i see very few guns . very few. like the one job we found some tiny pieces in the ghetto, and everyone in the neighborhood was coming by to try and claim it (oh its my cousins, he left it in the house. yeah right), if it is so easy for them to get a gun, why so much fuss over a .22 ??

why dont i see them constantly?? because with the regulations we have, only the really hard core criminals here are gonna whip out a piece, and at this point it is more often than not stupid drug dealing kids getting each other, doing it for serious hard core criminals who are afraid to get caught with gun themselves

you guys don't feel like =
great example, tonight's news= 14 year old kid in Richmond captured with SKS tied to 3 murders. (the TV report referred to it being sks)
link to story

we really shouldnt be able to track that weapon back to the person who gives it to this kid?

i am not into bans of any kind, what i like best is the dealer keeps records, background checks, cool, the records remain private unless/until needed because of murder or something like that= as in factory knows what dealer got this serial number= dealer knows who got which gun.

govt can request data on a particular number. basically like a wiretap proceeding. the phone is there, but govt only taps in with GOOD reason

now that we have computers, and a huge population with increasing numbers of crazy mad men (and women) , doenst seem like the worst idea to me.

It had been reported stolen from Berkeley, police said.

haha, you guys thougt we were all peace and love. ok so in this case, at least the serial numbers got it back to its owner (eventually)

 

[KONY]

I think FELONS should not have guns (won't stop them though). The problem I see is when people think POOR people should not have guns, which is what lots of "gun control" talk centers around (i.e., talk of "Saturday Night Specials" being banned).

 

[Majic]

Why you don't constantly see any guns? It's not any kind of regulation, it's that any criminal won't let you see the tools of his trade (that would be real stupid on his/her part).
Probably 90% to 95% of the guns owned by criminals are stolen. So what good is any record keeping going to do then? It can trace back to the last legal owner, but it could very well have absolutely nothing to do with the criminal.

Oh yeah, why so much fuss over that .22 you found? Because they were trying to get something free. That should have been real easy to figure out.

 

[migoi]

Hawaii has about...

as complete gun registration as you can get. Every gun, handguns and longguns, are registered, medical and mental health records are checked prior to each and every handgun purchase, and a 14 day wait in the middle of the process.

We don't seem to have any shortage of folks committing crimes with guns. Of course we have no idea of the legality of the guns used in the majority of crimes where the criminal is not caught, the "two Japanese tourists robbed at gunpoint by man they had befriended earlier in the day" type of crimes. In most of the ones where the criminal is caught somewhere in the story is usually a statement about the two digit count of previous convictions of the dinkhead (a pretty clear indication that the gun used in the crime was not obtained legally).

Since we are an island the "guns are being driven in from another state with lax laws" doesn't really apply either. My observations here show that full registration does not stop criminals from obtaining guns. We don't have to theorize here...we see it everytime we open the paper and think about everytime we take our three, yes three, trips to the main police station downtown to do all the steps necessary to buy a handgun (every single one, not just the first). Of course the we in the above sentences are all us law abiding citizens...the dinkheads have a much shorter process I'm told.

migoi

 

[thorn726]

hmmm. so the ultimate logic is

criminals will steal/get guns.

registration takes too long.

no questions asked when purchasing firearms?

i mean sounds good to me, but will that stream ever get us anywhere?

don't get me wrong guys, you already got me on your side with waiting periods, and background checks should be instant, and at this point available to anyone, almost anywhere (in theory), so really it <should> be easier for regular person to go to store, bring home gun, than criminal to find a gun to steal or get one.

is it that you don't want gov't having record of your arms in the event they wanted you to surrender them?
that logic i understand, and would like to come up with a middle ground for somehow.

 

[Alex45ACP]

There should be no restrictions on guns whatsoever, except for people who are in prison. The government should recognize the righs of everyone, including felons.

is it that you don't want gov't having record of your arms in the event they wanted you to surrender them?

Ding ding ding! What've we got for him Johnny?

Remember, the gun grabber agenda goes:

1. Regulation
2. Registration
3. Confiscation

Besides, it's really none of the government's business who owns a gun anyway. It's not even something they need to be involved in.

that logic i understand, and would like to come up with a middle ground for somehow.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. No compromises of any sort are acceptable.

 

[migoi]

Yep...

the ultimate logic is that registration does not keep guns out of the hands of felons.

"one i have a problem with=

registration of guns does not keep felons from getting guns.

see, i dont completely buy that."

I don't see how it is relevant if you completely buy it or not...it's true. A daily reading of the newpapers here shows that. If it doesn't work for that purpose, why have it?

Since it doesn't work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals there must be another reason, which Alex45ACP has already adequately outlined.

migoi

 

[280PLUS]

Don't forget. You ARE the Government.

Well, as long as you vote anyways. The only reason things are they way they are is because the majority of voters have placed anti gun Legislators into office. Quite a few of these voters are uninformed victims of the anti gun rhetoric whose entire take on the subject is , "Guns are bad!" Your task is to motivate as many of these as you can within YOUR reach to vote anti gun Legislators out and vote in those that respect your rights. A lot of them are firmly entrenched too, (especially here in CT) so it won't be easy.

I think it would be an even tougher job to convince a majority of the voters that convicted felons should be allowed to have guns. I understand that, theoretically, the Gov't has no right to take weapons away from even people in prison. That'd be a tough one to sell too. Hence the grey areas.

I lean towards, "If you are a convicted felon and you have actually rehabilitated yourself and have become a productive member of society, after a certain period of time you should get your right to vote as well as your guns back."

That way there is some incentive for more to turn their lives around. If you've lost these things and never expect to get them back what incentive is there? Chances are you'd just hold a lifelong grudge against society and revolve in and out of the prison system until you're dead.

 

[Alex45ACP]

I understand that, theoretically, the Gov't has no right to take weapons away from even people in prison.

Well rights come with responsibilities. If you violate someone else's, you lose yours. So people do lose their rights while they're in prison. But once they've served their time their rights are restored, and the government should recognize this.

 

[TarpleyG]

I agree with Alex. Once a felon has served his or her time, their rights should be restored (if a government can even take them away in the first place), including gun ownership and voting. If they are not to be trusted with a gun, why are we letting them out of prison?

why dont i see them constantly??

Because they need money/food/drugs more than a gun. They don't collect them like we do and do not appreciate them as works of art, etc. It is simply a tool to them and they can get them on a whim. So, when the time comes to get high, eat, or die, guess what the first and only valuable thing they have to sell or trade is.

Greg

 

[Steelcore]

If it were legal for convicted felons to own guns we would have no need for 4473's,background checks or waiting periods.If you saw a gun you liked at a gunshow you could just hand over your money and walk.Wouldn't it be nice?

 

[kfranz]

Alex said it pretty well. I'll just add that felons with guns isn't a gun problem, it's a justice system problem.

Remember kids, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control...

 

[Onmilo]

Even the gun hating United Nations has admitted that there are far too many small arms in circulation to have any hope of ever collecting them up and destroying them.

The bizzare view they hold is by preventing civilians from obtaining and possessing small arms the amount available to criminal or dictatorial elements will be reduced through attrition.
They believe Global reductions in firearm violence can be reduced by three quarters if this idea is mandated with the goal being reached in less than ONE HUNDRED YEARS!

Look at all the evil that took place in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS and tell me that this goal, this ideal is achievable or even intelligently conceived.

Bad people will always have access to the tools neccessary to conduct whatever agenda they have in mind, period.
No amount of restriction against civilized communities of citizens will, or ever has, prevented this.

It is a CIVIC and SOCIAL requirement that law abiding citizens possess the means, and the willingness to employ those means, against the hoards of uncivil beings who have intent of disrupting a peaceful society for economic or unjust govermental ideals if CIVILIZED SOCIETY ever hopes to maintain and continue a peaceful and law abiding society and government that they have achieved.

 

[Hawk]

Concern that a registry would be used to effectively ban a class of firearms in the U.S. doesn't require clairvoyance or paranoia. It’s already happened. Someplace between registration and confiscation comes the simple act of closing the registry.

Rather like the Hughes amendment already did to machine guns in 1986. Up until 1986, I always dreaded some anti pointing out in a debate that the NFA registry of 1934 seemed to be working rather well (hmmm, giving away my age here). Gee, if was working, why close it?

While this forum has numerous members that would rightly correct me if I stated that fully automatic civilian firearms are banned, I would submit that the difference between banning a Glock 18 and pricing it at $20,000.00 is indistinguishable to some of us.

Nothing to worry about though: I mean machine guns are only one class of firearm that no law-abiding person needs anyway, hunh?

But wait. Isn’t DiFi pushing to define .50’s as an NFA firearm at the federal level? Guess AB50 wasn’t good enough for her. I wonder how long the registry will stay open on new civvy .50’s? Oh well, pretty safe bet she and Chuck will be happy with .50’s and won’t try adding semi-auto’s, scoped rifles and pump shotguns, hunh?

Confiscation based on a federal registry is conjecture. De facto banning through abuse of a federal registry is historical fact. (see congressional record 1986 Hughes D:NJ)

 

[usem]

like it's SO hard to drill out a serial number, right?

It's perfectly feasible to weld them over, restamp them and refinish the frame, too. Couple of hours of careful work, max.

 

[cuervo]

One big hole in the registration argument is identity.

John Brown goes on a buying spree of 1 gun a week at different gun stores. When a trace is run 6 months later on a crime gun, it is discovered that John Brown is an 75 year-old senior who hasn't bought a gun in the past 50 years. Turns out John Brown had his wallet stolen on the last trip to Las Vegas and his identity was stolen.

How did registration help? How will it catch a person who claims to be Brown?

By the way, NICS has this same weakness. What proof do you have that you're really you and not the person who stole someone else's identity?

 

[Keaner]

I personally think that registration is an atrocity, and is a HUGE violation of our rights (see comments above for reasoning).

I think that it is equally as important for felons (once they are out of prison) to own weapons. Not really sure we want guns in a prison env, so thats really the limitation. More of a "no guns in a school area" type thing.

Anyway, imagine this: Tomorrow, the US.gov decides that anyone posting a message in a blog with the intent to alter an election (ie, political speech), will be tried/convicted of a felony. THAT is wrong, yet the prime people who would rebel this action, are now in jail! THEY should be leading a resistance, not stuck waiting for others to fight for them.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

What's everyone's problem on here with regards to felons owning guns?! I really don't get where this mentality comes from. Let's say I had put a bayonet on my AR-15 in 2002... I guess that would have made me a felon, I guess I shouldn't ever be trusted to own guns. :banghead: Come on, everything's a felony nowadays. BTW, when you talk about felons owning guns, I assume you mean felons who are *no longer in jail*, right? Well, if they're not in jail anymore, then they have, by definition, paid their debt to society and are free men. So what's the big deal?

 

[MICHAEL T]

If hes a felon and is convicted of using a gun in the crime. Cut off both hands makes drawing and shooting a little harder.

 

[Pointman]

If the options are for the law to say everyone has guns or no one has guns then I vote for everyone.

The Felons that will honor the "no-guns" provisions of the law are not the ones I'm worried about nor should society.

 

[Standing Wolf]

By the way, NICS has this same weakness. What proof do you have that you're really you and not the person who stole someone else's identity?

Bingo!

False identification is neither difficult to find nor expensive. In fact, many states make a point of issuing driving licenses to illegal aliens, all of whom are felons.

Reasonable conclusion: leftist extremist so-called "gun control" laws have nothing to do with criminals and everything to do with disarming law-abiding American citizens.

 

[thorn726]

If hes a felon and is convicted of using a gun in the crime. Cut off both hands makes drawing and shooting a little harder.

uh outside of this above guy who obviuosly thinks the constitution is toilet paper (uh, cruel and unusual anyone?)

you guys make some pretty darn good points, thanks.

i will say this= current regulations DO make it a bit harder for felons/dangerous persons to get guns, whether you want to believe it or not=
there are tons of criminals who would love a gun, but the difference in sentence for a robbery and a "possesion of weapon by felon" are well, you dont want to go there. but there is also no denying folks who REally want a gun will get one eventually.

yes, i suppose i agree on the problems with registration.
but at the smae time= are you concerned the govt will come and take your car away?
would you rather not have the ability to retrieve your car???
see, we can trust the govt not to take our cars (genreally anyway).
what id like to see is a govt we can trust.
guess thats out of the question though.

well guys , how does it feel to keep pushing some CA hippie clown over on to your side of the fence???
(ok im not really a hippy, im known as the neo gothic aggro death hippy, but still.)

 

[Hkmp5sd]

If a person is not incarcerated, he should be allowed to own firearms.

Banning felons from owning guns is just one step in the never ending process of antis banning groups from having guns. We can now add former mental patients, former drug addicts and anyone accused of misdemeanor domestic violence. What will be the next transgression to warrant a lifetime ban? Having your name on the federal "no fly" list? Your name on the FBI's "terrorism watch list"?

 

[Hawk]

are you concerned the govt will come and take your car away?

Dedicated, well-funded "Anti-car" lobby groups don't exist (that I know of, anyway).

Even Sierra isn't "anti-car (SUV)" - they're anti-gas guzzler. MADD isn't "anti-car" - they're anti drunk driving.

If a person is not incarcerated, he should be allowed to own firearms.

If you're uncomfortable with that, as I'd expect some are, there used to be an appeals process whereby one could petition for reinstatement of his rights. It's abandoned - funding cut off. See JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 925(c): ABROGATION THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS? PDF-here.

Swell. Here's an automotive anaology. Get a ticket, lose you license in perpetuity, with no chance of appeal. Oh yeah, and you lose your car. I can actually see people resisting auto registration under those circumstances.

neo gothic aggro death hippy

Well, I learned something new, as well:

AGGRO ADJECTIVE: Slang 1. Aggressive or violent. 2. Daring and skillful, especially in a sport such as surfing.

It can also pertain to MMRPG's - pretty good, hunh?

 

[thorn726]

Dedicated, well-funded "Anti-car" lobby groups don't exist (that I know of, anyway).

ahhh, yeah there is logic to that.

Get a ticket, lose you license in perpetuity, with no chance of appeal. Oh yeah, and you lose your car. I can actually see people resisting auto registration under those circumstances

well yeah, we dont want to get into right/privilege to drive here, thats a completely different discussion.
if your registration is suspended, because of unpaid fines, then your car can be taken, and for lots of other reasons, but this is kinda off the topic as its more about taxation, i dunno there are similarities to gun and car ownership, but roads are paid for by taxes, and whether you personally agree or not, enough of us citizens do agree there need to be rules of the road.
heheh. imagine anarchy on the freeway- no rules whatsoever! hahah. fun, but not very good for your commute.

anyway, yeah this is good stuff guys, thanks

Banning felons from owning guns is just one step in the never ending process of antis banning groups from having guns. We can now add former mental patients, former drug addicts and anyone accused of misdemeanor domestic violence. What will be the next transgression to warrant a lifetime ban? Having your name on the federal "no fly" list? Your name on the FBI's "terrorism watch list"?

yeah really. never really thought of it like that.

i just remember learning in like 6 or 7 grade, i think relevant to 2nd amendment, constitution, etc that felons were the only people not allowed to have guns, and now look at it. domestic violence (and those laws have lots of excepttions, mostly for women) well its tricky, but mental patients= the big problem with that is how very minor actions can get somone 5150'd, drugs?
well i have many problems with that, especially for recovered people, its like only people who got hooked and went to the trouble to complete a program to ensure they really got clean, they are the ones we dont sell to.

wow. its frustrating, all this paperwork aimed at the right thing, accomplishing the opposite.

it must be nice to be one of the stupid people, not knowing, not caring.