Some of my thoughts on gun ownership.

[tasco 74]

huuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... interesting discussion and lots of great replies ...... my brother and brother in law were out a couple of years ago and had too much to drink they were the best of friends........ my brother in law was killed in the car wreck.... my brother was driving..... he is now a felon and cannot own a firearm legally.......... he is not dangerous but he is a felon... i does sometimes go with me out to shoot my guns and enjoys it but like i said he cannot buy a gun and will not own a gun..... i think there are enough restictions on criminals owning firearms and i do support them............. but you can't restrict ownership just because they look shifty............. a very slippery slope indeed.........

LIFE IS SHORT.....

 

[akodo]

so

retired people and stay at home parents can't have guns?

interesting.

what about people who get laid off? do they have to turn their guns in?

what about people who are employed by the government and to save budget, are given an unrequested 30 day 'break' with no pay, do they loose thier guns? or can they just not buy any new ones during that time.

what about a person who has their hours knocked back from 40 to 32, because in a tough economy there isn't enough demand to keep the lawn-mower production line running at full steam.

At what level of hours per week do you get your rights to own a gun back (maybe hours per week can repesent the calibers you are allowed to own. Have a 20 hour a week job, well we will trust you with this 22LR revolver )

 

[akodo]

also, is it fair to treat all jobs equal?

If you spend 32 hours a week unloading boxes from a plane and into the back of a UPS truck, you are more worn out than if you have a job putting in 40 hours as receptionist at a dental clinic that doesn't have much business.

What about a government employee who spends most of their time at work watching youtube videos vs the guy who is out hanging powerlines after an icestorm?

Where does a 'Yoga coach to the stars' fall? How about a telephone psychic? Britney Spear's dog walker?

We should start judging the quality of the work said person is doing to see if they are worthy.

 

[BhmBill]

Hmmmm. This thread didn't help my heartburn any.

Sounds like shootistpd27 would enjoy Communism. Freedom doesn't seem to tickle his pickle.

 

[donato]

I think that it should be a felony for someone to possess a firearm whose use for the weapon would be only to take what he will not work for.

First, I assume that you mean take illegally what he will not work for. Secondly, you may need to think about this again. How do you determine ahead of time who will commit a crime and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Surely you're not saying that anyone unemployed shouldn't be allow to own a gun.

Now once a crime/felony is committed, the laws pretty well take care of your gun ownership proposal.

 

[BullfrogKen]

shootistpd27,

My thoughts on your thoughts:


I think you need to take a vacation. Interact with some people besides those you lock up every day. Your view of humanity is becoming jaded by your job and that's not good for you, the profession, or the people you serve.

 

[mnrivrat]

but I was wondering how those of you here at thr feel about my thoughts.

Seems your not getting a lot of agreement on your way of thinking. I hope that will not be a bitter pill to swallow for you, as I think there is also some understanding of where that train of thought comes from.

Your profession has you neck deep in the type of people who many of us would prefer not be armed. The problem is there are a lot of good people who do not resort to crime, but yet end up needing a hand up for awhile.

Even a whole lot of the cronic welfare folks may not be the type I want to invite over to lunch, but most remain law abiding , and some can move on to become more of a contribution than you realize.

The criteria you use is biased as a result of your experiences in your profession (IMO). Many of the law breakers can come out of that part of society that you attempt to draw a picture of, but they are still a minority of that segment of our population.

Stay safe - and please re-think your restrictive solution to the crimes you see. The right to self protection is a natural right that should only be restricted if, and when, a person becomes a physical threat to society.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

"I could actually understand a requirement to own land or have a job to vote,"

I said I could understand it. Perhaps you do not realize that land ownership was an original requirement for voting according to the United States Constitution.

The argument is that that those who own nothing could easily vote for representatives who would distrubute largess from the public treasury. Seems to me that is just about where we are in 2009.

Show me a politician who has a plan to "tackle mass unemployment" other than to get government out of the way, and all I can see is an unsustainable, centrally-controlled system like facism, socialism or communism.

I did not say "deny them a voice". I said allow everyone a fairly easy path to a vote. And that I could UNDERSTAND IT, not that I necessarily support it. I also said that every human being has a right to self-defense.

If you think "everyone" should have the right to vote, how about 5-year-olds? How about 17-year-olds? How about illegal aliens? How about parolees? How about convicts? Why not Mexicans, Canadians or Chinese?? They are all very dependent on the USA.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. As a resident of a state where one registered voter can "vouch" for a busload of people to vote with no documentation...and as a result is about to send AL FRANKEN TO THE SENATE!!!, I say the line needs to move. Probably not as far as land ownership, but that WAS the original idea.

My response to the OP is that a little social responsibility for the right to vote might be acceptable to me. Such requirements for the right to keep and bear arms to defend oneself are abhorrent to me. I think that most of the Founding Fathers would agree.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Wow. I wrote my whole response and then I came back to see that you are from England Dark Skies.

"Deny them a voice but allow them guns? You know that's how revolutions start, right?"

More power to you, my English brother...but it might be possible that you just cannot understand the importance of self-defense.

YES - that IS how revolutions start, but I would take out the phrase "allow them guns", because we will find or build them anyway if you deny us a voice.

IMHO, revolutions aren't so bad for freedom. I just don't want another U.S.A. revolution.

 

[BhmBill]

Unruly law men, mayors, politicians, etc used to be beaten or worse by the towns people. There wasn't much need for a revolution during those times (which is when the murder rate was the lowest... less than or equal to 1 in 100,000).

A revolution wouldn't be a bad thing for freedom, but people will needlessly die from revolution because of those who think that civilians shouldn't be as armed as well as those who "protect" them or make the laws.

 

[largecaliber]

Constitution

Please understand, in the United States we have a constitution which gives us the right to keep and bare arms. This right is not just for certain people and you cannot distingish who can and who cannot when it comes to the honest citizen who lives under this constitution. Our forefathers did one heck of a job!

 

[Rockwell1]

Am I the only one that notices that pretty much every thread shootistpd27 starts stirs up a hornet's nest like this?

 

[longdayjake]

Lets say we wanted to start this plan. From now on people on welfare for (x) amount of time cannot own a gun. Why? Because they are most likely to use it to steal, kill, and intimidate.

1. So, our government steals money from you and me in the form of taxes to give to these people in form of welfare.

2. The money stolen from us helps them maintain a sedentary and socially worthless lifestyle.

3. This lifestyle, supported by the government through delegated theft, provides a situation that induces criminal activity.

4. Because of the government's theft of its citizens money, theft/crime is committed by those that the delegated theft was meant to benefit.

5. The clear solution for this problem is to remove the right of recipients of government theft to own a firearm.

6. So, restricting the rights of the people becomes the government's solution for something that was created and/or nourished by the existence of government programs.

It seems to me that elimination or limitation of this particular government program (welfare) would save money, lives, and rights. So, in this case, maybe a better solution would be less government instead of more.

This being said, I believe that the majority of felons deserve to be felons and they deserve to lose some rights. The reason they are felons is because they committed a substantially significant harm to another person which denied them of either life, liberty, or property. That deserves punishment that may help in preventing further harm to be done. The purpose of government should be to prevent or rectify harm of individuals, NOT cause the harm.

 

[Rockwell1]

The reason they are felons is because they committed a substantially significant harm to another person which denied them of either life, liberty, or property.

Or got caught with one joint too many.

Or had sex with someone one month to young

Or forgot they had a shotgun in the trunk and got popped driving on post to stop at the PX.

Lost their ration card in USAERA

Loaned their German father in law a pack of American Newports.

Etc Etc Etc

All sorts of victimless crimes are considered felonies these days

 

[stickhauler]

If you think "everyone" should have the right to vote, how about 5-year-olds? How about 17-year-olds? How about illegal aliens? How about parolees? How about convicts? Why not Mexicans, Canadians or Chinese?? They are all very dependent on the USA.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. As a resident of a state where one registered voter can "vouch" for a busload of people to vote with no documentation...and as a result is about to send AL FRANKEN TO THE SENATE!!!, I say the line needs to move. Probably not as far as land ownership, but that WAS the original idea.

I'm pretty sure nobody is advocating allowing 5 year olds the right to vote, even though it just might be possible that they MIGHT have made a more informed choice than 53% of Americans did in 2008's version of the Presidential election. Or maybe not, we'll never know will we?

As for the results of the Minnesota Senate race, let me tell you, the rest of the country are going to be watching you folks REAL close for that sin. But, rest assured, his TV time on the Senate floor is gonna be a lot funnier than any comedy bit he has ever done anyway.

 

[Funderb]

Good freaking God.

if you decide it is okay to restrict a right to anyone, then it is okay to restrict it to everyone.

You can not take rights away.
You can not have an elite allowed "rights' while others are denied.
That idea will ruin us.

I agree, certain people in this world make jobs out of riding the coat tails. I do not agree, that they are less allowed than we, with jobs that pay taxes. Let the law enforcement take care of those that take advantage, because the second you decide to punish them with restrictions you open ALL OF US up to persecution and malice.
The second you allow this is the very same time we as a people of the united states cease to exist.
You sir, fail.

 

[maskedman504]

 

[Walkalong]

I hate to consider restrictions on gun ownership but I feel that in order to possess a firearm one must be a contributor to society.

Make that "citizens" instead of "gun ownership" and "vote" instead of "possess a firearm"

Yep maskedman504, a huge can of worms.

 

[rbernie]

"I am the only one in this room profess'nl enuf to decide who gets the right to own a firearm..."

Uh, no.

 

[longdayjake]

Or got caught with one joint too many.

Or had sex with someone one month to young

Or forgot they had a shotgun in the trunk and got popped driving on post to stop at the PX.

Lost their ration card in USAERA

Loaned their German father in law a pack of American Newports.

Etc Etc Etc

All sorts of victimless crimes are considered felonies these days

I don't really agree that the first two are always victimless crimes and the others appear to be military offenses which don't apply to regular civilians except maybe bringing a weapon onto a military base. In which case a civilian would probably know better and forgetting that you have a gun in your car is not very responsible anyway. When you join the military you are no longer a civilian and you agree to live by a whole other set of laws. No one forces you to join these days so you voluntarily accepted those stupid laws when you signed on.

That said, it still seems to me that in these cases it was the government making laws to "benefit" some unknown portion of society that causes people that commit these acts to become felons. Once again the solution is to reduce government to only preventing or rectifying harm rather than causing it.

 

[rojocorsa]

+1