Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Constitutionlity of Gun Control

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Wildalaska, Jan 5, 2004.

?

Constitutionality of Gun Control

  1. All laws affecting firearms are unconstituional, except for criminal misuse

    153 vote(s)
    63.5%
  2. Prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from owning guns is constituional, but nothing more

    58 vote(s)
    24.1%
  3. The above felon/mentally ill prohibtion, plus background checks are constitional, but nothing more

    19 vote(s)
    7.9%
  4. The above, plus regulating concealed carry, but nothing more.

    2 vote(s)
    0.8%
  5. Prohibiting felons/mentally ill and regulating concealed carry, but nothing more.

    1 vote(s)
    0.4%
  6. Regulating machine guns/dds only.

    2 vote(s)
    0.8%
  7. Felons, mentally ill, plus machine guns and nothing more.

    3 vote(s)
    1.2%
  8. Everything we have now, except for bans on certain firearms.

    3 vote(s)
    1.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,296
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Time I guess to see where people stand
     
  2. Bruce H

    Bruce H Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    North Mo.
    I'm afraid you aren't going to like the answer.
     
  3. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    It's my understanding that the prohibition on felon ownership of firearms predates the Constitution and those laws were never elminated because of the Second Amendment. The problem is we have a lot more felony crimes now than we did then. A felony, properly understood, is a crime serious enough to carry the death penalty.
     
  4. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    I believe that Fed. 29 is pretty darn clear...plus that needling "shall not be infringed."

    The whole 'reasonable restriction" thing is a can of worms.

    Would it be safer to the ninnies to absolutely restrict the sale and ownership of arms? Maybe...but a certain Franklin quote comes to mind.

    I believe that a certain dangers are part of the natural state of a free society.
     
  5. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,296
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Why not?

    WildcuriousAlaska
     
  6. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,296
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Is it really necessary to call your fellow citizens who happen not to agree with you "ninnies"

    I expect that out of the far left, and am always saddened to see it here

    WildguessimaproudninnieAlaska
     
  7. N3rday

    N3rday Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    778
    I don't think we should allow machineguns except to those with the correct permits (class 3 gun dealer?)

    It would be WAY too easy for someone to get their hands on an automatic.
     
  8. Cool Hand Luke 22:36

    Cool Hand Luke 22:36 member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,291
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    I chose option number 2. My opinion is that restricting firearms ownership during probation for violent felons is constitutional but not afterwards.

    Non-violent felons should have no restrictions placed on their firearms ownership. That's a restriction on the 2nd amendment that shouldn't pass judicial review at the Supreme Court under a strict scrutiny standard.
     
  9. spacemanspiff

    spacemanspiff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    alaska
    if its "criminal" for a felon or mentally illl person to possess a firearm, it should also be "criminal" for them to possess an automobile, even a pair of scissors.

    then again, if a person is convicted of a violent crime, such as rape/murder/assault, i dont think they should ever walk the streets or breathe oxygen anymore.
     
  10. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    So only the rich and well-connected should have machineguns, N3rday? :confused:
     
  11. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    I voted on the 'criminals and mentally ill prohibition only' line, but I'm a bit wobbly on the concealed carry. When the Constitution was written, it was considered that only a criminal or dishonorable man would carry a concealed weapon, and then for criminal/dishonorable purposes. Today, walking around with a gun on your hip in plain view is likely to cause a minor panic, so carrying it concealed, for self protection, seems a much better choice.
     
  12. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,896
    Location:
    The State of Israel - aka Gun Nut Hell
    Here goes.
     
  13. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a .50 BMG.
    It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a sniper rifle.
    It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a large capacity magazine.
    It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on hollow point ammo.
    It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a gun.

    Sounds pretty familiar to me.
     
  14. ReadyontheRight

    ReadyontheRight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,335
    Location:
    Minnesota - nine months of ice and snow...three mo
    Maybe someone more lawyer-ific than I can answer this, but doesn't the phrase "the people" eliminate some of the folks like criminals mentioned in the poll?

    If not, I'd say that an infringement is an infringement. EIther way, I voted for the top line.
     
  15. mpthole

    mpthole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    That got my vote.
     
  16. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    I can defend Option 3. Anything past that is iffy.
     
  17. Publicola

    Publicola Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Colorado
    No surprise but I opted for the first one. I think the language is plain enough that it shouldn't be misunderstood.

    BTW, to my knowledge felons weren't denied arms after their release until the 20th century (at least in this country) In fact Colorado was embarrassed as hell a few years back cause someone found a law on its books that required the state to provide a horse & a pistol upon his release to any convict who spent x amount of months or longer in jail.

    & machine guns are easy to get now. Remember, laws only restrain people who would follow the law. They generally don't restrain people with harmful intent, otherwise a law banning possession of any arm would be made useless by the laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc... If a small percentage of people won't obey laws against harmful use, then what good does a law against mere possession do?

    In any event the 2nd is pretty clear that no law interfering with a person's Right to own & possess & carry Arms is tolerable.
     
  18. NorthernExtreme

    NorthernExtreme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Alaska
    It's funny how some people who "support" the 2nd Amendment somehow accept of give the same argument for " a felon or mentally ill person" that the Anti's use for the rest of us. "It's OK for some but not all."

    With the Antis: some people (Police and Military) can/should have guns.

    With the Pros: some people (every body but a felon or mentally ill person) can/should have guns.

    I guess we're not all that different after all. :what:

    I would have liked to seen a choice more like [restrict only those who have proven they are a threat to society in a violent way, all others are protected.] I think it would have been the clear winner.

    My $.02 worth!
     
  19. 7.62FullMetalJacket

    7.62FullMetalJacket Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,991
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    It is an absolute right. :D
     
  20. biere

    biere Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    428
    Location:
    eastern tn
    I like the first one since it treats all fairly.
     
  21. nualle

    nualle Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    en route back to MPLS, MN
    Another vote for option one here. Not all felonies have to do with violence. Not all of the mentally ill are violent. Treat people according to their acts, not some category someone decides they fit in.
     
  22. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    So????????

    If someone wants to commit evil with a firearm they can do it whether the firearm is fully automatic or not. It'd just take longer with a semi or bolt action. On the other hand a guy with a scoped rifle capable of taking out targets at 600 to 1000 yards can do way more damage over the long run than a guy with a MG who's probably gonna get caught right away.

    So I say
    Let's not allow people to have them - oh wait - there's millions of 'em out there now in the hands of all those evil hunters and target shooters :what:. OH NO! Anarchy! The snipers are coming the snipers are coming - everyone run and HIDE! :neener:
     
  23. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do 30+% of the voters here have a problem understanding?
     
  24. grampster
    • Contributing Member

    grampster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    10,885
    Location:
    Wilderness of West Michigan
    #1

    Being that self preservation is the #1 job of the aware human critter in any shape or form, freedom to keep and bear arms actually should be a non issue, period.

    Goblins are less likely to do crimes if their self preservation is threatened. Crazy people are crazy....armed or unarmed. Most are harmless except to themselves. Law abiding people are no threat to anybody except a stupid goblin or a crazy man intent on harming others. (disclaimer: The use of crazy here is not intended to insult any of youens that are.....merely making conversation politically incorrectly,but with clarity.)

    I'm with Mr. Franklin regarding the safety vis a vis freedom issue.

    Grampster
     
  25. G1FAL

    G1FAL Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    Ohio
    Werent felons prohibited from any further ownership, except after getting "relief from disability", by the GCA '68?

    I picked the first one, also I agree Spacemanspiff and nualle. If a felon gets their right to vote back after they get off paper, they should also get their RKBA back at the same time. If they are still a threat to others, keep them behind bars. And just because someone has a felony doesnt mean anything. I've known guys that got popped for something really stupid when they were 18, 19 years old, and for the next 40 years, they MAYBE get a speeding ticket. They go to work, pay their taxes, and are good, productive members of society. And yet, they are still considered second class citizens, because of something that happened many years ago.

    Maybe a good solution would be to have, say, a five year period after the felon gets off paper, and if they dont get any more charges aside from traffic stops, then they get their 2nd Amendment right back.

    If its any consolation to the 30% of you, I also believe that the 1st Amendment means "Congress shall make no law....", exactly as it says. If you say something that is likely to provoke someone to beat your @$$, then you better be prepared to take your lumps.

    I also dont believe that a broken tail light and being in the wrong neighborhood constitutes a 'reasonable' search of your vehicle.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page