Who should be able to have guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LkWinnipesaukee

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
555
Location
Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
Or rather, who shouldnt be able to have guns? In your opinion.

I think that the ONLY people that should be restricted from having guns are:

-anyone convicted of a violent crime (armed robbery, assualt, etc)
-anyone who has a mental issue which may affect their ability to handle a gun properly
-multiple DUI, rapists, and the like (who should be in jail anyway)

I probably missed someone, but I think you guys catch my drift. People with restraining orders against them/other stupid things should still be able to possess guns.
What about the same nation wide firearm laws? No more wondering if its legal to have your guns in xxxx.

Just throwing my random ideas out there. Your thoughts?
 
Anyone in jail.

The problem with all those other exceptions you list is how easy it is for the state to change a definition here and there to cause them to apply to people you didn't have in mind.
 
What about the same nation wide firearm laws?
Click to expand...
Isn't that what the 2nd Amendment is? IMO it's all we need.

ETA:

Should not: Anyone in jail or committed to a mental facility. When released their rights are restored.
 
Anyone not in jail or institutionalized. Upon release both should have full rights and priviliages of citizenship restored. If they are not trustworthy of all rights and privilages they are not safe to release.

Make a decision, do we release dangerous people upon the public or don't we?
 
I agree with the poster pretty much. People who shouldn't have firearms are:

People in jail or people who have had their RKBA taken away as part of their punishment (like a fine or having a driver's licence revoked). Having your RKBA revoked should be a very serious thing not taken lightly by juries (a jury, not a judge would decide if this sentence is suitable I think) and should have strict controls on it to stop government abuse. Your case should be reviewed periodically. Also, people who have serious and/or violent mental conditions, but if they're that dangerous they should have a full time carer (who should be armed).
 
Rights are and should not be totally free from revocation. If they were, there would be no need for the 5th ammendment, and the protection that it provides for the deprivation of freedom (rights) without due process. That said, I believe that the following should be prohibited persons:
  1. Violent felon, to include persons convicted of rape, stalking, murder, treason, armed robbery, and other similar offenses
  2. Individuals who act with a reckless disregard for human life, and have been convicted of felonies proving that, such as criminally negligent homicide, felony reckless/ public endangerment, felony DUI
  3. Individuals with restraining orders as a result of violent behavior- while said restraining order is in effect
  4. Drug trafficing convictions

No misdomeanor or non conviction should affect gun rights. I also believe that the current non-violent felonies shoukld be made misdomeanors.
 
Anyone who has ever been caught with an unsecured firearm in the presence of the above forementioned and in the presence of a minor. Anyone who buys a firearm should buy a lock unless they are god sure no one they don't trust can get to it.
 
People in jail or people who have had their RKBA taken away as part of their punishment (like a fine or having a driver's licence revoked).
Click to expand...

People in jail fine. Revokation of 2A right would be violation of the constitution and morally wrong. Leaving someone defenseless as a punishment should be deamed a violation of 8A!!
 
Anyone who has ever been caught with an unsecured firearm in the presence of the above forementioned and in the presence of a minor.
Click to expand...

Define unsecured please. I want to be sure I understand you before I decide if I will take issue.
 
The only ones that should have no rights to firearms are violent felons...
They should be left in prison..
As for national gun laws, the only one I'd want is based on Vermonts.
Ken
 
I want to be sure I understand you before I decide if I will take issue.
Click to expand...

I already take issue, regardless of the explanation.

The framers of the Constitution understood the Bill of Rights are not "allowances", they are a recognition of human rights that are God given and not up for discussion.

Would you say a person should have his First Amendment rights revoked because he used a dirty word in front of children?

In jail fine, because we as humanity have decided that some persons need to be incarcerated for different lengths of time as they have decided, by their actions, to live in discord with humanity, therefore not deserving of Human Rights as the rest are.

Other than that, the Second should be taken away from a Citizen no more often than the First.
 
Qatin,
You my as well take all mine away from me then,:rolleyes:
My daughter knows where they are and could get to them if she wanted to.
Lucky for me she knows more about them than most supposed adults.
Ken
 
Anyone who has ever been caught with an unsecured firearm in the presence of the above forementioned and in the presence of a minor. Anyone who buys a firearm should buy a lock unless they are god sure no one they don't trust can get to it.
Click to expand...

Those laws would have really helped Jessica Lynne Carpenter



How about government stop trying to take guns from anyone ... criminals are going to get them anyway so why do we keep trying to tweak the "perfect" law that will keep bad people away from the guns. IT AIN'T GONNA WORK...EVER.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
Click to expand...
 
Define unsecured please. I want to be sure I understand you before I decide if I will take issue.
Click to expand...

I guess that's a question you ask a lawyer if it every came up in court :) . I would say, unsecure to be : to be compromised with minimal effort. I meant for the rather common situation where little Johnny picks up his daddy's revolver from a shoebox in the closet, along with the rounds, and no locks whatsoever. Another thing I would consider dangerous, but might be arguable is leaving your weapon in your car in plain sight and no locks. (Unless you have bullet proof glass or something).

Qatin,
You my as well take all mine away from me then,
My daughter knows where they are and could get to them if she wanted to.
Lucky for me she knows more about them than most supposed adults.
Ken
Click to expand...

Well fine, I suppose you can tell your daughter the lock combinations or give her a spare key. I mean minors in the sense of irresonsibility.
 
Anyone who can vote has a right to bear arms. If a person is convicted of a crime that includes Civil Death (loss of rights) as part of the penalty, that person should not be allowed to bear arms.
 
Her Mother dosn't like guns and dosn't want them in her house.
She dosn't worry about me having them at mine anymore since Ive been teaching my baby how to be safe around them..
I don't know if she knows that Ive had her shooting since she was 4 or not though....
 
Quatin,

I would support a punishment for negligence if that punishment did not include revocation of a Constitutionally protected right.

EDIT: To clarify I don't support requirements that determine negligence. No one should be forced to have to put their guns in a safe or under lock and key. But they should be held responsible for and accidents that occur as a result. If a criminal steals the gun and kills someone that's not the owner's fault it's the criminal's fault. If a child wanders into a bedroom finds a gun and someone gets hurt that IS the owner's fault. If an adult wanders into a bedroom and gets hurt that could be the adult's or the owners fault. And that is what juries are for.

The very concept of revoking someone's Constitutionally protected right is unconstitutional in itself. Do you see my point?
 
Her Mother doesn't like guns and doesn't want them in her house.
Click to expand...

Not to say your daughter's mother is in this crowd but I never understood some people's stance that they will never show or teach their kids about guns. What happens if they find one on the street or in the woods while playing one day? Wouldn't you want them to know something about it and what not to do with it? You tell a child they can never see or touch something it's the first thing they will do when given a chance. It's the "novelty factor". Anything a parent tells a child to avoid and is denied immediately becomes a novelty and an object of intense curiosity. Kinda like a bunch of 8 year old boys that find a Playboy magazine. They have no concept of what is going on in there but they are fascinated with it because they aren't supposed to have it.
 
I agree with Erebus about restoring 2nd amendment rights. If the person's not trustworthy enough after serving time to once again carry a firearm, they shouldn't be let out of prison.

And murderers, child molestors and rapists should serve life sentences without possibility of parole anyway, unless new evidence surfaces to acquit them after they've been sent to prison.
 
Take the mystery out of guns for kids and it is just a normal thing in the house. That's what I'm doing with my daughter she knows she can see and handle any gun I have, All she has to do is ask.
If I hide them and didn't teach her about them I wouldn't be doing my job as a parent.
Besides have you ever tried to hide Christmas presents from a kid?
They can find anything...:D
 
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html
There's some folks I wouldn't care to have weapons - but I wouldn't be revoking their rights before they did something (innocent until proven guilty, after all). I still don't quite get how you can kidnap your daughter...

There's probably a lot of non-violent ways to get a felony - I don't think I'd feel threatened if G. Gordon Liddy had a gun or thirty in his possession and lived next door. That's why I don't support blanket forbidding of guns to felons - some aren't really a threat to folks anymore. Some may've been wrongfully convicted.

I might support it being state-by-state. Some allow felons to vote after their sentence is up. Some don't ever get to vote after a felony - and the same could apply to gun ownership in those states.

The solution to violent felons getting out of jail is simple - don't let them out!

Never ceases to amaze me how many of these former child molesters are out roaming the streets. Seems like every case on TV is that of a repeat offender. If they have to legalize drugs to get enough room to put those folks away, do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
How much firepower should citizens be able to have?
2
Replies
32
Views
923
Art Eatman
A
P
  • Locked
Please don't hate me: Confessions from a 2nd Ammendment Hypocrite
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Don Gwinn
D
J
  • Locked
so much for gun laws..... poor Plaxico if only he was playing for Eagles
Replies
22
Views
1K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
A
  • Locked
Opinion: Who Should be Prohibited for Life?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
175
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
bikemutt
  • Locked
Woman killed in shootout mentally ill
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
NG VI
N
Back
Top