ctdonath
Member
Took six pages before someone - a newbie at that - to get the answer to the thread's question exactly right.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who should be able to have guns?
- Thread starter LkWinnipesaukee
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
JaxNovice
Secondly, in order to exercize the "controls" (FWTW) over these free roaming menaces - I even as a free man am subject to some aspects of these controls as well.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
The very term "convicted felon" and restrictions on their property, travel, certain activities supposes affirmatively that they are inherently dangerous persons. If they are allowed to roam freely - my neighborhood has been turned into a mere extention of the prison yard. They are in effect, minimum custody prisoners. That means that every free person is being exposed to this danger.How are you suffering by convicted felons being denied guns?
Secondly, in order to exercize the "controls" (FWTW) over these free roaming menaces - I even as a free man am subject to some aspects of these controls as well.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Anybody that wants one, two, or two hundred. On the other side anyone convicted of a violent crime is awarded no special circumstance if they commit another crime and are killed on the spot.
With a few lonely and courageous exceptions I have never seen a more bloodthirsty collection since I visited Leavenworth prison many years ago. The general public is horrified to hear macho irresponsible statements like this by persons who may be carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and they show their horror at the ballot box, as do their elected representatives.
There are nine amendments within the Bill of Rights other than the second, and we may all be confident that so long as advocates of unrestrained ownership and carriage of deadly weapons of all kinds go public with words like these their goal will never be realized.
It pulls the rug right out from under my feet and those of others who have worked for years to make a case that gun owners can be, and will be, responsible citizens and nothing to fear.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Keep The Violent Felons Locked Up...
...and your dreams will come true.
With those who can't be trusted kept locked up or executed, all you'll have left on the streets WILL BE responsible citizens and nothing to fear. And please note that law abiding citizens ARE trustworthy and responsible, not can and will.
Woody
"Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond
...and your dreams will come true.
It pulls the rug right out from under my feet and those of others who have worked for years to make a case that gun owners can be, and will be, responsible citizens and nothing to fear.
With those who can't be trusted kept locked up or executed, all you'll have left on the streets WILL BE responsible citizens and nothing to fear. And please note that law abiding citizens ARE trustworthy and responsible, not can and will.
Woody
"Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond
With a few lonely and courageous exceptions I have never seen a more bloodthirsty collection since I visited Leavenworth prison many years ago. The general public is horrified to hear macho irresponsible statements like this by persons who may be carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and they show their horror at the ballot box, as do their elected representatives.
There are nine amendments within the Bill of Rights other than the second, and we may all be confident that so long as advocates of unrestrained ownership and carriage of deadly weapons of all kinds go public with words like these their goal will never be realized.
It pulls the rug right out from under my feet and those of others who have worked for years to make a case that gun owners can be, and will be, responsible citizens and nothing to fear.Is The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so hard to understand? I don't want to argue if a guaranteed right is just. It is guaranteed by the document that is supposed to be the basis for our form of government. To hell with appeasment, crush them.
The Drew
Member
I don't buy the argument that convicted felons are inherently dangerous. It is complete BS. There are MANY, MANY felonies that are not violent nor are they a real danger to society as a whole.
Just look at our subject, guns, have the wrong parts count in an imported rifle, and whoops, you're a felon. or at least you've committed a felony.
The point is that with this government so out of control, we could all be felons tomorrow, just because we own some piece of metal plastic and wood.
When the government says that "all convicted felons lose their rights" that encompasses violent and nonviolent offenses. It encompasses offenses that even though they might have been committed out of ignorance or completely by accident, they DID commit the crime, and therefore must do the time.
The point is that those who are really "criminals" will remain so and will get their arms by whatever means necessary. Those who are generally good people but either made a mistake when they were young and dumb, or were convicted because of ridiculous laws, are not a danger to society and therefore should be allowed to own weapons for the defense of themselves and their family.
In either case the prohibition of felons owning legal firearms does nothing to protect society, and in the case of nonviolent people, it further disarms the populace making them more vulnerable to violent criminals.
It is little more than a liberal "feel good" measure, to make it look like the government is doing something to prevent gun violence. When in reality it does nothing...
Just look at our subject, guns, have the wrong parts count in an imported rifle, and whoops, you're a felon. or at least you've committed a felony.
The point is that with this government so out of control, we could all be felons tomorrow, just because we own some piece of metal plastic and wood.
When the government says that "all convicted felons lose their rights" that encompasses violent and nonviolent offenses. It encompasses offenses that even though they might have been committed out of ignorance or completely by accident, they DID commit the crime, and therefore must do the time.
The point is that those who are really "criminals" will remain so and will get their arms by whatever means necessary. Those who are generally good people but either made a mistake when they were young and dumb, or were convicted because of ridiculous laws, are not a danger to society and therefore should be allowed to own weapons for the defense of themselves and their family.
In either case the prohibition of felons owning legal firearms does nothing to protect society, and in the case of nonviolent people, it further disarms the populace making them more vulnerable to violent criminals.
It is little more than a liberal "feel good" measure, to make it look like the government is doing something to prevent gun violence. When in reality it does nothing...
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Seems to me that the restriction of the right to own a firearm or to vote, when built by law into some state's criminal code, is saying, "Mess up via felony, and the jail time is in addition to these restrictions."
IOW, it's a package deal.
I've never forgotten a GI's words after his return to our outfit from a sojourn in the stockade at Pusan: "Well, they don't put ya in there for doin' right."
Some things never change, and some people never learn.
Art
IOW, it's a package deal.
I've never forgotten a GI's words after his return to our outfit from a sojourn in the stockade at Pusan: "Well, they don't put ya in there for doin' right."
Some things never change, and some people never learn.
Art
ProguninTN
Member
Woody
Woody, I like the way you think. However, I think that opens another debate-over incapicitating criminals. (capital punishment)
With those who can't be trusted kept locked up or executed
Woody, I like the way you think. However, I think that opens another debate-over incapicitating criminals. (capital punishment)
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Progunin TN, where do we find the mindreaders to know if somebody can or cannot be trusted?
Don't we as gunowners regularly protest those who speak against us for what we might do?
Woody and you are in favor of holding somebody for "maybe" and "might", not for an improper action.
The laws are structured to provide for conditions of punishment. Once those conditions have been met, "You're free to go."
Art
Don't we as gunowners regularly protest those who speak against us for what we might do?
Woody and you are in favor of holding somebody for "maybe" and "might", not for an improper action.
The laws are structured to provide for conditions of punishment. Once those conditions have been met, "You're free to go."
Art
ProguninTN
Member
Mindreading
Ok. I the logic is potentially flawed, and you do make good comments, but can conditions of punishment really be met ? Prisoners are often released before they have fully served their sentences. Parole, good time credit, and overcrowding are often reasons for early release. Also, even if they have fully served their sentences, should we trust all who have done their time ?
Would you trust a convicted sex offender with children, or a convicted murderer with weapons ? I agree with Woody that these people have seriously breach public trust, and should remain confined where they cannot harm anyone. However, 8th Amendment claims could be made for life imprisonment for sex offenses. So, why not release them, but with the conditions of scrutiny, no contact with vulnerable, and no weapons. (which might aid in the condition of a crime)
Ok. I the logic is potentially flawed, and you do make good comments, but can conditions of punishment really be met ? Prisoners are often released before they have fully served their sentences. Parole, good time credit, and overcrowding are often reasons for early release. Also, even if they have fully served their sentences, should we trust all who have done their time ?
Would you trust a convicted sex offender with children, or a convicted murderer with weapons ? I agree with Woody that these people have seriously breach public trust, and should remain confined where they cannot harm anyone. However, 8th Amendment claims could be made for life imprisonment for sex offenses. So, why not release them, but with the conditions of scrutiny, no contact with vulnerable, and no weapons. (which might aid in the condition of a crime)
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Art,
There is no flaw in the logic. If a violent crime has been committed, the lock-up or execution is justified by the proven behavior of the violent criminal. Due process has been served and society is protected.
In such a scenario, there would be no need to "disarm" non-violent felons in order to disarm violent felons. With the violent ones sequestered or dead, what's the beef? None! No more need to do NICS checks, or to fill out 4473's, or keep all the other unconstitutional laws. I'd gladly have my legislators spend money on prisons instead of welfare, or for someone's pornographic/sacrilegious "artwork", or for aid to some third world dictator.
Woody
Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. That is where the infringements upon our right began. Look what those infringements are today... B.E.Wood
There is no flaw in the logic. If a violent crime has been committed, the lock-up or execution is justified by the proven behavior of the violent criminal. Due process has been served and society is protected.
In such a scenario, there would be no need to "disarm" non-violent felons in order to disarm violent felons. With the violent ones sequestered or dead, what's the beef? None! No more need to do NICS checks, or to fill out 4473's, or keep all the other unconstitutional laws. I'd gladly have my legislators spend money on prisons instead of welfare, or for someone's pornographic/sacrilegious "artwork", or for aid to some third world dictator.
Woody
Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. That is where the infringements upon our right began. Look what those infringements are today... B.E.Wood
ksnecktieman
Member
"life" in prison should not be, 10 20, or 30 years, it should mean what it says. I understand that it is expensive to keep someone in prison indefinitely, but it should be cheaper to execute them if they will never get out. There should be a limit on the number of appeals. THREE comes to mind. It takes years to convict someone the first time, and years for each appeal. If we can not execute them then we should not allow them to be locked up for "life", either.
Our tax money should be providing guns to poor people in need.
Our tax money should be providing guns to poor people in need.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 923
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 175
- Views
- 5K
