Who should be able to have guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be nice to say that everyone not in jail should be allowed to buy any type of firearm they want... but, IMO, it's not feasible. Now, if there were sentencing guidelines that were actually harsh and repeat offenders punished incredibly harshly, it would be easy to do so.

BUT, anyone should be able to own a gun, but only certain people should be allowed to transport it outside of their domicile.

Those denied from transport and those who will be subject to incredibly enhanced sentences if used in the comission of a crime.

*Violent felons on parole. Of course, parole should be taken seriously and violations should be dealt with heavy time.
* People in jail or mental institutions.
*People deemed by a medical review board to be incompetent, yet not in jail. This status should be reviewed every 5 years.
* Minors unless written consent from parents or legal guardians.
* Non-citizens

My main key to peace is jail and consequences. People make mistakes... most first offenses should be relatively light... some jail time, some fines and when you get out, you are back to the status of a full citizen immediately. Now, if you F up again, then by God you had your chance... now you're in jail for a year at least... still back to full citizen status when you get out. Third time... you are hopeless... you're in jail until you die or a Democrat lets you out... if you haven't learned after 3 offenses, you are beyond my concern. I also believe in adult sentences and consequences for most citizens aged 12 and up... weak juvenille law is the root cause of MOST of our future problems... stop it now!
 
I have gone on record saying I am against murder, and I think breaking the law should be illegal.

Hard criminals will get guns, automatic guns, restricted guns, no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT.

Lazy, opprotunistic criminals will get guns, semi-autos and revolvers, maybe hunting rifles, no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT.

The way I see it, gun laws and restrictions keep the lazy, opprotunistic criminal from getting full autos and stuff like... hell grenade launchers and armor piercing rounds. I SUPPOSED I'd rather be mugged at the end of a snub nosed revolver rather than a full-auto MP5.

But, criminals will always have guns. It's just a matter if the ease they get the REALLY COOL guns.

It will be easier to regulate the pirated music/movie culture than it will be the guns. If only there was "itunes" for weapons.

Arm yourselves.
 
I guess I'm a closet gun grabber. I don't want convicted rapists and murderers, to be allowed to purchase guns like any of us. In fact, it's not just the 2nd A, I think they should have all of the rights in the consitution revoked upon conviction. No right to vote, no free speech, nothing. Even if it won't stop them completely, at least it'll make it somewhat harder for them to get arms. I do realize all the fallacies of this sort of thinking. I guess I just cant think of anything better. We don't have the prison capacity to keep all dangerous felons off the streets. So when we think they probably won't repeat their crimes again, without being 100% sure, we still let them go. It's not a great system, but it is how it is.
 
Since the untrustworthy, violent, recidivists aren't being locked up for life, it seems reasonable that they at least shouldn't be allowed to legally possess weapons.
Click to expand...
And who makes the decision as to who is untrustworthy? The government? What happens if they decide that a speeding or parking ticket makes you untrustworthy? Where does the line get drawn? Once you allow them to start determining where the line is drawn it's going to keep getting closer and closer to you. Eventually overcoming you. Look at Britain and Australia of you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

The government, as elected by we the people, already decides who is "untrustworthy" when they enact laws for criminal offenses. Someone has to unless you want total anarchy. Do they sometimes go too far? Of course.

It's not rocket science. If someone has committed a heinous violent crime or repeatedly commits lesser violent offenses (such as robbery) they CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

I kind of see your point from the "slippery slope" angle, but it's a huge leap from not letting rapists own guns to preventing traffic law offenders from having them. You stop that by keeping pressure on elected officials to do the right thing- it is possible. Twenty years ago, very few Americans could legally carry a concealed weapon. Today 48 states have at least some provision to do so.

Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia drastically reduced the violent crime rate in one year by locking up violent felons with guns. That is a good thing.
 
Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia drastically reduced the violent crime rate in one year by locking up violent felons with guns. That is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Project Exile is one of the reasons the NRA no longer gets money from me.

"There is no connection between supporting the Bill of Rights and
supporting federal laws that are un-American. Moreover, the
agencies that enforce such laws slaughtered over eighty people in Waco,
shot to death a young boy and his mother at Ruby Ridge, and continually
commit brutal acts against citizens under the guise of "gun
control". The "legal" excuse behind the Waco massacre was
the unproved suspicion of "illegal" machine gun
possession. The "legal" excuse behind the Ruby Ridge killings
was a shotgun that may have been ¼ inch too short. Both are
examples of "zero tolerance".__Excerpt from "We Condemn Project Exile"
 
Okay

Now that we know there is a strong "support" for 2nd ammendment rights being returned to, or not taken away from citizens that are currently forbidden to own at this time. My question is, How would you lobby for that? What elected law-maker would dare attach their name to such a proposition? I think the NRA is too afraid to take this fight up as well.
 
I don't want convicted rapists and murderers, to be allowed to purchase guns like any of us. they should have all of the rights in the consitution revoked upon conviction. We don't have the prison capacity to keep all dangerous felons off the streets. So when we think they probably won't repeat their crimes again, without being 100% sure, we still let them go.
Click to expand...

And that is why far more of the violent crimes should carry the death penalty. There should be no prisons, just jail and fines for non-violent crimes. This "redemption" business simply does not work and should be abandoned as the philosophical basis of our legal system. It will save enormous amount of effort and money, as well as not too few LEO's lives.

What is happening now is that law-abiding citizens pay with tax money and some of their freedoms to sustain a christian/liberal philosophical fantasy.
 
With some sterling exceptions, this is a disgusting and disturbing thread. On a gun-owners, firearms enthusiasts', RKBA board, we have poster after poster bleating about how a fundamental human right - the right to arms for protection of self and family against predatory creatures and predatory government - should be snatched away from anyone who can't be "trusted."

Even more disquieting is that these same "RKBA supporters" fixate on denying felons/rapists/oglers/nose-pickers etc, etc, access to firearms, as though these wicked totems were singularly and solely capable of destroying life.

So, the paroled felon cannot have a handgun? Fine, if he is so inclined, he will cheerfully slit your throat with a kitchen knife, stave in your head with a pipe or club, garrotte you with a shoelace, or strangle you with his bare hands. Yet many of the fearless gun rights advocates here would self-righteously deny him access to a firearm. Sure, that will work. And there's a lake of stew and whiskey too on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

Punish bad acts. You visit violence upon your neighbor, you go to prison, assuming you haven't been otherwise disposed of. If you are deemed fit to be abroad in public, you have full rights restored.
 
If you have committed and are convicted of a violent felony level offense regard less of the weapon , or even bare hands used you lose your RKBA. The right to own firearms should be restored however if you have gone 10 years from your sentance ending as a productive citizen with no repeat offenses.
 
So, the paroled felon cannot have a handgun? Fine, if he is so inclined, he will cheerfully slit your throat with a kitchen knife, stave in your head with a pipe or club, garrotte you with a shoelace, or strangle you with his bare hands. Yet many of the fearless gun rights advocates here would self-righteously deny him access to a firearm. Sure, that will work. And there's a lake of stew and whiskey too on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

Punish bad acts. You visit violence upon your neighbor, you go to prison, assuming you haven't been otherwise disposed of. If you are deemed fit to be abroad in public, you have full rights restored.
Click to expand...

No one suggested that prohibiting felons from legally having firearms whould actually prevent them from getting one or any other weapon if they want one. I see the prohibition on violent felons of carrying weapons (of whatever kind) as part of the punishment for committing their crime. They did the crime, they receive the consequences. A violent criminal possessing a weapon IS a bad act.

The arguement for restoring the rights of non-violent felons is certainly valid. The Lautenberg amendment stripping restraining order subjects of their guns also needs to be gotten rid of. They should also restore funding for the appeals process for felons with extenuating/mitigating circumstances to have their rights restored.

I work at a prison and see men released every day who are "deemed fit to be abroad in public" who most definitely are not. A lot of them are released simply because there is not enough room to house them all. Most of them end up coming right back.

If you feel that ALL of an ex-cons rights should be restored, then there should be nothing wrong with a convicted child molester working at an elementary school, a rapist at a women's shelter, or an armed robber as a police officer.
 
Now that we know there is a strong "support" for 2nd ammendment rights being returned to, or not taken away from citizens that are currently forbidden to own at this time. My question is, How would you lobby for that? What elected law-maker would dare attach their name to such a proposition? I think the NRA is too afraid to take this fight up as well.
Click to expand...

You might try contacting the American Criminal Lovers Union, they might be willing to take up the fight. Of course, they still won't support YOUR 2nd Amendment Rights, but hey, you gotta start somewhere, right?
 
You might try contacting the American Criminal Lovers Union, they might be willing to take up the fight. Of course, they still won't support YOUR 2nd Amendment Rights, but hey, you gotta start somewhere, right?
Click to expand...
Some of my best friends are convicted felons (non-violent) that have done their time and are responsible productive members of society...
 
Last edited:
If you feel that ALL of an ex-cons rights should be restored, then there should be nothing wrong with a convicted child molester working at an elementary school, a rapist at a women's shelter, or an armed robber as a police officer.
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but this response is a non-sequiter. No one has a right to work at an elementary school or a woman's shelter, or as a police officer. To the contrary, one's right to self-defense is granted by God; the means to do so are protected under our federal (and most state) constitutions.

And bonus points for introducing the "its for the chirren!" emotive factor, too!
 
If any woman, or man is denied the right to purchase and carry a gun out of a store, the politicians that made the law need to be held to blame if she/he is attacked, or robbed.
This discussion has fallen into two camps, one for gun rights, and one against them. You want to pass a law, or enforce a law that says someone who has broken the law, and been caught can not have a gun,,, You think small increase in his sentence is going to keep him from getting a gun?

Sorry, he already has so much contempt for the law that he will rob or kill, with penalties in excess of ten years. He will have contempt for another law as well.
The prisons do not have to be overcrowded, but that is a different discussion. Take the ten percent with the longest sentences, and execute them as the prison crowding requires.
 
I believe we all pretty much agree that we keep guns around to ensure our safety. If someone does something so anti-social that incarceration is needed it is only right and proper that we also undertake to keep that person safe while he is in our care. Once we deem him fit to return to society he should be able to go down to the local hardware store, lay down his money and walk out with whatever gun he wants, carrying it in whatever manner he wishes. If there is some reason we cannot trust him with that freedom he should stay in prison under our protection.
Criminals get guns. So do ex-criminals. So do mental patients. I do not want the job of deciding who can use a gun to protect himself and his family nor do I trust any of you with that power. So long as I have a gun with which I can keep my family safe, I don't care how many ex-cons are armed or where/how they carry. If they make an attempt to infringe upon my rights I still have the right to convince them of the error of their ways and - with my gun in hand - I also have the means.
 
"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."

Ya gotta remember, you only hear about the repeat offenders. I read an article several years ago in which the point was made that most sex offenders never reoffend. In fact, I've know a couple of them and they've both gone to great lengths to stay away from any situation which might
be misconstrued as a repeat offense.
What is it we keep saying here, never believe everything you see or hear in the mainstream media?
 
With some sterling exceptions, this is a disgusting and disturbing thread. On a gun-owners, firearms enthusiasts', RKBA board, we have poster after poster bleating about how a fundamental human right - the right to arms for protection of self and family against predatory creatures and predatory government - should be snatched away from anyone who can't be "trusted."
Click to expand...
Agreed. Worth repeating.

The thread's question is flawed, built on the absurd premise that one is "allowed" to have guns, and that certain categories of people should (and can) be disarmed. That is a premise the pro-RKBA camp has been fighting for decades. It is also built on the premise that disallowing ownership will prevent ownership, a notion which is proven grossly wrong daily. As a bonus, the question presumes that one group of people have a right to boss around another group ("WE will decide if THEY can have X").

We have a 2nd Amendment recognized natural right to own weapons.

The question, more properly, is under what condition is one's natural rights revoked - and how. If one has proven himself a threat to others, then he is removed from society until such time as the threat has passed.

Prohibition laws (which is what the "who should be able to have guns?" question leads to) require cooperation. Perversely, to be effective this cooperation is required of the those least likely to cooperate.

The question can only be taken seriously by those who subscribe to socialist/communist/dictatorial principles. Those whose core principles are freedom and liberty cannot seriously answer the question, as it violates basic values.
 
Ctdonath

You sparked a thought in me. These criminals who belong in jail that have been let out before they can be trusted with guns, effectively turns the whole country into a prison. In prison, guns are kept away from the untrustworthy. Guns are attempted to be kept away from the untrustworthy outside prison which places the burden upon gun dealers, local law enforcement, a couple of alphabet agencies, and places the biggest burden - coupled with restrictions - upon the general populace!

We live in an open air prison with untrustworthy armed individuals. Yes, armed because they don't care about any law forbidding them arms, and will arm themselves as soon as possible once released from the enclosed prison.

I've got a suggestion for the prison system, Congress, the Court, and state governments. Arm each and every convict in prison. Those who can be trusted with their arms in prison can be trusted with arms outside prison. When those who's time has expired and can be trusted with arms in prison can be released. Otherwise, hold them there 'till they can be trusted.

That way, the rest of us won't be treated as if we lived in a prison with a bunch of convicts.

Woody

"The right protected by the Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood
 
Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

http://www.lneilsmith.org/atlanta.html

Government is not only incompetent to judge it's evil to let them. --me
 
Pardon me, but this response is a non-sequiter. No one has a right to work at an elementary school or a woman's shelter, or as a police officer. To the contrary, one's right to self-defense is granted by God; the means to do so are protected under our federal (and most state) constitutions.
Click to expand...

But there are laws against discrimination in hiring practices. If the arguement is that released criminals are returned to normal and are no different than anyone else, why wouldn't you trust them in those positions?

While people are incarcerated, they are denied the means to exercise their God given right to self defense. Is this wrong as well, or are there situations under which certain basic rights can be restricted?

Maybe I'm a little cynical because of where I work, but "rehabilitation" is a joke, and I'd rather not have those scumbags anywhere near me or mine. Perhaps I should be more trusting.

For those of you who say "execute them" or "lock them up and don't let them out"- I'm with you, but it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
 
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