Who should be denied the right to own guns?

[Kynoch]

Who should be denied the right to own guns in the USA?

 

[Thermactor]

I received a warning from Sam Cede for this post. I would delete it if I could. It is best not to post at all when one is asked a question and wants to offer a frank answer. The cause of warning was absolutely spurious as no specific members were insulted in any way or form by my post. Hard lessons were learned.

 

[Theohazard]

Leftists, liberals; they are the ones doing the mass shootings anyway

Ridiculous partisan comments like this only serve to hurt our cause: All you're doing is helping to reinforce the negative stereotypes of gun owners amongst the general public. And considering the general public often gets to vote on our gun rights, that's a pretty dumb thing to do.

 

[huntsman]

#2 and #9

 

[Kynoch]

Ridiculous partisan comments like this only serve to hurt our cause: All you're doing is helping to reinforce the negative stereotypes of gun owners amongst the general public. And considering the general public often gets to vote on our gun rights, that's a pretty dumb thing to do.

Amen.

 

[Sam1911]

You mean who should the law say "shouldn't" have guns?

Or do you mean who should actually be STOPPED from having guns?

 

[Midwest]

Who should be denied the right?

Prisoners in prison
Anyone on Parole
Violent Felons
Sex Offenders
Illegal Immigrants

And the following:

Anyone who supports restriction of gun rights should not be allowed to own a firearm. If they hate guns so much that they want to deny others. Then they should follow their own example and be banned from owning firearms. Includes politicians, people in the media, actors, actresses, public figures or anyone else.


If non violent felons have done their time and paid their debt to society, (Martha Stewart is a good example) they should be able to own a gun.

.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Those adjudicated to be suffering from specific mental illnesses
Those adjudicated to be mentally defective

Those two options cover a LOT of ground....

 

[wally]

Not on the poll:
Only people denied the right to vote.

If its legal for them to vote, it should be legal for them to own guns.

Punish the wrongdoers for their wrongs, anything else requires clairvoyance to have any benefits.

 

[Kynoch]

Not on the poll:
Only people denied the right to vote.

If its legal for them to vote, it should be legal for them to own guns.

Punish the wrongdoers for their wrongs, anything else requires clairvoyance to have any benefits.

Why?

Someone could for example suffer terribly from mental disease(s). They could be in and out of mental hospitals and other institutions and still legitimately have the right to vote. Should such people also have the RKBA? I think not.

 

[Kynoch]

You mean who should the law say "shouldn't" have guns?

Or do you mean who should actually be STOPPED from having guns?

This.

Someone could (for example) fit none of the listed profiles but if they shooting at anyone in a non-defensive situation, they should be stopped from having their gun -- possibly forever depending on the legal disposition of the case.

 

[barnbwt]

Anyone who can drive a car or run amok in public with the rest of us
How do you enforce gun bans on fugitives from justice, anyhow?

TCB

 

[Sam1911]

Some for example could fit none of the definitions yet if they're shooting at anyone in a non-defensive situation, they should indeed be stopped from having their gun.

So, anyone who is actively shooting at someone NOT in self-defense should have their guns taken away? Yeah, I'll go along with that.

Laws are irrelevant to the law-breaker, though, so "he-shouldn't, he-mustn't" doesn't make a lick of difference. Folks who break the law often find it EASIER to get guns than those of us who follow it.

The rest of it is all bedtime stories we tell ourselves so we sleep better at night.

"Mommy, I'm scared of the bad man!"
"Oh, don't worry sweetie! The law says he can't have a gun to shoot you with."

 

[Thermactor]

I received a warning from Sam Cade over a post I made earlier in this thread.

 

[aka108]

The people who shoot to destroy facilities built at rifle ranges like the toilet facilities, concrete walls, signs, benches should not be allowed to own firearms.

 

[Kynoch]

So, anyone who is actively shooting at someone NOT in self-defense should have their guns taken away? Yeah, I'll go along with that.

Laws are irrelevant to the law-breaker, though, so "he-shouldn't, he-mustn't" doesn't make a lick of difference. Folks who break the law often find it EASIER to get guns than those of us who follow it.

The rest of it is all bedtime stories we tell ourselves so we sleep better at night.

"Mommy, I'm scared of the bad man!"
"Oh, don't worry sweetie! The law says he can't have a gun to shoot you with."

I don't think that's always the case. It often depends on the associated penalty. If (for example) a burglar would face say ten times the penalty if they were caught in the act with a gun on them versus no gun, it might very well persuade many to leave their iron at home.

Similarly if any criminal act of violence using a firearm was swiftly met with the death penalty, I'm sure if would have an impact on those using firearms in the commitment of their crimes. Would such a law stop all gun-related violent crime? Nope. Would it have an impact (in more ways than one)? You bet.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, that MIGHT be true, but it is pretty far outside the question you asked about prohibited persons.

We don't want prohibited persons to have guns because of what they will do to others if they have guns.

Doing those bad things to others is GROSSLY illegal, and usually far more illegal than them possessing a firearm to begin with.

But we want to have laws that say, even though you're perfectly willing to rape/rob/kill in total violation of society's most serious malum in se laws, we're going to have a low-grade malum prohibidum law that says you "can't" legally possess a firearm to do it with.

That's a fantasy.

 

[plmitch]

Anyone who is mean to kittens and of course midget clowns.....midgets scare the crap out of me.

 

[Kynoch]

The people who shoot to destroy facilities built at rifle ranges like the toilet facilities, concrete walls, signs, benches should not be allowed to own firearms.

I agree. I really mean that too.

If you use a firearm to deliberately destroy other peoples' property or public property then you should be denied the RKBA.

 

[alfon99]

Though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death my right to disagree with you.

Wasn't it I'll defend to the death your right to say it ?

 

[Kynoch]

Ok, that MIGHT be true, but it is pretty far outside the question you asked about prohibited persons.

We don't want prohibited persons to have guns because of what they will do to others if they have guns.

Doing those bad things to others is GROSSLY illegal, and usually far more illegal than them possessing a firearm to begin with.

But we want to have laws that say, even though you're perfectly willing to rape/rob/kill in total violation of society's most serious malum in se laws, we're going to have a low-grade malum prohibidum law that says you "can't" legally possess a firearm to do it with.

That's a fantasy.

Fantasy that might well land them in the slam if nothing else sticks in a court of law.

 

[wally]

Someone could for example suffer terribly from mental disease(s). They could be in and out of mental hospitals and other institutions and still legitimately have the right to vote.

If they are deemed a danger to themselves or others they should be committed and not allowed to walk among us, and I'd argue denied the right to vote as well -- ignorant voters are bad enough.

Mental disease != violence

How steep does that slippery slope have to be before it ends up: "you want a gun, you must be crazy!"

Who decides who is mentally ill? Ill enough to own a gun or not? If they are committed, case closed, and due process has been done. Anything else puts someone's prediction of the future ahead of someone else's rights.

 

[Kynoch]

If they are deemed a danger to themselves or others they should be committed and not allowed to walk among us, and I'd argue denied the right to vote as well -- ignorant voters are bad enough.

Mental disease != violence

How steep does that slippery slope have to be before it ends up: "you want a gun, you must be crazy!"

Who decides who is mentally ill? Ill enough to own a gun or not? If they are committed, case closed, and due process has been done. Anything else puts someone's prediction of the future ahead of someone else's rights.

You can't built enough prisons to make this anything but an comment of hilarity... You'd also bump into peoples' civil rights...

 

[Theohazard]

Thanks for the censure. Though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death my right to disagree with you.

And I completely support your right to make those comments. But you should know that comments like that only help the anti-gun movement and at the same time alienate potential allies. If you're fine with that, then keep at it.

 

[Sam1911]

Fantasy that might well land them in the slam if nothing else sticks in a court of law.

Might. But if "nothing else sticks?" Then the court has determined that they have not broken the law.

You want to lock them up anyway? Well, why did we let them out to begin with?

That's usually what this turns into: We'd be better off if those people weren't free to wander our streets and a gun charge is an easy way to send them back to prison without having to convict on a "real" reason.