Lets break it down (firearms laws you support)
- Thread starter HOME DEPOT GEORGE
- Start date
- Status
wally
Member
No restrictions.
Mandatory, no plea jail time for criminal misuse of firearms. Every firearms murder should be a death penalty case.
As to "preventing" with laws against, the poster boy for failure is illegal drugs. We need to either legalize drugs like alcohol so the damage is contained, or make "drug treatment" consist of time in jail without drugs for users, but then we can't seem to keep drugs out of prisons either.
--wally.
Mandatory, no plea jail time for criminal misuse of firearms. Every firearms murder should be a death penalty case.
As to "preventing" with laws against, the poster boy for failure is illegal drugs. We need to either legalize drugs like alcohol so the damage is contained, or make "drug treatment" consist of time in jail without drugs for users, but then we can't seem to keep drugs out of prisons either.
--wally.
CoRoMo
Member
What he said.
No Permits
No Restrictions
No NCIS
No Exceptions
MountainBear
Member
I'm not sure how wanting to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) and illegal immigrants makes people think we don't believe in the 2nd amendment, but I guess I really don't care.
I know what I believe, I know that as a well-educated adult with common sense, I can judge for myself what's reasonable.
The naivety of people suggesting that if people have been released from incarceration, they should automatically have their gun rights restored is just astounding.
There is no good that is going to come from this thread. Everyone already knew that the members here have differing views of what is and is not reasonable. We knew there are those of us who believe that EVERYONE should be allowed guns. All we're doing is bickering amongst ourselves. I read all five pages of responses. I don't agree with you all, but beyond saying there are some naive people here, there's no point in arguing. I will not change your minds, and you won't change mine, in this case.
Flame me as you will, I'm not wasting anymore time reading this thread, so you'll be whistling in the wind...
I know what I believe, I know that as a well-educated adult with common sense, I can judge for myself what's reasonable.
The naivety of people suggesting that if people have been released from incarceration, they should automatically have their gun rights restored is just astounding.
There is no good that is going to come from this thread. Everyone already knew that the members here have differing views of what is and is not reasonable. We knew there are those of us who believe that EVERYONE should be allowed guns. All we're doing is bickering amongst ourselves. I read all five pages of responses. I don't agree with you all, but beyond saying there are some naive people here, there's no point in arguing. I will not change your minds, and you won't change mine, in this case.
Flame me as you will, I'm not wasting anymore time reading this thread, so you'll be whistling in the wind...
twinwillows
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 26
Laws
I like the way it was written so long ago by others much wiser & smarter than me.. "shall not be infringed".
I like the way it was written so long ago by others much wiser & smarter than me.. "shall not be infringed".
texas bulldog
Member
none whatsoever.
i prefer complete individual freedom and complete individual responsibility for actions.
the only one that makes any sense at all to me is no guns for violent felons. but then that requires the background checks to enforce, and before you know it, you're heading down the same old path.
besides...the question allows me to make things the way i think they should be. and i think that not allowing violent felons out on the streets...ever...makes their ability to own firearms completely irrelevant. if we've let them out of prison, then they're citizens with rights. if they shouldn't be permitted basic human rights, then they should either be incarcerated or wiped from the rolls of humanity.
pretty simple concept really...handle the criminals they way you should, and firearm rights (and voting, etc) are non-issues.
i prefer complete individual freedom and complete individual responsibility for actions.
the only one that makes any sense at all to me is no guns for violent felons. but then that requires the background checks to enforce, and before you know it, you're heading down the same old path.
besides...the question allows me to make things the way i think they should be. and i think that not allowing violent felons out on the streets...ever...makes their ability to own firearms completely irrelevant. if we've let them out of prison, then they're citizens with rights. if they shouldn't be permitted basic human rights, then they should either be incarcerated or wiped from the rolls of humanity.
pretty simple concept really...handle the criminals they way you should, and firearm rights (and voting, etc) are non-issues.
Last edited:
runrabbitrun
member
shall not be infringed
I can't wrap my head around why educated
people (SCOTUS) can't understand that passage.
Oh wait. Seems they are coming around.
I can't wrap my head around why educated
people (SCOTUS) can't understand that passage.
Oh wait. Seems they are coming around.
Harve Curry
Member
I would have to respectfully ask Mountain Bear:
Who were you well educated by??
It's the defintion of words in a sentence. That is how laws are defined. Work it at. For the first 125+ years the the United States persevered and prospered through alot without the usurpations of the 2nd Amendment we see now.
Who were you well educated by??
It's the defintion of words in a sentence. That is how laws are defined. Work it at. For the first 125+ years the the United States persevered and prospered through alot without the usurpations of the 2nd Amendment we see now.
HOME DEPOT GEORGE
Member
This is how we treat violent felons in this country http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...5fifDw&usg=AFQjCNEyGH5R9ljBmf01ov8DtCxp783n9g pretty sickening that this jerk off can commit a crime like this and be allowed to host a website from his cell. As long as we treat violent felons like they are guests in a hotel I don't think we should make any easier for them to get a weapon. I'm pretty sure 99.9% of them have no fear of going back to the pen.
Harve Curry
Member
So fix a wrong by usurping a Right spelled out in the BOR. Two wrongs don't make it right.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ilbob said:
I used to think like that. Just because they do it doesn't make it right. It doesn't work. It's unconstitutional. After due process, a criminal may be deprived of their life, liberty, or property, but no power is granted to government to infringe or abridge a right.
Woody
ConstitutionCowboy
member
HOME DEPOT GEORGE said:
While you make it "difficult" for a felon to get a gun, you make it just as difficult for me to get a gun. I've done nothing wrong. Why should I and every other law abiding citizen have to go through the same process to get a gun that a criminal goes through to get "denied"?
It's an insult to my integrity, service to this country, and an infringement to my Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Woody
"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood
CoRoMo
Member
To believe otherwise is not only absurd, it is frighteningly illogical.
Nowhere is government granted such authority, but there is a multitude of Americans itching to hand over their liberty in exchange for a tiny bit of perceived security. I can hardly understand it, but then again, a great many prisoners sent by Stalin to the Gulag and other internment camps wept at hearing the news of his death. Go figure.
CoRoMo
Member
Good point mr slow... but as you can see, there are hundreds of members here who believe the family memebers, of those with felony records, should... well, I'm not sure what they believe should be the end of that sentence.
Maybe they think those family members 'had their chance', but they got involved with (read: were conceived by) someone who made that type of mistake earlier in life. After all, who in their right mind is going to depend on their felonious parent for protection, right? I guess their SOL for having such a person in their lives. It's their fault?
I don't know.
Those of you who voted in that regard...
How should a free man with a felony record defend his family against an armed intruder/attacker?
Maybe they think those family members 'had their chance', but they got involved with (read: were conceived by) someone who made that type of mistake earlier in life. After all, who in their right mind is going to depend on their felonious parent for protection, right? I guess their SOL for having such a person in their lives. It's their fault?
I don't know.
Those of you who voted in that regard...
How should a free man with a felony record defend his family against an armed intruder/attacker?
Last edited:
Gato Montés
Member
I voted no restrictions, partially because a lot of the items need a base definition (age, etc).
As for released felons re offending, I think a good portion of that is helped along by the utter lack of support they receive. $200 and a stint in prison doesn't exactly make one a star candidate for a position, even at McDonald's. This is especially true with non violent drug offenders who get sent to prison addicted, maintain their addiction through prison, and then are released with the same problem they went in with.
Perhaps an argument best suited for another topic (or forum for that matter).
As for released felons re offending, I think a good portion of that is helped along by the utter lack of support they receive. $200 and a stint in prison doesn't exactly make one a star candidate for a position, even at McDonald's. This is especially true with non violent drug offenders who get sent to prison addicted, maintain their addiction through prison, and then are released with the same problem they went in with.
Perhaps an argument best suited for another topic (or forum for that matter).
moooose102
Member
what is pre 68 cash and carry?
HOME DEPOT GEORGE
Member
Basically pre backround check,buy a gun in any state,not just the one you live in etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
Dark Skies
Member
Although, coming from the UK as I do, I currently have no standing in this issue, I'm inclined to agree with ilbob.
"...by their own actions violent felons have chosen to have their rights forfeited. Part of that choice allows the rest of us to decide just what rights they can recover and when."
I appreciate that in a country where illegal guns are easy to obtain (if you travel in those circles) prohibiting them from obtaining legal guns may not be practical I nonetheless feel that the line has to be drawn by decent society.
As for protecting their family from people like themselves ... kind of ironic justice. I assume the spouse of a punk is not prevented from taking up arms for protection - although it does mean that the felon will also be able to access them.
I guess my gut feeling is this is the life they chose for themselves and their family. Tough titties. I'm far more concerned about the rights of decent citizens to own firearms for their own protection and sporting use.
I must admit I am somewhat biased. I live in a country where it seems that the rights of decent folk and innocent victims always seems to be trumped by the scum that prey on them.
"...by their own actions violent felons have chosen to have their rights forfeited. Part of that choice allows the rest of us to decide just what rights they can recover and when."
I appreciate that in a country where illegal guns are easy to obtain (if you travel in those circles) prohibiting them from obtaining legal guns may not be practical I nonetheless feel that the line has to be drawn by decent society.
As for protecting their family from people like themselves ... kind of ironic justice. I assume the spouse of a punk is not prevented from taking up arms for protection - although it does mean that the felon will also be able to access them.
I guess my gut feeling is this is the life they chose for themselves and their family. Tough titties. I'm far more concerned about the rights of decent citizens to own firearms for their own protection and sporting use.
I must admit I am somewhat biased. I live in a country where it seems that the rights of decent folk and innocent victims always seems to be trumped by the scum that prey on them.
Harve Curry
Member
moooose102 ,
Before the 1968 Gun Control Act you could buy a firearm without paper work and by mail order, like anything else. It put mail order businesses out of business and limited way larger companies like Sears could mail.
Sometime during the first half of the 20th century rights were taken away from convicted felons after they had served their debt to society. Before that a released felon went back into the world with their rights again.
By not following the 2nd Amendment literally then your leaving the door open for more infringements, more oppression, in exchange for a false sense of security.
The Founders of our country studied and knew all this, we shouldn't be trying to reinvent the wheel. If firearms owners studied the Founders of our Country more (but schools don't teach that) this poll would look alot different.
What Texas governor Rick Perry said, summed it up pretty good, and it applies here:
"...Here in Texas, here in the capitol, we typically spend more time talking about the Texas constitution, but it is definitely time to talk about the U.S. Constitution and the protections it guarantees.
I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country, but, most of all, here in Texas, to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed through the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I am in favor of the clear, bold step represented by HCR 50, introduced by Representative Creighton, and co-authored by Representative Guillen. It’s clear that this is not a partisan issue: it concerns all Americans, and all Texans.
The Tenth Amendment (read 2nd Amendment) was enacted by folks who remembered what it was like to be under the thumb of a distant, all-powerful government. Unfortunately, the protections it guarantees have melted away over time.
You are probably familiar with the old adage about how to boil a frog…you just ease the heat up a little bit at a time, so the frog doesn’t realize the danger it’s in, until it’s too late.
Since the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, the federal government has slowly, steadily and successfully eroded the notion of state’s rights. The Founding Fathers understood that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn’t work, especially in a country the size of America, and it certainly doesn’t work for Texas.
Our economic strength, compared to the federal budget mess and other states’ troubles, is evidence that Texans know what’s best for Texas. We’re proof that good things happen when governments lower taxes, reduce spending and encourage private sector growth.
When Washington interferes with our proven approaches, experience tells us what the outcome will be, and it isn’t pretty.
Like the Constitution and the other 26 amendments, the 10th Amendment has been the subject of extended debate, by scholars and lawyers of every sort, but I come down on the side that favors state’s rights over unrestrained federal power.
I believe the Constitution does not empower the federal to override state laws without restraint. I agree with Texas’ 7th governor, Sam Houston, who once said, “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”
We didn’t like oppression then and we certainly don’t like it now.
I believe the federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.
Texans need to ask themselves a question: do they side with those in Washington who are pursuing this unprecedented expansion of power? Or do they believe in the individual rights and responsibilities laid out in our foundational documents?
Texans need to stand up and be heard, because this state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely.
Returning to the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and its essential Tenth Amendment( insert 2nd Amendment), will free our state and, ultimately, strengthen our Union.
Regardless of your party affiliation, that is a goal we can all embrace.
Thank you all for being here and may God continue to bless the great state of Texas."
Before the 1968 Gun Control Act you could buy a firearm without paper work and by mail order, like anything else. It put mail order businesses out of business and limited way larger companies like Sears could mail.
Sometime during the first half of the 20th century rights were taken away from convicted felons after they had served their debt to society. Before that a released felon went back into the world with their rights again.
By not following the 2nd Amendment literally then your leaving the door open for more infringements, more oppression, in exchange for a false sense of security.
The Founders of our country studied and knew all this, we shouldn't be trying to reinvent the wheel. If firearms owners studied the Founders of our Country more (but schools don't teach that) this poll would look alot different.
What Texas governor Rick Perry said, summed it up pretty good, and it applies here:
"...Here in Texas, here in the capitol, we typically spend more time talking about the Texas constitution, but it is definitely time to talk about the U.S. Constitution and the protections it guarantees.
I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country, but, most of all, here in Texas, to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed through the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I am in favor of the clear, bold step represented by HCR 50, introduced by Representative Creighton, and co-authored by Representative Guillen. It’s clear that this is not a partisan issue: it concerns all Americans, and all Texans.
The Tenth Amendment (read 2nd Amendment) was enacted by folks who remembered what it was like to be under the thumb of a distant, all-powerful government. Unfortunately, the protections it guarantees have melted away over time.
You are probably familiar with the old adage about how to boil a frog…you just ease the heat up a little bit at a time, so the frog doesn’t realize the danger it’s in, until it’s too late.
Since the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, the federal government has slowly, steadily and successfully eroded the notion of state’s rights. The Founding Fathers understood that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn’t work, especially in a country the size of America, and it certainly doesn’t work for Texas.
Our economic strength, compared to the federal budget mess and other states’ troubles, is evidence that Texans know what’s best for Texas. We’re proof that good things happen when governments lower taxes, reduce spending and encourage private sector growth.
When Washington interferes with our proven approaches, experience tells us what the outcome will be, and it isn’t pretty.
Like the Constitution and the other 26 amendments, the 10th Amendment has been the subject of extended debate, by scholars and lawyers of every sort, but I come down on the side that favors state’s rights over unrestrained federal power.
I believe the Constitution does not empower the federal to override state laws without restraint. I agree with Texas’ 7th governor, Sam Houston, who once said, “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”
We didn’t like oppression then and we certainly don’t like it now.
I believe the federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.
Texans need to ask themselves a question: do they side with those in Washington who are pursuing this unprecedented expansion of power? Or do they believe in the individual rights and responsibilities laid out in our foundational documents?
Texans need to stand up and be heard, because this state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely.
Returning to the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and its essential Tenth Amendment( insert 2nd Amendment), will free our state and, ultimately, strengthen our Union.
Regardless of your party affiliation, that is a goal we can all embrace.
Thank you all for being here and may God continue to bless the great state of Texas."
James T Thomas
Member
who is out there?
Broken Down:
Let us supply data and information where "we" may be soft headed and compromise so that some "miner" can supply ammunition to the anti's to pot shoot at us.
Broken Down:
Let us supply data and information where "we" may be soft headed and compromise so that some "miner" can supply ammunition to the anti's to pot shoot at us.
catfish101
Member
Too many restrictions now. As far a felons. If the person is screwed up enough to not be allowed to have a firearm then they should be on the street. Pretty simple.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
