Lets break it down (firearms laws you support)

[VonClausewitz]

I support:

Government issued assault rifle with pocket ammunition (50rd).

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Now according to some I might be a freedom hating anti-gunner because I don't want sex offenders to own guns but..........

keep full auto laws the way they are: 36

WUT?

 

[BhmBill]

I support the Judge Dredd handgun BS that puts a little bit of your DNA into each bullet so the law KNOWS who shot each bullet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

One thing we have to remember is when they wrote the constitution the justice system was a little different for instance if a person broke into your house and raped your wife and killed your family the time between arrest and sentence which would have 99.999% been hanging or firing squad would have been less than 2 weeks and that if they even made it in front of a judge. Back then the punishment fit the crime and prison was what it should be(shackles,hard labor bread and water,total misery). There were no meth labs,crack houses etc. If our justice system would treat criminals the way they should be treated I would support no backround checks at all -kill someone=death penalty and you get 1 appeal,rape,armed robbery,etc=25 year minimum hard labor with no time off for good behavior. Joe Arpiao has it right, tents in the Arizona sun 130 degrees in the shade,chain gangs,balony sandwiches,no newspapers or magazines,no TV no recreation time etc etc and he gets crucified in the media for it. Until we make prison so miserable that people won't want to commit crimes I have to support backround checks.

 

[jerkface11]

Felons can't vote

Voting isn't guaranteed under the constitution. So that's a rather moot point.

 

[Eric F]

Voting isn't guaranteed under the constitution. So that's a rather moot point.

The Fifteenth Amendment prohibited states from denying the right to vote on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Seventeenth Amendment permitted the direct election of U.S. senators. The Nineteenth Amendment enfranchised women The Twenty fourth banned poll taxes. The Twenty sixth directed states to allow qualified citizens who were age eighteen or older to vote. Finally, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment came to be read as preventing states from enacting suffrage laws that conflict with fundamental principles of fairness, liberty, and self government. Yet none of these amendments affirmatively granted the right to vote.
Although nothing says you have a right to vote, there is plenty defending your right to vote, so I think it is pretty much implied.

 

[Winston_Smith]

I agree with Ben. If you are walking the streets, no restrictions.

 

[rainbowbob]

Restricting released violent predators from legally possessing a firearm does nothing to prevent them from obtaining one.

However, the fact they are illegally in possession of a firearm when they commit their next violent felony allows for an enhanced sentence and may keep 'em out of circulation that much longer.

While that could be a benefit, it still doesn't answer the question of why we don't give them longer sentences to begin with.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Until we make prison so miserable that people won't want to commit crimes I have to support backround checks.

Interesting, as long as the government fails it's mission you are willing to give it more power in the hopes that will ensure success? That is somewhat akin to the idea if a teen doesn't pass their drivers' test you let them practice alone in a semi tractor on a state highway.

 

[Harve Curry]

I'd say make it pre 1934. With all of the gun control measures most of you would accept for some notion or measure of security, we would be right back where we are now or worse in a short amount of time.

 

[koginam]

I know several very good men who in their youth did something stupid and were convicted of a felony, yet they served their counties in war, one worked as a police officer for 27 years another owned a furniture store and was a deacon of his church but when the coward Clinton made the law retroactive they lost their right to own a firearm. Once they do the time their right should be restored.
I understand the need to keep firearms from the mentally disabled but with the climate in Washington towards our vets I worry about those who seek help for PTSD being listed as having mental problems and having their right to bear arms restricted unless their is a clear definition spelled out.

 

[Winston_Smith]

This thread is a perfect example of why we are in the position we are in.

We can’t even agree amongst ourselves that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So far only 62 out of 245 actually believe in the 2nd amendment.

There is no hope for future generations of gun owners if we are willing to allow the fed gov. to determine who is fit for ownership.

Perhaps people with mental disorders should not be allowed to own guns. Sounds great until the surgeon general determines that the desire to own guns is a mental disorder (or maybe even the believe in God). Opps.

It never ceases to amaze me how many sheeple are in the gun community. To those who support any type of control, can you please explain how any gun control law has reduced crime?

Do you also support background checks for other constitutional rights? How about privileges? Driving a car, getting a fishing license, buying a dog, buying an axe, etc?

With this attitude towards ownership, it will just be a matter of time before everyone is prohibited from owning gun. Then we can all be safe and sleep well at night. As slaves.

 

[jerkface11]

So can we force felons to quarter troops? Can we force them to testify against themselves? Can we tell them what religion to practice? Are they barred from expressing themselves? Of course not felons don't lose ANY of the rights guaranteed under the constitution except for the right to keep and bear arms. You can claim they lose the right to vote with all the double speak you like it ISN'T IN THERE.

 

[Harve Curry]

We need a law to keep the mentaly disabled from becoming politians.

 

[ilbob]

I am generally in favor of prohibiting the possession of firearms by violent felons and others who have proven by their own conduct they should be barred from having firearms. I don't believe in background checks or other means to enforce them. Just use it as an extra 10 year w/o parole adder for future crimes they might commit, or if they happen to get caught with one.

And that is as much a matter of punishment as it is any attempt to prevent crime. They will get guns if they want to regardless of what the law says.

 

[ilbob]

So can we force felons to quarter troops? Can we force them to testify against themselves? Can we tell them what religion to practice? Are they barred from expressing themselves? Of course not felons don't lose ANY of the rights guaranteed under the constitution except for the right to keep and bear arms. You can claim they lose the right to vote with all the double speak you like it ISN'T IN THERE.

What constitution are you reading?

Amendment 5 - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That would seem to allow for the deprivation of life, liberty, or property if due process is followed.

 

[Winston_Smith]

ilbob, what is violent and who decides?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This Pole Is Missing The Point

What I dislike about this pole and others like it is that it offers no choices for alternative methods to solve the problems related to criminal misuse of firearms.

• Keep violent felons and sex offenders locked up until they can be trusted with arms or to roam freely within society.
• Keep non-immigrant aliens out of the country and expel those who do enter.
• Enforce parental guardianship and liability/responsibility on minors.

With the proper control of deviant/abhorrent people, we wouldn't need background checks. The rest of us would be armed well enough in defense of life, limb, and property if some new deviant/abhorrent person decided to join the ranks of the criminal elements. These criminals may never even live long enough to join their brethren in prison, an institution, or make it to the gallows.

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

 

[sherman123]

I voted no restrictions whatsoever. While I obviously don't want guns in the hands of mentally disturbed individuals and violent criminals, enforcing that would require a background check, and that still wouldn't do squat to keep them from getting guns. I don't even believe in an age requirement to buy a gun so without an id to check there would be no way to enforce it anyway. It needs to be way easier to get guns than it already is what happened to the days of em being sold in every hardware store you go into?

 

[EHL]

Illegal aliens already broke a a law by entering into this country. Don't extend the 2nd amendment to them too! We can already see their disposition to following the laws can't we?
That's like giving a getaway car to the rapist trying to flee the scene of the crime!

 

[ilbob]

ilbob, what is violent and who decides?

I think it is possible for a legislature to come up with a list of what felonies qualify as violent without a whole lot of trouble.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

That would seem to allow for the deprivation of life, liberty, or property if due process is followed.

That is correct when you use the proper definition of "deprived". The only way the state may deprive someone of something IS by due process and then it may only be accomplished by the state when in the custody of the state. "Deprive" doesn't mean forfeit. When you deprive someone of something, you must hold it from him or hold him from it. A right cannot be forfeit. When you release him, he can exercise the right.

Now, all we need to do is change the laws to comply with the Constitution and common sense.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think it is possible for a legislature to come up with a list of what felonies qualify as violent without a whole lot of trouble.

Quite right! It would be a good start if we could get legislators to think like that, and hold within those bounds.

Woody

 

[PotatoJudge]

Illegal aliens already broke a a law by entering into this country. Don't extend the 2nd amendment to them too! We can already see their disposition to following the laws can't we?
That's like giving a getaway car to the rapist trying to flee the scene of the crime!

Hey, I broke the law yesterday and I probably will today. So did you. You're equating immigration laws with laws against violent crime?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (unless their Creator made them be born in Mexico, then they don't get squat)

There, fixed it for you. Write your congressman and make it legit.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

(unless their Creator made them be born in Mexico, then they don't get squat)

The problem isn't what God gave to whom and where. It's with the government the people elected/tolerate.

Woody