Lets break it down (firearms laws you support)

[EHL]

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

Don't know what kinda laws you are on a daily basis breaking, but if that's the truth, I hope the authorities in TX catch you soon enough.

Me? I don't break the law. You don't know me from Adam, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump me in with your usual thugs who break the law along with you.

If you're next retort is going to be about speed limits-save it. There is a world of difference from somebody accidently going 30mph in a 25mph zone from somebody feloniously breaking and entering into our country. I don't care what the motives are for coming illegally. Just like I don't care what a burglars motives are for breaking into my house to burgle my belongings. The fact remains, that he broke into my house!

As far as illegals having the right to own firearms, they forfeited that right when they came accross the border illegally. If they would have come legally (i.e. invited, allowed) I would have no problem with them owning a firearm, driving, etc..

By the way, I'm the son of legal Mexican Immigrants and I have no problem saying what I'm saying about Mexicans coming accross the border illegally.

 

[PotatoJudge]

I was referring to traffic laws, but there are undoubtedly others we break without realizing it. So yes, you broke the law as I stated whether you dismiss it with an emoticon or not.

feloniously breaking and entering into our country.

Well, breaking maybe maybe not, entering certainly, and feloniously as if that makes it worse than some morally equivalent non-felony. I wouldn't equate illegal immigration with speeding, nor would I equate it with violent crimes (the poll of course is not equating the two, merely showing we think they're equally reasonable grounds to forfeit someone's rights).

The thing about rights is that if we start putting arbitrary "if you do this unrelated thing you can't exercise this right" limitations you and I both (good honest upstanding citizens both, I trust) are quickly going to find ourselves with fewer and fewer rights. Remember, any politician, cop, or DA out there can criminalize anyone if they're determined to do it. The anti-gun lobby certainly is determined, and they'll do what's necessary.

 

[runrabbitrun]

EHL writes:

By the way, I'm the son of legal Mexican Immigrants and I have no problem saying what I'm saying about Mexicans coming accross the border illegally.

See, that's what ALL my Latino friends say too.
They came in legally and don't understand why those who come in illegal are allowed to remain.
(They broke the law)...
They ALL say things along the line of:
'I did it the right way and the others need to as well'.

The southern border is a real problem.
Why is it the government wont just set up
more inlets to allow those who want to enter and become citizens, do so?
(You know like they did with Ellis Island).

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Once they do the time their right should be restored.

I believe it's around 60% that re-offend though.

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.

In many states they indeed lose the right to vote. There are background checks for voting in Texas. They lose those rights because those are perhaps the ones with which they can cause the greatest harm to society.

Hey, I broke the law yesterday and I probably will today. So did you.

What law did I break? You're saying everyone's a criminal and regularly breaks the law, now prove it.

 

[TravisB]

Illegal immigrants are "invited and allowed" by any employer who employs them and any consumer here who isn't lobbying their local grocery store to raise prices (i.e., the inevitable result if you actually insisted on not taking advantage of the way your life is made easier every day off the sweat of "illegal aliens").

Want to reduce the demand for illegal-alien labor? Insist that your grocery store only sell food that is verified not to have been picked or processed in any way by undocumented immigrants. This could be done. You know why they're not doing it? Because they know you don't care.

You're happy to deny the 2nd-Amendment rights of this labor force while munching those cheap strawberries.

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.

Hmm...tough choice. I can live in a world divided into the "deviant/abhorrent people" and "the rest of us," who are charged with identifying and killing the deviant/abhorrents as a daily chore, or live in a world with background checks for gun purchases.

Hmm...killing the deviant/abhorrents vigilante-style does sound appealing in a "Mad Max" sort of way. If they were zombies that would be even cooler. Could you make them zombies, too?

Actually, you know what? For now I'll stick with this background-check dystopia we all suffer in right now. My rapid-fire accuracy just isn't up to snuff for the Deviant/Abhorrent Wars.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I believe it's around 60% that re-offend though.

Sounds like a corrections department and sentencing guidelines problem,
not a firearms problem.

Just saying.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

It's certainly not a firearm problem. However, I believe we should try and disarm them because, due to those problems, they will most likely re-offend.

 

[mgregg85]

No guns for violent felons, buy machine guns with the same rules we have in place for all other guns.

 

[EHL]

Well, breaking maybe maybe not, entering certainly, and feloniously as if that makes it worse than some morally equivalent non-felony. I wouldn't equate illegal immigration with speeding, nor would I equate it with violent crimes (the poll of course is not equating the two, merely showing we think they're equally reasonable grounds to forfeit someone's rights).

Uh, alot of illegals that come across the border do indeed have a long criminal record. The fact that they came across illegally shows their disrespect for anothers laws. On top of that, illegals work with stolen social security #'s and stolen identities. How are we going to do an NICS on somebody who's very identity is in question? The logistical aspect of background checks aside, lets look at it from a more grounded point of view. Many people who espouse the argument that illegals ought to have the same rights/priviliges as those of us who actually are citizens. So the logic goes something like this: If they(illegals) can sneak/break into our country, they will be entitled to education, healthcare, voting, and legal ownership of firearms. Let's compare that to a similar case of a burglar sneaking/breaking into your house. According to this logic, once they gained entrance into your home they should now be granted the rights/priviliges of room/board, raiding the refrigerator, using your toilet, access to the remote control to channel surf, and a nice cozy bed in your house all at your expense. Obviously everybody will object to this ludicrous expectation of hospitality for somebody who has illegally entered into their domain. Why is it any different when we discuss the domain within our own borders?

Illegal immigrants are "invited and allowed" by any employer who employs them and any consumer here who isn't lobbying their local grocery store to raise prices (i.e., the inevitable result if you actually insisted on not taking advantage of the way your life is made easier every day off the sweat of "illegal aliens").

Want to reduce the demand for illegal-alien labor? Insist that your grocery store only sell food that is verified not to have been picked or processed in any way by undocumented immigrants. This could be done. You know why they're not doing it? Because they know you don't care.

You're happy to deny the 2nd-Amendment rights of this labor force while munching those cheap strawberries.

B.S! :banghead:

illegal immigrants are not the only possible source for cheap labor. Even as we speak there are multiple prison "chain gangs" working out in fields, highways, road construction/demolition crews, and restaurants that are benefitting from the cheap labor that is available from our overpopulated correctional facilities. The problem is that there are too many bleeding hearts fighting to protect these prisoner's "rights" as well because "it's cruel and unusual to have them work" in menial labor jobs like these. That's why we don't see more use of these labor pools.

We have been told that if it weren't for illegals we would just have a super high cost of living because we would be paying a significant amount more in labor. That fact is not only untrue(especially when we have such an abundant source to draw from in the prisons) but it is misleading. We are paying more for illegals in the form of health care, education, welfare, and law enforcement/housing them in prisons.

To the mods: I'm sorry that very little of this post has specifically to do with firearms, but I felt it necessary to dispell the notion that illegals are "law abiding victims" that should have legal access to firearms. This is coming from somebody who is (a 1st gen US citizen) decended from Mexican immigrants AND who lived 5 mins from the Mexico border for most of my life. I saw first hand what alot of these illegals do to break the law getting into our country. I don't like hearing about how "poor and destitute" these illegals are and that they need access to firearms as well.

 

[rainbowbob]

Hmm...killing the deviant/abhorrents vigilante-style does sound appealing in a "Mad Max" sort of way.

Travis: We realize you're being facetious here, but this...

With the proper control of deviant/abhorrent people...

...doesn't suggest the general public should be responsible for administering control of deviants.

I take it to mean, as others have suggested, that much longer sentences for violent predators may effectively reduce the incidences of violent crime to more acceptable levels.

That in turn may convince those who would impose background checks, etc on the rest of us that such measures are unnecessary.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Illegal immigrants are "invited and allowed" by any employer who employs them and any consumer here who isn't lobbying their local grocery store to raise prices (i.e., the inevitable result if you actually insisted on not taking advantage of the way your life is made easier every day off the sweat of "illegal aliens").

The former I agree with, the latter... The latter sounds way too much like the argument that someone who bought one bag of dog food from a hardware store 10 years ago is liable for a share of the superfund environmental cleanup costs for the by-product mill that produced the item.

 

[jerkface11]

In many states they indeed lose the right to vote. There are background checks for voting in Texas. They lose those rights because those are perhaps the ones with which they can cause the greatest harm to society.

No the point is that voting is NOT a right guaranteed by the constitution.

 

[Officers'Wife]

An interesting thing I've noticed about the thread drift topic is how many people are pointing out that violent crime is flourishing because it is tolerated in this country. In the case of criminal aliens Travis seems content, even intent on shifting the blame to others for criminal behaviors.

I must ask, considering this tolerance and blame shifting is it really that much a deviance to blame the law-abiding for firearm abuses?

 

[JImbothefiveth]

No the point is that voting is NOT a right guaranteed by the constitution.

Well, try taxing it then.

And, aren't some 4th amendment rights denied to felons?

 

[jerkface11]

Honestly how hard is it to understand that voting isn't a right guaranteed by the constitution?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...doesn't suggest the general public should be responsible for administering control of deviants.

I take it to mean, as others have suggested, that much longer sentences for violent predators may effectively reduce the incidences of violent crime to more acceptable levels.

The longer sentences - up to and including for life; to also include execution; is what I mean. The "general public" would not be responsible other than to elect the proper people who will abide the Constitution and pass effective and constitutional sentencing laws.

Woody

 

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

Simple fact is things are different now than when the 2nd was written or for that matter even pre 68'. Hell in Brevard county where I live there are 19 active gangs now 17 more than there were 18 years ago when my parents moved here and we all know the gangs have access to guns thats a no brainer,and we all know no one is afraid to go to "club med' anymore i just can't see making it any easier for them to get the tools of their trade. But don't get me wrong it burns my ass every day that certain sections of our present day society keep me from enjoying the rights that our forefathers bestowed upon us.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Honestly how hard is it to understand that voting isn't a right guaranteed by the constitution?

Well, aren't felons subject to searches that law-abiding people are not?

And once again, if it's not a right, try taxing it.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Simple fact is things are different now than when the 2nd was written or for that matter even pre 68'. Hell in Brevard county where I live there are 19 active gangs now 17 more than there were 18 years ago when my parents moved here and we all know the gangs have access to guns thats a no brainer,and we all know no one is afraid to go to "club med' anymore i just can't see making it any easier for them to get the tools of their trade. But don't get me wrong it burns my ass every day that certain sections of our present day society keep me from enjoying the rights that our forefathers bestowed upon us.

Lock them up and they can't get to the "tools of their trade".

The problem is the fact that law abiding citizens can't arm themselves, or it is difficult to arm themselves, and may be restricted as to where they can bring their protection with them due to the unconstitutional laws. The gangs will always have guns no matter how easy it is for them to get them, and they'll take them anywhere they please.

Criminals prefer stolen guns anyway.They're cheaper. They're harder to trace. It's better to be prepared to deal with these people.

You cannot prevent what they do unless you keep them locked up once they reveal themselves and don't die in that moment at the hand of an armed citizen or officer of the law.

Woody

 

[jerkface11]

Well, aren't felons subject to searches that law-abiding people are not?

Only if they're on parole since they're still technically serving their term. After that a warrant is required.

 

[ilbob]

My theory is that 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.

 

[Kind of Blued]

We're doomed.

According to this poll, less than ONE QUARTER of the people on a GUN FORUM agree with the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" clause.

A bit childish of me to do so, but I have to excu... excuse myself.

Even if you exclude felons and illegal immigrants from the classification of "the people", we're still nowhere near the same page.

 

[Funderb]

i voted no guns for felons and sex offenders,
18 is logical, and you can't keep guns from felons without a background check. but that must be instant, maybe 3 minutes tops.

since that really isn't feasible, the next best answer is: no restrictions except age.

 

[Harve Curry]

Kind of Blued; QUOTE:
According to this poll, less than ONE QUARTER of the people on a GUN FORUM agree with the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" clause.

A bit childish of me to do so, but I have to excu... excuse myself.

Even if you exclude felons and illegal immigrants from the classification of "the people", we're still nowhere near the same page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+1, he understands where this is going down the slippery slope.

What makes you all think that once a offense qualifies you to lose your rights the powers that be won't tack on another one??
What makes a sex offense in the 1860's, 1890's, 1950's, 1970's and now what is acceptable sex in the 2000's and what isn't??
Among firearms owners a popular saying to fight the gun control advocates has been "guns don't cause crime, people do".
How many people are wrongly convicted? More and more as the decades go by I'll bet.
Misdemeanors are already being used to forfiet Rights. Wake up.
I'll put my trust in the Founders of this Country.
If this doesn't turn around and is a true repesentation of what firearms owners think then we are doomed. A house divided cannot stand.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

My theory is that by their own actions violent felons have chosen to have their rights forfeited.

The problem with your theory is that "deprived" doesn't mean "forefit". (The Second Amendment considered notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.)

Woody