Ten Commandments of Gun Ownership

[450 Dakota]

Saw this card (attached) at a gun show in Houston, TX this last weekend and took a picture of it. Good advice from someone who has obviously had his or her firearm experience negatively impacted by other gun owners. Let's try not to be like these people to those getting into the hobby! Hope "General Gun Discussions" is the right place for it!
Enjoy!

 

[CLP]

totally agree with every commandment

 

[glove]

Thanks for posting. good rules to live by.

 

[tommy.duncan]

I made my daughter read these before her first range trip.

 

[Red Wind]

Agree with all and #10 is the big kahuna.

10. Support the repeal of ALL gun control laws. Completely unrestricted firearm ownership is the heritage of ALL free and mentally-competent adult US citizens.

 

[Byrd666]

Deleted

 

[beatledog7]

Regarding #10--who gets to decide who is mentally competent?

 

[Solo]

A very good question with no simple answer, though I believe that people who take orders to kill people from voices in their heads probably count as mentally incompetent.

 

[browningguy]

I'm an elitist I guess, no one will ever convince me that convicted felons should be allowed to legally posses firearms.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Agree with all and #10 is the big kahuna.

Except #10 contradicts itself... it includes two forms of regulation ("free" and "mentally competent"). Even someone who supports "the repeal of ALL gun control laws" is in favor of some gun control laws.

 

[Red Wind]

I'm an elitist I guess, no one will ever convince me that convicted felons should be allowed to legally posses firearms.

Even if they were convicted and served 3 years for writing bad checks? Or embezzled 25 gees as a 22 year old bank teller and were sent up for 5?

 

[Red Wind]

Even someone who supports "the repeal of ALL gun control laws" is in favor of some gun control laws.

If they are locked up in a mental ward or incarcerated for a felony. Once released their 2A rights should be restored. There is no contradiction there. Once out,get a gun.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

If they are locked up in a mental ward or incarcerated for a felony. Once released their 2A rights should be restored. There is no contradiction there. Once out,get a gun.

Agreed. And if everyone believes they are still dangerous, what are they doing out?

 

[holdencm9]

Let's not have this devolve into a discussion of who gets to declare people/what constitutes mental competency for firearms ownership.

Anyways, good list. Lately I haven't been following #4 as religiously as I could, but I also realize my guns aren't going to disintegrate if they aren't cleaned instantly after shooting.

 

[Red Wind]

Let's not have this devolve into a discussion of who gets to declare people/what constitutes mental competency for firearms ownership.

We won't That was a good OP and this thread will not devolve into advocacy about the cut off points, which as you suggest will never end.

So I suggest peace and we move on. I will.

Agreed. And if everyone believes they are still dangerous, what are they doing out?

That is the story in a nutshell.

 

[ivankerley]

Even if they were convicted and served 3 years for writing bad checks? Or embezzled 25 gees as a 22 year old bank teller and were sent up for 5?

agreed, its fairly easy to screw up and get a felony charge, what happened to serving your debt to society, getting out and starting over, my interpretation of the second amendment must differ than most i suppose
gene

 

[JRH6856]

what happened to serving your debt to society, getting out and starting over

If you're convicted of a felony and serve your time, petition the court for restoration of your civil and political rights. But most people don't get "do overs" for major screw-ups (felonies)

its fairly easy to screw up and get a felony charge,

It's pretty easy to avoid too. The consequences are known. Best course of action to avoid them is to not commit felonies.

 

[Hondo 60]

Got a friend who was convicted of a drug charge when he was 25 years old.
Paid his fine, spent a few months on probation.

He's 52 now & because he can't afford a lawyer, he's not able to petition the court for restoration.
(yes, I'm sure he could do it w/o a lawyer, but what's the chance of success?)

 

[JRH6856]

'm sure he could do it w/o a lawyer, but what's the chance of success?

Absolutely zero if he doesn't try.

 

[Sam1911]

Nice, generally positive list of pretty good ideas with an absurd title.

Call it "Jim from Tuscon's List of Random Gun Thoughts" and I'd be more comfortable with it.

I'm sure we could all come up with our own lists and many wouldn't be much better.

But there are technical problems with half of the list, about a third won't be applicable to a large number of shooters, and the balance of the list isn't anything important enough to call a "commandment."

 

[450 Dakota]

Wow. Most of the commentary has been logical, but I am seeing a little of the elitism of which the document spoke. Yes, the felony thing has been kind of a catch-all by the gun control bunch. However, by saying that ANY felon is disenfranchised from purchasing or using firearms, they "cast a broader net" and prevent peaceable individuals as well. However, the thinking individual knows that most "felons" are not dangerous (I have several working for me), and that only those who have "misused" a firearm in the commission would be considered dangerous to society with one. Besides, once a person is a "free man" (ie...not on probation or parole), all rights as a US citizen should be restored, including voting, serving on a jury and, yes, firearms ownership. Currently, only the voting rights are restored--probably the most "dangerous" right we have!

 

[JustinJ]

Agreed. And if everyone believes they are still dangerous, what are they doing out?

"Everyone" doesn't decided when we let people out. Such is not practical. Crimes have defined penalties, such as length of sentence, by law. If somebody commits a felony, they are not just imprisoned until they convince "everyone" that they are no longer a danger. Such an idea is completely impractical.

If sentencing allows, a parole board may be able to grant a felon early release with conditions. However, since the parole board is made up of human beings, they lack psychic powers so are unable to know with any degree of certainty if the convicted felon will commit a violent crime upon release.

When I hear people say "if they are dangerous why are they out of prison" it makes me want to hit my head with a hammer. In the real world, there are no crystal balls and its not practical or just to throw all felons in prison for life, even if their crime was violent. So instead, society compromises by giving them another chance but with some restrictions.

Now I do agree that there are issues with restricting gun rights of non-violent felons but very often those who do get caught for the non-violent stuff are not they type of people we can expect to be responsible gun owners. A meth addict who supports his habit through robbery may have only got busted for the meth. On the other hand, a young guy who smokes weed on occasion should have just as much a right to a gun as anybody else.

It should also be remembered that the constitution allows the deprivation of rights through due process of law and nothing indicates the second amendment to be immune from such.

 

[ATLDave]

The idea that one should not "associate" with anyone who has different ideas than you is absurd and un-American. A pluralistic republic cannot long endure if we stop talking to one another and quit exposing one another to alternative viewpoints. If your thinking and feelings are so fragile that you cannot even bear to be in the same room with someone who believes differently than you, it's time to grow up. It doesn't take much bravery to endure a civil discussion... surely we can all muster that.

 

[ATLDave]

When I hear people say "if they are dangerous why are they out of prison" it makes me want to hit my head with a hammer.

Agreed. It suggests a total non-familiarity with the criminal justice system. It's not really based in any meaningful sense on individualized determinations about prospective risks. It's a big machine.

And whether people should be out or not, it's an indisputable fact that the rate of violent crime among convicted felons is astronomically higher than among non-felons! Now, I'm inclined to think that there are lots of felonies that aren't particularly good predictors of future violence (though I don't recall seeing the data), and that a discussion is probably due regarding the post-incarceration firearms rights of those convicted of such crimes.

But do I think a person who made a living robbing people at gun point, or who got his jollies by raping women or girls with the aid of a firearm, should get to possess guns upon release from prison? No, I do not. I don't care whether he has "served his time," I don't want him to have that right restored. If that renders me an elitist, I guess I will have to do without the "association" of Jim from Tuscon.

 

[Sam1911]

But do I think a person who made a living robbing people at gun point, or who got his jollies by raping women or girls with the aid of a firearm, should get to possess guns upon release from prison? No, I do not. I don't care whether he has "served his time," I don't want him to have that right restored. If that renders me an elitist, I guess I will have to do without the "association" of Jim from Tuscon.

Because if he's generally willing to commit armed assault and rape, he'll probably stop short of breaking the law regarding possessing a firearm as a prohibited person?

The idea that convicted violent felons "can't" or "won't" possess weapons because that's against the law is patently absurd. A bedtime story we tell ourselves so we feel safer at night.