Who should be allowed to purchase guns?

[Taurus 66]

Well for starters, the FFL and CCWs should require some sort of IQ exam (minimum passing score of 90).

IMO, felons not convicted of violent crimes should have a mandatory 15 year waiting period from the release date. All violent offenders, check back in the next life. Juveniles with a history of violence or a consistent typical rebellion towards authority should be required to wait until their 25th birthday before they are legal and eligible to amend the void.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Think about it folks... any gun control is gun control; it is just a matter of degree.

Yes, just like shaving is the same as slitting your own throat...it is just a matter of degree.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

on the contrary, the only reason you would say any of those groups CAN'T have a gun is that you have assumed they will commit a crime with that gun.

is that not true? what other reason could you have for withholding their right for self defense?

if you're going to assume they will commit a crime, why not just go ahead and put them back in prison? or execute them?

At least act like you have some sense...would you execute every criminal that robbed a convienent store, or stole a car, or ever mugged someone? As for assuming they will commit a crime. I do assume that convicted criminals are likely to commit crimes. I would not even call that much of an assumption. I do not assume a 3 yr old would commit a crime but i would not hand him a loaded weapon.

 

[taliv]

you need to lighten up on the personal attacks re: everyone here's common sense.

i wouldn't execute everyone, obviously. as i stated earlier, i'm on the opposite end of the spectrum: i'm in favor of restoring their rights when they're released.

I do not assume criminals will commit crimes again.

In my humble opinion, if you can look at a statistic that says "the likelyhood of demographic x committing a violent gun crime is unacceptably high so we should take away their rights" where x == felons,
x could also be "people who listen to RAP"
or "people who play video games"
or "people who make less than $20,000 anually"


common sense to me means punishing people after they commit crimes, NOT infringing the rights of entire groups of society that are predisposed to crime

 

[taliv]

in with respect to children, you are using the same argument that is common for gun banners... when you say "children" you hope people picture in their minds, a 3 yr old. but the statistics and behavior you reference is more commonly 15-17 yr old gang members.

nobody here is saying 3 yr olds should have loaded guns. that's an absurd straw man.

when most of the people here vote in favor of "children" being able to purchase guns, they mean their 13-17 yr old being able to buy 22lr ammo at walmart and go plink. i continue to believe that almost all kids in that age group who live in rural areas are capable of being safe and responsible.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I did notice one thing...

I noticed that not one person voted to exclude everyone but military and police. I guess that even though some of us have varying opinions on some aspects of it we can all agree we need to be self sufficient and be able to protect ourselves if need be and that MOST people should be allowed to own weapons. I guess that this shows we do not have any severe left leaning people that view these boards (or at least that engage).

Oops...I do see we got two "noones" but i am betting that is more of a joke.

 

[NineseveN]

In Gary Oldamn fashion from The Professional (Leon).


EVVVVVERRRRYONNNNNE!

 

[Beav]

Where's the "just me" option?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Everyone.

Felons are judged by a jury of their peers to a punishment deemed just. When they have served their time they have paid their debt to society and are entitled to all the rights of everyone else. So what if they might commit another crime? Innocent until proven guilty, remember. Besides, gun control doesn't work anyways.

Children? I was four when I learned how to shoot. That rifle was bought by my grandpa at age 11 from a hardware store on credit.

Mentally or physically incompetent? And who gets to decide who qualifies for that? The government? So the government gets to decide who is mentally stable enough to own a gun? That seems contradictory to the purpose of the Amendment and intent of the Framers.

This is depressing. Over 62% of people here believe they can restrict someone else's right to own a firearm. And each one thinks they have a better idea to make the world safer for everyone else, just like Sarah Brady. Gun control is always sensible to the one in control.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

This is depressing. Over 62% of people here believe they can restrict someone else's right to own a firearm. And each one thinks they have a better idea to make the world safer for everyone else, just like Sarah Brady. Gun control is always sensible to the one in control.

And that is on a pro-gun site, imagine what the percentage would be if it was a poll of the general population. That is why it is so important to be reasonable and have retraint and standards.

 

[stevelyn]

Can't vote.

I can't justfy violent felons getting firearms rights back. I've dealt with too many that just can't change their behavior. Ideally these pieces of humanoid trash should never be allowed to breath free air again or the groundhogs should be delivering their mail to them.
However, there are a few rare exceptions, and that's where a review board would come into play to look at a persons record after a period of time-ten years or more after serving all prison and probation time.

Non-violent felons should not be prohibited from owning firearms as their crimes didn't cause physical harm to others. Really, can anyone justify taking away Martha Stewart's RKBA just because she lied to the goobermint? The goobermint lies to us everyday, and it's getting worse.

Children? They can't vote. Why should they be able to buy guns? Some may be mature enough to handle the responsibility. Others may not. Most of all though that's an area that should be reserved strictly for parents to decide. However, I don't see the necessity to restrict ammo sales.

 

[ksnecktieman]

The quote, "An armed society is a polite society" came from a science fiction writer by the name of Robert Heinlien. (If you doubt that statement you could easily test it for yourself. The next time you see someone wearing or carrying a gun, just go up and talk to him. Then note the times you say "sir", and "please", and "thank you", and the friendly smile you have on your face.)

It is easy to see why we keep getting more and more gun control. We as gun lovers do not stand together against the gun control advocates. We allow some groups of people to be denied arms, in fact, as a group we appear to be in favor of it. We allow some groups of firearms and accessories to be denied to everyone, fully automatic, saturday night specials, assault weapons, silencers (except the very rich, or well connected people of course). We allow, and even seem to approve of restrictions on where and when we can carry. We allow, and seem to approve of government "permission slips" to purchase, or carry, or own, or sell guns. We approve of, and allow laws that require guns to be locked up or taken apart when not in use.

I understand the word "criminal" to mean a person that breaks the law. So we make a law to keep guns from him and it does not work. So we make more laws to do the same thing and are surprised when they do not work either. For a glimpse of our future gun laws, look to England, as sure as the sunrise, that is where we are going.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The quote, "An armed society is a polite society" came from a science fiction writer by the name of Robert Heinlien. (If you doubt that statement you could easily test it for yourself. The next time you see someone wearing or carrying a gun, just go up and talk to him. Then note the times you say "sir", and "please", and "thank you", and the friendly smile you have on your face.)

It is easy to see why we keep getting more and more gun control. We as gun lovers do not stand together against the gun control advocates. We allow some groups of people to be denied arms, in fact, as a group we appear to be in favor of it. We allow some groups of firearms and accessories to be denied to everyone, fully automatic, saturday night specials, assault weapons, silencers (except the very rich, or well connected people of course). We allow, and even seem to approve of restrictions on where and when we can carry. We allow, and seem to approve of government "permission slips" to purchase, or carry, or own, or sell guns. We approve of, and allow laws that require guns to be locked up or taken apart when not in use.

I understand the word "criminal" to mean a person that breaks the law. So we make a law to keep guns from him and it does not work. So we make more laws to do the same thing and are surprised when they do not work either. For a glimpse of our future gun laws, look to England, as sure as the sunrise, that is where we are going.

Hate to break it to you...a firearm does not garner my respect. In fact in some cases a person will have to work harder to earn it if I feel they use w eapon to earn respect. Like I said before I have been to countries that have an armed populace and you would not want to live there unless you like fearing for your life daily and never knowing what religous or political faction was going to attack today. People make this notion of an armed society out to be some crimeless utopia but these places actually exist and they are not pretty and are very far from idealic.

 

[Maxwell]

People make this notion of an armed society out to be some crimeless utopia but these places actually exist and they are not pretty and are very far from idealic.

There are alot of other factors at play in these places. These people dont get the freedom of worship or speach, nor do they get protection against improper search and arrest. Say the wrong thing, you get thrown off a building or shot on sight.
They could get a gun, but they understand if they dont use it to shoot everyone of X religion or Y political faction, they dont eat.

In order for the 2nd amendment to work you need the other freedoms.
You need people to be using these weapons in their own interest, and not bound to the government or a preacher.

Why we keep getting caught off guard by the anti-guns is because many gun owners are reasonable and responsable people going up against an un-reasonable group. We've been allowing compromise.

Unfortunatly, a gun owner who acted the polar opposite of many anti's would quickly be branded the type of nut they want to take weapons away from.
Its not an easy fight to win.

 

[cambeul41]

Prohibit hypocrisy

Can't vote.

I can't justfy violent felons getting firearms rights back. I've dealt with too many that just can't change their behavior. Ideally these pieces of humanoid trash should never be allowed to breath free air again or the groundhogs should be delivering their mail to them.
However, there are a few rare exceptions, and that's where a review board would come into play to look at a persons record after a period of time ... after serving all prison and probation time.

Non-violent felons should not be prohibited from owning firearms as their crimes didn't cause physical harm to others. Really, can anyone justify taking away Martha Stewart's RKBA just because she lied to the goobermint?

Perhaps I should not have voted, either.

There is one other group that should not be allowed arms or even armed protection beyond that provided to the general population: those who would prohibit us from going armed with special reference to politicians and celebrities. This would not be a case of our taking from them the right to purchase and/or carry, but a result stemming from their own positions. It would be an extension of the presumption of equality before the law with an anti-hypocrisy rider.

Okay, so I am dreaming. It is a pleasant dream in any case.

 

[JohnBT]

"Just to clarify the handicapped part, I mean people who have some sort of diagnosed mental condition."

You mean like insomnia? How about anorexia? Social phobia? Nicotine dependence? Caffeine intoxication? Reading disorder? Mathematics disorder? Disorder of written expression? Transient tic disorder? Post traumatic stress disorder?

Each and every one is a diagnosis listed in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV manual.

Just goes to show that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

I think this thread needs to be deleted and started anew.

John

 

[geekWithA.45]

I'm of two minds on this.

Generally, I'd check "everyone", because the mechanisms of restriction, in the hands of Democrats and other Rousseaunians becomes a mechanism of infringement. There are plenty of folks who would grease a slippery slope in their relentless quest to disarm everyone.

That being said, I would argue that there IS a class of people for whom it is reasonable and appropriate to restrict their right of arms, if we could figure out a reliable and just sorting mechanism that includes a person's periodic review.

There is precedent for this in our founding, there is plenty of reference to "a peacable person's right of arms". Somewhere in the right of self defense is also the right to pre-empt violence from those whose actions indicate that they are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and likely to initiate violence.


The class of people to whom I reference are, in general terms:

-Children: Kids have rights, but they also need guidance and limits. This is properly the bailiwick of the parent.

-The insane: People who cannot discern reality or the consequences of their actions are a public menace. HOWEVER, there is a legal standard that states that a person who presents an imminent threat of danger to themselves or others due to a mental problem may be involuntarilly committed for treatment. I would argue that they MUST be removed from the public, because they are a danger whether or not they are armed. The notion of "sane enough to run around loose in public as long as they don't have a gun" is a modern invention of dubious provenance.

-The Reliably Violent Offender. You'll note I didn't say "felon". There's lots of nonviolent, fairly innocuous offenses that can get you put into the slam for more than a year. For example, posessing hollowpoints in NJ without an exemption. There are, however, sociopaths who deem the initiation of violence upon another as a perfectly valid thing to do, and who cannot be pursuaded otherwise. At some point, you have to say, "enough is enough, we don't trust you." Again, in this case, we really need to ask ourselves whether this person ought to be running around loose in public. Again, the notion of "ok to run around loose in public as long as they don't have a gun" is a modern invention of dubious provenance.

 

[danurve]

The Poll in this thread is irrelivant.
Friggin felon is going to obtain a gun if he/she wants one regardless of what the frick anyone here thinks.

No insult intended to the original poster.

 

[NineseveN]

-The Reliably Violent Offender. You'll note I didn't say "felon". There's lots of nonviolent, fairly innocuous offenses that can get you put into the slam for more than a year. For example, posessing hollowpoints in NJ without an exemption. There are, however, sociopaths who deem the initiation of violence upon another as a perfectly valid thing to do, and who cannot be pursuaded otherwise. At some point, you have to say, "enough is enough, we don't trust you." Again, in this case, we really need to ask ourselves whether this person ought to be running around loose in public. Again, the notion of "ok to run around loose in public as long as they don't have a gun" is a modern invention of dubious provenance.

And that's the rough spot, if we, as a society trust them enough to put them back out into society where they could cause harm with all manners of tools and instruments that they can acquire from Wal-Mart 24 hours a day, then why not firearms? If they cannot be trusted as much as any other free citizen, perhaps they should not be free.

Gun control doesn't work, we know this, most any gun owner will tell you that they believe this, except when it comes to felons. Somehow, in the modern minds of gun owners, gun control works on felons and they wholly support restricting their right to keep and bear arms. You're admitting that gun control works (which it does not) when you concede such 'reasonable restrictions', which rises to the level of hypocrisy, unintentional perhaps, but hypocrisy none the less.

If you admit that gun control does not work, then why prohibit felons from lawfully gaining arms? It would still be a crime to use a firearm (or any instrument) in an illegal manner so what's the point? Explain to me why gun control is good for felons and more importantly, why it works on them yet it does not work on any other group within society? What problem does it solve other than to make some people who pull the woo over their own eyes feel good?

Personally, if there was an option that said 'Everyone but children without parental consent', I would have gone that route. If one is severely mentally ill, they should be in a hospital or institution, if one is a seriously violent offender that cannot be trusted, they should be incarcerated.


This wasn't directed at geekWithA.45, it was directed at anyone that agrees with restricting felons once they are free.

 

[NineseveN]

And that is on a pro-gun site, imagine what the percentage would be if it was a poll of the general population. That is why it is so important to be reasonable and have retraint and standards.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

 

[MrTwigg]

I've got to say...

Felons; I don't want a felon to legally have a gun. If one has committed a serious there is the distinct possibility the person will commit another crime of a similar or more serious nature. Besides, as at least one other person has pointed out a felon will simply find an alternate source for a gun.

Children; There does need to be a minimum age at least for easily concealed
weapons like handguns. They simply aren't mature enough. Most current laws state long arms at 18 and pistols at 21 This seems to be sufficient. But, I've met some twenty somethings I wouldn't trust with a Daisy Red Ryder, let alone a shotgun or handgun.

Mentally handicapped; No ! If you’re not a rational person and cannot comprehend the consequences of responsible firearm ownership, as well as
what happens when somebody gets shot, you have no business legally owning any firearm.

Physically handicapped ; Yes, in fact if they have sufficient control over their upper limbs, heck yes. Otherwise they would just be easy targets for criminals.

Just my $.02

 

[WT]

Felons should not be allowed to have firearms. If they need to defend themselves they can use their fists.

The mentally ill, drug abusers and habitual drunkards should be restricted.

Children under 18 should be allowed provided they have adult supervision.

 

[M2 Carbine]

That is why it is so important to be reasonable and have retraint and standards.

This is word for word from the gun control crowd's talking points.

I have heard these exact words from the liberal anti gun left for 50+ years.
Gun owners acceptance of government "reasonable standards" has brought the country to the point that now some states are correctly referred to as "the people's republic of ***".

Age limits, restrictions on carry, restrictions on gun types, registration, ID cards, waiting times, number of purchases, AWB, etc, etc, etc, are all "reasonable standards" to the anti gun crowd.
It's been amazing to me how easily it's always been to make a high percentage of gun owners buy into these "reasonable standards".

 

[Deathrider1579]

Any person walking free in this country should be able to buy any form of weapon as easly as one buys a hammer.

If one cannot be trusted with a weapon one should not be walking free.

-DR

 

[Pafrmu]

Just for the Record

I did not mean to include the physically handicapped in the poll. I mean people with mental or emotional problems.

I believe that all citizens with physical disabilites should be able to purchase firearms.