Who should be allowed to purchase guns?

[NineseveN]

Your right, if a (violent) felon is loose, then nothing will prevent him from obtaining a firearm irregardless of the law.


But thats not the point, is it?
Did the law PREVENT them from commiting murder, rape, assualt, etc?
Did the law work to stop them from commiting a crime the SECOND- THIRD- FOURTH time?!
Clearly NOT!
So what is the point of those laws; they are to no effect!

Using your very standard, you make all laws void. I've seen the quote "It may be that all laws are useless, the virtuous man will do whats right and has no need for them, and the criminal could care less" (I paraphrase, badly, from memory).

Laws punish crime and hopefully act as a deterring agent, I never said laws stop crime; they define it and how it is to be punished. So why is the act of simply possessing a firearm a crime for a guy that ran a bookie business? What purpose does that serve? There are already extra legal penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a felony in many places. I do not claim to know the laws of every state, but I can assure you that using a firearm or even body armor in the commission of a felony pulls an extra charge in a lot of places. Perhaps someone more intimately familiar with these laws can chime in on that aspect and save me the trouble of researching it nationwide.

The thing with both laws is, unless there is probable cause to search the felon (which doesn't just materialize out of thin air), neither law can be charged against the felon until after they commit the crime and get caught, so again, it really does nothing to make it against the law for a felon to own, carry or possess a firearm if it is also illegal for them to carry or possess one during the commission of a crime.

So again, What problem does it actually solve and how does it really solve it?

 

[lobo264]

Howdy all, love the show.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I voted for everyone.

What I don't understand is how some people can be so quick to restrict liberties of other people.

I view arms ownership as a litmus test for freedom: The fewer the restrictions, the freer.

Come on by Eastern NY, first rounds are on me! We'll have a bang up time.

 

[Pafrmu]

Nothing like a good nights sleep to clear ones mind.

First, I want to apologize to everyone here about this thread. It has been far more divisive than I ever intended it to be. I was also caught up in the divisivness of the thread and said some things I did not mean. I am sorry for my offenses.

That being said, I think that there are some defined groups of thinking here. There is the side that is against any form of gun control because they think that it is a God given right and that all people no matter what should be allowed free access to firearms.

Then there is another group that believes that the God given right to BA arms has exceptions for certain groups of people. Their reasons vary as to why things should be restriced, some more well thought than others.

Finally, There is a third group of people who do not believe the right to BA is God given. It there fore can be taken away for no reason at all. This group really isn't well represented on the board.

Now, in my gross generalizations, I am sure that I missed somebody. I did not mean to misrepresent anyones views. If you have another view than above, please mention it.

If this post makes you angry, I am sorry. I am sure that if we were meeting and discussing these things in the real world as opposed to the Internet, we would all be friends discussing this after a long day at the range.

 

[taliv]

i was really hoping to see the gun banners here respond to nineseven's question (repeated once by me and 3x by him and still ignored) before this thread gets moved to politics and closed.

 

[NineseveN]

I am sure that if we were meeting and discussing these things in the real world as opposed to the Internet, we would all be friends discussing this after a long day at the range.

Oddly enough, I tend to agree. Peace.

 

[Janitor]

Finally, There is a third group of people who do not believe the right to BA is God given. It there fore can be taken away for no reason at all. This group really isn't well represented on the board.

Actually, I believe you'll find a fairly strong representation here of people that view it as a right given us by the founding fathers of our country, and that god had nothing at all to do with it.

 

[kfranz]

You will perhaps find others that do not believe rights are "given", for if they are given, they can be taken away. This thread was flawed from the beginning, when you used the word "allowed". Those that are truly freedom minded don't accept your basic premise.

 

[neoncowboy]

Actually, I believe you'll find a fairly strong representation here of people that view it as a right given us by the founding fathers of our country, and that god had nothing at all to do with it.

What authority did the founding fathers have to confer rights on any individuals?

Does codifying a right cause it to become authoritative? (for instance, if we pass a referendum that allows child rapists one legal child rape per year, do they than have the right (in a strict, natural, moral sense) to commit that rape?)

When the founders wrote of natural, inalienable rights endowed upon all men by their Creator...what was it they were talking about? Was that just rhetoric to support their declarations of human rights or was there more to it than that?

 

[JohnBT]

"So again, What problem does it actually solve and how does it really solve it?"

It's part of the punishment - actions have consequences. But I certainly don't claim that all laws solve problems or even make sense... That's why they're are many groups working to improve and streamline the system.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.org

 

[taliv]

That being said, I think that there are some defined groups of thinking here. There is the side that is against any form of gun control because they think that it is a God given right and that all people no matter what should be allowed free access to firearms.

Then there is another group that believes that the God given right to BA arms has exceptions for certain groups of people. Their reasons vary as to why things should be restriced, some more well thought than others.

Finally, There is a third group of people who do not believe the right to BA is God given. It there fore can be taken away for no reason at all. This group really isn't well represented on the board.

i think you completely misunderstand. the wording in the poll has led you to believe that many people here are against any form of gun control, which is really not the case.

i believe the bill of rights does not give anyone the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. i don't believe that infringement gives goverment the right to cut out your tongue when you go into a theater because you belong to the college-student demographic that is predisposed to shouting 'fire'.

just to clarify, i support many infringements on BEHAVIOR. for instance, it should be against the law for celebrants to fire their guns into the air on new years eve in times square.

i also support infringements on possession. for instance, people in prison have forfeit their rights and i doubt many adults here would seriously support inmates rights to bear arms.


the real difference between the "everyone" and the "-felons/children" groups is that we believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', and you believe we should restrict the rights of everyone just in case it might prevent someone from using a scary gun instead of a knife or bat in the course of criminal activity that you believe is inevitable for people other than yourself.

edit: i didn't mean for 'you' here to refer specifically to pafrmu, but collectively to the banners

 

[Berek]

I voted felons and children, even though some felons are not "violent". As for the handicapped, I don't have a problem until you reach the criminally insane. Physically handicapped: If you can hold a gun, by yourself or with a rest doesn't matter, then why can't you own one? If you're "emotionally" disabled, this includes people that had a temporary bout of depression (i.e. wife/husband left, loss of a loved one, etc...) that sought the counsel of a doctor. If you are over it and moved on, why not? Everyone gets depressed at some point to some degree. Why penalize them after they get over whatever happened?

A friend of mine was denied a pistol permit because he went to a counsellor (sp?) after his wife left him. He applied 5 years after the divorce was final and 2 years after he was re-married.

 

[NineseveN]

i think you completely misunderstand. the wording in the poll has led you to believe that many people here are against any form of gun control, which is really not the case.

i believe the bill of rights does not give anyone the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. i don't believe that infringement gives goverment the right to cut out your tongue when you go into a theater because you belong to the college-student demographic that is predisposed to shouting 'fire'.

just to clarify, i support many infringements on BEHAVIOR. for instance, it should be against the law for celebrants to fire their guns into the air on new years eve in times square.

i also support infringements on possession. for instance, people in prison have forfeit their rights and i doubt many adults here would seriously support inmates rights to bear arms.


the real difference between the "everyone" and the "-felons/children" groups is that we believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', and you believe we should restrict the rights of everyone just in case it might prevent someone from using a scary gun instead of a knife or bat in the course of criminal activity that you believe is inevitable for people other than yourself.

edit: i didn't mean for 'you' here to refer specifically to pafrmu, but collectively to the banners

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire is abusing your rights for criminal purposes (inciting a riot is a crime). As is discharging a firearm in a public place for no compelling reason. However, if there really is a fire in the theater, or there is a need to defend your life or the life of others in public, you are justified.


Just a minor point. Other than that, I agree.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Convicted Felons

"... i doubt many adults here would seriously support inmates rights to bear arms."

Convicted violent felons who have been released aren't automatically deemed "rehabilitated" and thereby eligible to BA, IMO. Anyone who would is naive.

Take Care

 

[NineseveN]

"So again, What problem does it actually solve and how does it really solve it?"

It's part of the punishment - actions have consequences. But I certainly don't claim that all laws solve problems or even make sense... That's why they're are many groups working to improve and streamline the system.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.org

JohnBT, with all due respect, there are already laws concerning using a firearm in the commission of a crime. So if it is part of the punsihment for committing a crime after having been released from prison, it's an overlap and useless.

If it is punishment for being a felon in the first place, even though one has allegedly paid ther debt to society, that's wrong. If the punishment is not over, leave them in jail.

 

[taliv]

"... i doubt many adults here would seriously support inmates rights to bear arms."

Convicted violent felons who have been released aren't automatically deemed "rehabilitated" and thereby eligible to BA, IMO. Anyone who would is naive.

Take Care

by inmates, i meant specifically people that are at this moment still behind bars. i.e. nobody would support the right of people currently incarcerated to bear arms.

obviously, their rights after release is the main point of debate here

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Taliv

Understood...IMO, anyone who's shown a penchant for violent behavior..enough so to be deemed guilty of same by a jury of his peers..should not legally be allowed a license for a handgun upon his release! Would we allow someone exiting prison after their 8th DWI conviction a license to drive? Same irresponsible proclivity..different weapon.

Give the violent felon the right to BA after his release..and he commits a violent act with the weapon, might make for some raised eyebrows and "I told you so's." Not to mention a lot of grief.

A convicted violent felon with the legal right to BA? Extremism at it's worst...and nowhere near the radar screen.

Take Care

 

[taliv]

because driving is a privilege. you can take public transportation or a taxi as an alternative.

self defense is an inherent, inalienable right.


and has been stated several times before, most of us on the 'everyone' side believe you're addressing a symptom, not the disease. that is, the penalty for a first DWI offense should be severe (say, a couple months of jail time). the second offense should be years of jail time and permanent loss of license. if that happened, there would be few if any 3rd or 4th offenses, and no 8th offenses.

the goal of prison isn't rehabilitation. it's punishment. the problem is that we give violent offenders 10 years in jail, then let them out after 18 months. put them in jail and leave them there until their sentence is served. no parole. no probation, etc.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Taliv

"self defense is an inherent, inalienable right." The DWI analogy was a bad one in making my point.

IMO, there comes a time when a person becomes disenfranchised from a "right", if they've been proven to be feloniously irresponsible and endanger others due to their inability to exercise that right.

Violent felons have no more "right" to a handgun license than an illegal alien deserves an education paid at tax payer expense.

Take Care

 

[Derby FALs]

because driving is a privilege. you can take public transportation or a taxi as an alternative.

self defense is an inherent, inalienable right.


and has been stated several times before, most of us on the 'everyone' side believe you're addressing a symptom, not the disease. that is, the penalty for a first DWI offense should be severe (say, a couple months of jail time). the second offense should be years of jail time and permanent loss of license. if that happened, there would be few if any 3rd or 4th offenses, and no 8th offenses.

the goal of prison isn't rehabilitation. it's punishment. the problem is that we give violent offenders 10 years in jail, then let them out after 18 months. put them in jail and leave them there until their sentence is served. no parole. no probation, etc.

When did the right to travel become a "privilege"? It was during the 20th century. Why should someone be punished for a crime if no harm has been done? Next thing you know they will be outlawing cell phone use while driving.

 

[torpid]

Some of us wouldn't find things as objectionable if the authorities didn't seem so intent on making previously legal behavior into crimes year after year.

Every New Year's day I read up on the list of new laws that criminalize a few more things that I was perfectly free to do as a law abiding citizen the day before.

It's easier than ever to find yourself an "accidental criminal" these says for just maintaining the status quo.

Some people who break the law had no intention to commit a criminal act.

.

 

[NineseveN]

Understood...IMO, anyone who's shown a penchant for violent behavior..enough so to be deemed guilty of same by a jury of his peers..should not legally be allowed a license for a handgun upon his release! Would we allow someone exiting prison after their 8th DWI conviction a license to drive? Same irresponsible proclivity..different weapon.

A couple of things:

Driving is not a right. Apples to oranges.

However, if we claim that they are indeed similar. Those with DUI's get their licenses back and can own vehicles after they serve their time and counseling until it goes so far as to become a repeat process, then they may still purchase a car at any time, they are just not allowed to operate one on public property. On private property (your yard) one can drive all they like, license or not. One crime, violent or not, gun rights go bye bye. No carry, no purchase, no owning, not even in your own home.

 

[cosine]

I am sure that if we were meeting and discussing these things in the real world as opposed to the Internet, we would all be friends discussing this after a long day at the range.

No reason why we can't be friends even after discussing these things on in Internet forum. No hard feelings need to be raised over disagreements.

Take care, all.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

No reason why we can't be friends even after discussing these things on in Internet forum. No hard feelings need to be raised over disagreements.

Take care, all.

Very true...there are a few people that just try and shout others down, or dazzle them with their ability to cut and paste or use a thesarus (I prefer the natural look of my poor grammar and bad spelling ). But every group has it's fantatics and they are best left ignored (wish I was better at that). I think most people on here are able to actually express their opinions in a positive way. For every person the shouts out a lame "ALL people" or "SHALL NOT" but cannot come up with anything original or that wasn't from the quotes page of an NRA handbook I think there are at least a dozen that can be a little more in-depth and adult in expressing their views..and probable a dozen more who just remain silent.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Cosine / Penquin

Here, Here! It would be dull indeed if we all shared the same viewpoint. Civil discussion is going on here..a good thing!

Take Care

 

[Derby FALs]

A couple of things:

Driving is not a right. Apples to oranges.

I disagree. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another. Licenses and motor vehicle taxes are infringements and violate the Peoples right to travel, very similar to "sensible" gun laws...