Well sorry if i made you guys mad, was just tryin to help :p
I figured we can use all the practice we can get :)
Printable View
Well sorry if i made you guys mad, was just tryin to help :p
I figured we can use all the practice we can get :)
I figured we can use all the practice we can get
stop typing and start shooting. you'll learn more.
Aye sir!
"Basically it would be a goverment regualted thing and would keep you much safer."
Hmmm... seems like Jim and I hit on the same snag there in your pitch. That phrase up there is a blatant contradiction in terms, in my opinion. Personally, I feel safer keeping whatever firearms I choose to own, where I choose to store them, and ready to fire should I choose when and where to pull the trigger. A trigger locked gun is a blunt club with which to strike, and a firesafe-stored gun doesn't even provide that meager protection. I feel a hell of a lot safer with my safety-less 5-shot .357 sitting on my nightstand than I do about my unloaded, safety-equipped hi-cap ak-47 sitting in my gunsafe. Know what I mean?
OK I'm bored so I guess I'll share my views on these issues.
Convicted felons should be able to own guns. If a person is such a threat to me that they should never be able to own a firearm again then what the hell are they doing out of prison? Besides, if a convicted felon wants to get a gun they can. All this law does is effectively disarms the ones that wish to become law abiding members of society. Saying once a criminal always a criminal is a pretty big assumption. Noone should be punished based on an assumption. Once you do your time (jail time, probation, parole, everything) then you should have your rights reinstated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphi
Here's a little story for you. I've got a buddy who got in a fight with his girlfriend. They were yelling at each other and he finally got mad and punched a wall. She called 911. She told us that she didn't do it out of fear. She did it to spite him. By the time the cops got there they had kissed and made up and everything was fine. Because of the nature of the call the cops had to arrest someone. Now, because my 20 something buddy punched a wall, he can never own a firearm again for the rest of his life.
[quote="Delphi"]I believe that any firearm should be allowed to be owned, and any firearm be allowed to be manufactured and sold(as long as buyer has correct certification) including FA's. They should have lvl1-3 training. [quote]
I agree that all firearms should be available to the public. I don't think that anyone should have to take a class to own anything, though. Classes should be made available and encouraged but they should not be govt regulated or required. Teaching firearms safety in schools would be a good way to get people familiar with them and make some of the taboos go away. Untrained people that are negligent with their firearms would undoubtedly be dealt with more harshly in court. That should be enough to encourage training.
Well I think I can take this one on.
The fact of the matter is that our system does not work, it's over crowded, and people that commit horrendous crimes get out after a few years.... Do you really want a Child Rapist, or a Murder that’s been in prison for 20 years to legally be able to buy a gun? I don’t. I agree with wtf are they doing out. But usually even ones who committed minor crimes come out of jail worse than they came in because they learned from the real bad guys. So i agree with making it illegal for a felon to buy a gun...
Now what your friend has done probably does not bar him from owning a gun, I don’t know what kind of a charge it was but it sounds an awful lot like a misdemeanor. I believe you can have those legally expunged and get your rights to own a gun again... Correct me if I’m wrong though.
"misdemeanor crime of domestic violence"
This is why I think disarming felons doesn't work. If a felon wants to get a gun they can. It's just as easy to buy a gun on the street as it is to get a gun in a store with all of the paperwork. Some would argue it's easier. By making laws that prohibit felons (or people with misdemeanor domestic violence) from owning firearms we're punishing them before they commit any crime. The only ones that won't go out and get a firearm are the ones that want to better themselves. We're taking away their right to self defense.
Here's another anecdote for you. A guy robbed a store when he was 18 years old. He went to prison and did his time. When he got out he opened his own business and became a productive member of society. Twenty years later he was robbed. He protected himself from the robber with a shotgun and ended up going back to prison for it. Over the course of those twenty years he had more than proven that he was reformed but because felons can never own a gun again he was punished for defending himself.
I'm not saying hand these guys guns as they're walking out the prison gates. I am saying, however, that when they're released and they finish their parole or probation that their full rights should be reinstated. If they commit another crime then we hammer them again. I don't know how long parole or probation can last but I assume it's several years in the case of serious crimes.
Disarming someone for having a misdemeanor domestic violence charge is absolutely ludicrous. I understand the concept but there are better, more temporary ways to handle that situation than permanently taking away someone's gun rights. There are people who took misdemeanor domestic violence convictions in plea bargains years ago who can't own a gun know since the law was passed.
Just for the record I also believe very strongly in capital punishment. I don't think that there's any greater deterrant than fear. That's why shall issue states have lower crime rates. If someone fears for their life then they're less likely to be pushed to commiting crimes. If someone proves that they're unfit for society by repeatedly commiting violent crimes then they should be put to death. Instead of coming up with laws that prevent people from possibly commiting crime we should be coming up with punishments that make people think twice about commiting crimes.
Artyboy, you make some convincing cases and I am torn.
On the surface, denying gun ownership to felons seems like a pretty straightforward way to make it harder/more penalty for bg's to have guns.
I know many here feel that _any_ restriction on gun ownership is another way of nibbling away at the edges of our rights and will eventually lead to loss of those rights.
Obviously, bg's who really want guns have no trouble getting them.
Your examples seem to me a demonstration of what's wrong with our legal system as much as anything else.
Mandatory sentencing = no room to consider mitigating factors and forces us into black and white decisions when in reality, everything is some shade of gray.
Domestic violence requirement that cops take _somebody_ away on a DV call again leaves no room for judgement calls good or bad.
"common sense" goes in hand with "resposibility".
No one (~) wants responsibility anymore, thus no common sense.
and the irony is that everyone (~) expects someone else to be responsible.
You're exactly right. Benjamin Franklin once said "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security". Liberty and responsibility also go hand in hand. It's too bad that more and more people are willing to give up their liberties for a stronger sense of security. Every gun restriction really does chink away at our rights a little bit at a time. The people that are making these laws might think that they have our best interests in mind but they won't be in charge forever. If they do end up winning then it leaves us, the people, defenseless if some dictator comes along and decides that he wants to start doing things his way somewhere down the line. I'm not saying that we're losing the battle because things have really started to swing our (gun owners) way over the last few years. Things could change at any given time, though. The gun grabbers have the media on their side which makes it pretty tough for us. Hell, most of the people that I talk to don't even know that you can own suppressors, select fire guns or several of the other toys that we like to play with. If more people knew that you could build an AK from a $100 kit and $50 in parts in your garage I think that they'd get scared. There are still a good number of people out there that would think "wow how cool is that" which is, in my opinion, keeping the anti gun media blitz at bay for now. We're being conditioned to believe that guns are dangerous and that normal people shouldn't be able to own them, though. Admitting that an ex felon is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun is just one of the first steps along that line of thinking.
I think the basic premis of your arguement is flawed. The basic principle of your arguements is that when the proper conditions are met, then the government will grant permission to own a firearm. This is just like a drivers license. Go look at what laws say about drivers licensese. They are "privileges" that the government can revoke at any time. This is different than a "right".
People in the USA have the RIGHT to bear arms not the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. This is the same as you have the RIGHT to free speech, not a PRIVILEGE to free speech.
Should we make sure that before you are allowed to make a public speech that you meet the required training requirements so as not to endanger anyone with your speech?
Or how about this, if you are properly trained in law, should you only have the PRIVILEGE of a trial (which can be revoked at anytime) and not the RIGHT to a trial?
Do you see what is the arguement?
-Dana
Second step is making every infraction of the law grounds to remove your rights to own a firearm. First it's a felony, then a DV misdemeanor, then what? Before you know it they make you a criminal and the gun grabbers have won.
Oh and something interesting that I learned the other week that just chaps my a$$ is that UN treaties over-shadow our constitution. So if the US signs a treaty with the UN to get rid of all small arms...it will be post Katrina all over the US.
That is why IANSA and Rebecca Peters are so dangerous.
It seems then that your beef is with the prison system. They aren't reforming most prisoners. How long does one have to pay a debt to scoiety?Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphi
I think there should be some probation period for felons to own firearms but they should be able get that right back and the right to vote. I also think that some felonies are different than others. Someone convicted of embezzling is probably less likely to commit a violent crime than some convicted of a felony which involved violence. I think the balck and white approach is wrong.
-Dana
The fact that they chose the 4th of July of all days makes me even more nervous about the whole UN conferance thing. They've got some balls doing something like that. It just seems like they're testing the waters to try and measure the American public's general reaction to the whole situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by samuraii
The only thing dangerous is me if they ever want to try it. NOTHING can ever take my rights read my sig line. They may think they can and all I can say is God help them.Quote:
Originally Posted by samuraii
[usa]
That is exactly what I believe they are doing. Nothing quite like celebrating our independence by having a conference on small arms and ways to take our freedoms away. :evil: Because the gun bans/restrictions are working SO well in Canada, Australia and the UK don't you know. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Artyboy
Like that saying goes, they will never take your hunting rifle from you. They will call it a sniper rifle first.
While I agree with Hunter, one thing to think about. If it ever did happen those that didn't comply would be criminals and there would be US and UN military forces here to enforce the new treaty.
I just hope upon hope that enough of our military and LEOs would take a stand and realize that what those people want to do is unconstitutional and take our side. I've gone to some big public message boards and asked people what they think of our gun rights and the overwhelming response seems to be positive. That doesn't mean that most of them would fight for their rights but as long as the majority wants to be able to keep their guns then I don't think that the govt would be stupid enough to take them away. You never know how far someone will go if you really push them. I think that they're going to wait until the majority wants to give up their guns before they make a move like that. That way they can just label the people who resist as criminals and nut cases and the general population will accept it. Oh wait that already happened in Waco :oops:.Quote:
Originally Posted by samuraii
The UN is trying to take our guns away????? You've got to be shitting me..... :evil:
If that happens they are gonna have at least one really F'ing pissed american at they're doorstep in NYC!!!!!!!!!!! Like wtf.... in my opionion we should get rid of the UN........
If this happens, which i'm sure it wont, their will be no limit to my rage.....
I think i'd have to prepare some real fireworks on the 4th of july! :twisted:
The UN could screw up a free lunch and is corrupt to its core. We need to get the US out of the UN and get the UN the hell out of the US.
Townhall.com: We're From the U.N. and We Want Your Guns
Quote:
In a recent debate LaPierre did with Rebecca Peters, who is heading up the NGOs’ gun-ban efforts, Peters told him that Americans need to give up on the notion of self-defense because it’s something that only happens in movies.