Which LGS are more pro 2A?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

Some are smart enough not to expose themselves to unnecessary risk. DDTC

And its averse, not adverse.

---

Sage advise ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CS1983

Yes. That’s my point. If they’re not on death row (I find life sentences cruel and unusual, and basically the Russian literature of death row), or in a mental institution, they should not be excluded.

---

The problem with that is. Most of the on parole and or early release felons, played the parole system, like a fiddle. They claim they found jesus, saw the light and "only want to return to society". Knowing they made a mistake and looking forward to getting back to their family and society.

The parole board looks at the over crowding, available funding etc and says. Why not take a change with this model prisoner.
6 months later, if that in some cases. They're in a line up accused of stabbing someone to death. or one of the many other bad habits, society pushed them to.

I'm the victim. I mean all i wanted was her wallet. But no, she fought back, so i stabbed her, 17 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

Some are smart enough not to expose themselves to unnecessary risk. DDTC

And its averse, not adverse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

Sage advise ;)

---

That's advice, not advise... [Flower][Coffee]


Just playing along, fellas...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

The problem with that is. Most of the on parole and or early release felons, played the parole system, like a fiddle. They claim they found jesus, saw the light and "only want to return to society". Knowing they made a mistake and looking forward to getting back to their family and society.

The parole board looks at the over crowding, available funding etc and says. Why not take a change with this model prisoner.
6 months later, if that in some cases. They're in a line up accused of stabbing someone to death. or one of the many other bad habits, society pushed them to.

I'm the victim. I mean all i wanted was her wallet. But no, she fought back, so i stabbed her, 17 times.

---

Defending a systemic breakdown with a data point of said breakdown?

We either have rights or we don't. Sad to see so many here who don't actually believe we have rights. More like the 2nd suggestion I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Only the retarded are buying guns right now.. lol


Yeah, I know it's politically incorrect.. but it's true.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

Respectfully disagree.
I understand the RKBA. But after working in this industry for a long time I also understand the fact that there are plenty of individuals in our society who have no business possessing a firearm and if they did, I want to be well out of range.

---

+1, pretty much anyone with half a brain and worked in in the industry for over 5 years has said the same. Being dumb is not illegal or considered mentally ill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

Respectfully disagree.
...there are plenty of individuals in our society who have no business possessing a firearm and if they did, I want to be well out of range.

---

Shannon Watts quote? Cite?

O2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CS1983

Defending a systemic breakdown with a data point of said breakdown?

We either have rights or we don't. Sad to see so many here who don't actually believe we have rights. More like the 2nd suggestion I guess.

---

That's not how our government has ever worked. Like it or not, BOR has never been a light switch and it's been legally "infringed" since day one. Idealistically, we can argue how we have sacred unalienable rights, pragmatically, our rights have constantly been under revision, edited etc from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate. "Right" or wrong, that is our flawed system of government. Personally, I usually avoid ideological positions and deal with pragmatic reality to have the most effect in the course of my life.

And even if we go back to the original conventions, imagine if you stood up and said "If a man stabs all of his neighbors in a gathering, rapes their wives, and is sent to prison, would it not infringe on his right to a firearm to deny him a weapon from within prison?" Proponents of arguments like that might have kept us from even having a 2nd amendment, it was heated to begin with.... even the idealists see limitations despite the "shall not be infringed", such as "lets not arm prisoners, shall we?". Nowhere in the B.O.R. does it explicitly deny rights to prisoners either...

So yeah, "shall not infringe" has never meant every man woman and child without exception.

ETA: Also note our judicial system neither has the capacity nor has ever operated to segregate dangerous people from society. Again, that's an idealized belief, not reality. It's mostly catch and release, at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O2HeN2

Shannon Watts quote? Cite?

O2

---

Nope, I am capable of forming my own thoughts.
Work a retail shop long enough and there will plenty of times when you complete a transfer that you say to yourself "Man, I'm glad that guy doesn't live near me...."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

I'm to young to know, but how was getting a gun prior to Brady?

I've heard mail order to your door.

Why cant we go back to that?

We all know background checks stop no one from obtaining a gun if they want one.

---

Actually for retail sales, you have not been able to have it mailed to your house since the 1968 GCA