|
|
Post by stormwarden on Nov 14, 2011 21:03:20 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.htmlNow, if they committed federal crimes, they're still SOL without a pardon on this end. But a lot of states have laws that allow reinstatement of gun rights after a case a while back that held gun bans unconstitutional. My view? If the felony was nonviolent in nature, then I'm okay with it. The fact that guns are being given back often to felons who committed violence with them, however? No chance in hell of me being for that, in this lifetime or any other. To me, gun ownership demands responsibility. Those who cannot live up to it shouldn't have them. Oh, and can we please keep the wharrgarbl to a bare minimum? I know gun topics can be touchy subjects here, and I'd rather keep the discussion decent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 14, 2011 21:09:34 GMT -5
I think gun derangement syndrome originally derives from the idea that people have a right to a deadly weapon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Nov 14, 2011 21:15:36 GMT -5
My view? If the felony was nonviolent in nature, then I'm okay with it. The fact that guns are being given back often to felons who committed violence with them, however? No chance in hell of me being for that, in this lifetime or any other. To me, gun ownership demands responsibility. Those who cannot live up to it shouldn't have them. I fully concur with this view.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 14, 2011 23:54:52 GMT -5
This is stupid.
I cannot comprehend why anyone would think it's a good idea to grant a gun back to a person who committed a violent crime with a gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Zone on Nov 15, 2011 1:02:37 GMT -5
My philosophy is do bad things to bad people. If it was up to me there would be no prisons, just firing squads. So, I have no love for felons and giving them any protection under the law or the Constitution is not my prerogative.
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 15, 2011 1:29:29 GMT -5
I think gun derangement syndrome originally derives from the idea that people have a right to a deadly weapon. To this day I still don't see why anyone thought putting the right to own deadly weapons into the constitution was a good idea. I just makes no sense to me, but then as I am not American perhaps I am just missing something fundamental to understanding it. I agree, if the felon has no history of violent behavior (weapon related or not) I would say that it would be ok for them to be given their firearms back. However, if they have even one incident on record of violent behavior, tough luck in my view. |
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Nov 15, 2011 2:23:19 GMT -5
Sylvana: Look at the context. Heavy reliance on militias, to say nothing of hunting and no functioning police forces until well into the 1800s (if not later) means that people had to be responsible for their own defense. Over time, the 2nd Amendment got ingrained in, and is, given a recent Supreme Court decision, very difficult to repeal, and as of right now, politically impossible to remove.
Not saying you have to agree with it. Just saying that's how it is. In a nutshell, as I've heard many times before, "Don't want a gun? Don't buy one."
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 15, 2011 5:15:10 GMT -5
They shouldn't even be able to go near a gun shop with a record. With the love of guns that I do, it has made me more cognizant of how much responsibility is necessary towards owning a gun. They tossed their right aside when they committed the felony w/ deadly weapon.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 15, 2011 16:53:18 GMT -5
Sylvana: Look at the context. Heavy reliance on militias, to say nothing of hunting and no functioning police forces until well into the 1800s (if not later) means that people had to be responsible for their own defense. At best that'sa long-repealed state by-law. How come it' been enshrined in the constitution? I think it's partly because the framers were scared of democracy and wanted a way out if poor people asked for their fair share. Just shoot them! |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 15, 2011 16:59:42 GMT -5
Sylvana: Look at the context. Heavy reliance on militias, to say nothing of hunting and no functioning police forces until well into the 1800s (if not later) means that people had to be responsible for their own defense. At best that'sa long-repealed state by-law. How come it' been enshrined in the constitution? I think it's partly because the framers were scared of democracy and wanted a way out if poor people asked for their fair share. Just shoot them! Actually it's the opposite. You have far more common people owning guns than you do the hoity toity high and mighties. The rich people might be able to hire mercenaries but mercenaries can't out populate the common person who has a really good reason to fight back. |
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Nov 16, 2011 12:53:44 GMT -5
Addendum to Shane: And the common person with little or nothing to lose can take a hell of a beating before they go down.
|
|
