Ban Guns

[Anti Federalist]

Thirdly, law enforcement is rarely able to prevent violent crime, but typically arrive after the criminal has left the scene. In the United States, the most significant reductions in violent crime have occurred in the states that have removed restrictions on civilian’s right to carry a handgun

 

[pcosmar]

What do you say to those like Michael Savage who are saying people on anti depressants should not be able to buy guns?

I say people should avoid those unholy drugs like the plague.

They are the common denominator in all of these shootings.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I say people should avoid those unholy drugs like the plague.

They are the common denominator in all of these shootings.

Good to see you Pete.

Yes, they are, both.

 

[presence]

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
The great object is that every man be armed.

Patrick Henry

Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.

Tench Coxe, 1788

http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.html

Connecticut
gun code of 1650:


"All persons shall bear arms,
and every male person
shall have in continual readiness
a good musket or other gun, fit for service."​

​

So far have we strayed...

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence.
They deserve a place of honour with all that's good.
When firearms go, all goes.
We need them every hour.

George Washington

Connecticut Gun Code of 1650
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...cticut-gun-code-of-1650&p=4776173#post4776173

 

[tod evans]

Thirdly, law enforcement is rarely able to prevent violent crime, but typically arrive after the criminal has left the scene. In the United States, the most significant reductions in violent crime have occurred in the states that have removed restrictions on civilian’s right to carry a handgun

"Law enforcement" is nothing more than response, report taking and arresting known offenders is their sole purpose...

The only way to effectively limit offensive crime is to foster self reliance within the victim class...

 

[tonypeck]

Yeah anti depressants certainly are the common denominator, so should they be added to the Gun Control Act of 1968 or would that be considered infringing on one's rights?

 

[osan]

I say people should avoid those unholy drugs like the plague.

But they won't.

Pill == easy.

Dealing with one's problems for real == difficult.

Easy almost always trumps difficult, no matter the cost.

 

[pcosmar]

Yeah anti depressants certainly are the common denominator, so should they be added to the Gun Control Act of 1968 or would that be considered infringing on one's rights?

NO ,,the GCA of 68 should be rejected and discarded, as well as the NFA of 34,, in total.

Hell, the very concept of it is repulsive.

 

[tod evans]

NO ,,the GCA of 68 should be rejected and discarded, as well as the NFA of 34,, in total.

There's very little, if any legislation passed in the last 100 years worth keeping on the books....

The idiots in Washington really need to focus on trying to grasp the constitution instead of writing various bills and laws in an attempt to circumvent it.

 

[tonypeck]

There's very little, if any legislation passed in the last 100 years worth keeping on the books....

The idiots in Washington really need to focus on trying to grasp the constitution instead of writing various bills and laws in an attempt to circumvent it.

That's for sure. So should criminals with a violent history be denied purchasing further guns or should nobody be denied under any circumstances? (i'm just posing questions that have been posed to me before)

 

[pcosmar]

That's for sure. So should criminals with a violent history be denied purchasing further guns or should nobody be denied under any circumstances? (i'm just posing questions that have been posed to me before)

No one,,ever..
The government at all levels should be Barred in all manner from ever (even giving any appearance of) infringing on a human beings right to defend themselves.

 

[osan]

That's for sure. So should criminals with a violent history be denied purchasing further guns or should nobody be denied under any circumstances? (i'm just posing questions that have been posed to me before)

We need to set a few things straight here. I've done it before, but it bears repetition.

If you commit a crime - a real one and not some nonsense like smoking a joint, buying hooker services, and the like - and you are righteously tried and convicted, you are then a convicted felon. You go serve out your sentence and once the criminal debt is discharged, you are no longer a convicted felon - you are no longer a criminal. You are an ex-criminal. From that point all is supposed to be even and all rights should be restored.

If perchance you choose to involve yourself in yet another criminal endeavor and are again apprehended, tried, and convicted, you once again earn the status of convicted felon. When you are released, once again all rights should be restored. If they are not, this implies any of a number of things, none good. Either you have NOT discharged the criminal debt you incurred by committing the crime in question, in which case you should still be under sentence and should almost certainly be in prison or jail, or those in power are of the mind that rights are not rights at all, but rather privileges to be taken from ostensibly free men according to some arbitrary scheme.

To retain the status of "felon" after having been released from prison makes no sense. If you are still a menace, why have you been released? What was the judge thinking when he passed sentence? If you have been released, the only morally justifiable position to take is the assumption that, having paid your debt you are now once again a free man and NO free man may be disbarred from the exercise of ANY of his rights. Period.

The moment Joe Murder steps foot our of prison, his friends should be able to put a gun in his hand and he should be free to walk the streets unmolested. Some say this is insanity, but I assert it is the only right way to proceed. Such men meet bad ends in most cases. Even if we assume the worst in others we are unable to offer a credible moral justification for denying them the exercise of their natural rights because no such justification exists.

The one area where I am still uncertain and would here solicit discussion, is the issue of one's criminal history. Should a man who is on trial for his nth criminal offense have the history of his n-1 offenses taken into consideration when being sentenced? A small part of me says, "maybe" but the larger part says no. Does anyone have an informed opinion on this?

 

[osan]

No one,,ever..
The government at all levels should be Barred in all manner from ever (even giving any appearance of) infringing on a human beings right to defend themselves.

Should inmates, then, be allowed the possession of firearms? If the right can never be infringed, then neither can the right to the means of exercise. This does appear to present something of a conundrum, does it not?

 

[Danke]

We need to set a few things straight here. I've done it before, but it bears repetition.

If you commit a crime - a real one and not some nonsense like smoking a joint, buying hooker services, and the like - and you are righteously tried and convicted, you are them a convicted felon. You go serve out your sentence and once the criminal debt is discharged, you are no longer a convicted felon - you are no longer a criminal. You are an ex-criminal. From that point all all is supposed to be even and all rights should be restored.

If perchance you choose to involve yourself in yet another criminal endeavor and are again apprehended, tried, and convicted, you once again earn the status of convicted felon. When you are released, once again all rights should be restored. If they are not, this implies any of a number of things, none good. Either you have NOT discharged the criminal debt you incurred by committing the crime in question, in which case you should still be under sentence and should almost certainly be in prison or jail, or those in power are of the mind that rights are not rights at all, but rather privileges to be taken from ostensibly free men according to some arbitrary scheme.

To retain the status of "felon" after having been released from prison makes no sense. If you are still a menace, why have you been released? What was the judge thinking when he passed sentence? If you have been released, the only morally justifiable position to take is the assumption that, having paid your debt you are now once again a free man and NO free man may be disbarred from the exercise of ANY of his rights. Period.

The moment Joe Murder steps foot our of prison, his friends should be able to put a gun in his hand and he should be free to walk the streets unmolested. Some say this is insanity, but I assert it is the only right way to proceed. Such men meet bad ends in most cases. Even if we assume the worst in others we are unable to offer a credible moral justification for denying them the exercise of their natural rights because no such justification exists.

The one area where I am still uncertain and would here solicit discussion, is the issue of one's criminal history. Should a man who is on trial for his nth criminal offense have the history of his n-1 offenses taken into consideration when being sentenced? A small part of me says, "maybe" but the larger part says no. Does anyone have an informed opinion on this?

That means only incarceration is fit for punishment. I'd say deny the person with X amount of DWIs a license, but not necessarily lock him up.

 

[tonypeck]

We need to set a few things straight here. I've done it before, but it bears repetition.

If you commit a crime - a real one and not some nonsense like smoking a joint, buying hooker services, and the like - and you are righteously tried and convicted, you are them a convicted felon. You go serve out your sentence and once the criminal debt is discharged, you are no longer a convicted felon - you are no longer a criminal. You are an ex-criminal. From that point all all is supposed to be even and all rights should be restored.

If perchance you choose to involve yourself in yet another criminal endeavor and are again apprehended, tried, and convicted, you once again earn the status of convicted felon. When you are released, once again all rights should be restored. If they are not, this implies any of a number of things, none good. Either you have NOT discharged the criminal debt you incurred by committing the crime in question, in which case you should still be under sentence and should almost certainly be in prison or jail, or those in power are of the mind that rights are not rights at all, but rather privileges to be taken from ostensibly free men according to some arbitrary scheme.

To retain the status of "felon" after having been released from prison makes no sense. If you are still a menace, why have you been released? What was the judge thinking when he passed sentence? If you have been released, the only morally justifiable position to take is the assumption that, having paid your debt you are now once again a free man and NO free man may be disbarred from the exercise of ANY of his rights. Period.

The moment Joe Murder steps foot our of prison, his friends should be able to put a gun in his hand and he should be free to walk the streets unmolested. Some say this is insanity, but I assert it is the only right way to proceed. Such men meet bad ends in most cases. Even if we assume the worst in others we are unable to offer a credible moral justification for denying them the exercise of their natural rights because no such justification exists.

The one area where I am still uncertain and would here solicit discussion, is the issue of one's criminal history. Should a man who is on trial for his nth criminal offense have the history of his n-1 offenses taken into consideration when being sentenced? A small part of me says, "maybe" but the larger part says no. Does anyone have an informed opinion on this?

Excellent explanation, very just reasoning

 

[tonypeck]

Should inmates, then, be allowed the possession of firearms? If the right can never be infringed, then neither can the right to the means of exercise. This does appear to present something of a conundrum, does it not?

But when one commits a crime aren't they essentially giving up some of their rights after they are convicted and tried? Being in prison isn't really being free right?

 

[Danke]

Excellent explanation, very just reasoning

So do away with probation? Instead lock them up longer?

 

[Qdog]

If they ban guns... I am going to going to go apeshit with a sledgehammer.

 

[tonypeck]

So do away with probation? Instead lock them up longer?

Well can't they still have their rights while on probation?

 

[Cowlesy]

"Let any great nation of modern times be confronted by two conflicting propositions, the one grounded upon the utmost probability and reasonableness and the other upon the most glaring error, and it will almost invariably embrace the latter. It is so in politics, which consists wholly of a succession of unintelligent crazes, many of them so idiotic that they exist only as battle-cries and shibboleths and are not reducible to logical statement at all. It is so in nearly every field of thought. The ideas that conquer the race most rapidly and arouse the wildest enthusiasm and are held most tenaciously are precisely the ideas that are most insane. This has been true since the first ‘advanced’ gorilla put on underwear, cultivated a frown and began his first lecture tour in the first chautauqua, and it will be so until the high gods, tired of the farce at last, obliterate the race with one great, final blast of fire, mustard gas and streptcocci.” - Henry Louis Mencken