Should the right to bear arms be unconditional?

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes. Yes.

State should not decide.

+a bunch.

 

[penguin]

2 questions on gun ownership....


Do you think people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own or bear arms following their conviction?

Yes, you can't stop them without restricting law abiding people.

Do you think a person should be allowed to carry, concealed or openly, while they are drinking alcohol? Should there be a limit like driving? If so, what should it be?

I don't like it but it isn't about what other people think. If they break no laws then no problem but if they do then no excuses.

 

[evan9201]

Yes and Yes, If a individual cannot be trusted with their full range of rights... why let them out into society? My point being if they cannot be trusted to keep and bear arms or any other rights do not let the individual out of prison. I am talking stuff like murder,rape...ect not harmless things like drug possession which IMO should be legal.

 

[BillyDkid]

Here's the thing. If something is a right, then it should be unconditional. There is a big push in this country for an approach to the law that is sort "pre-crime". We prevent people from exercising their rights in an effort to prevent them from commiting a crime that they might or could commit. Thing is, we need to hold people responsible and accountable for what they actually do to harm others and not what they might or could do.

 

[bruce leeroy]

My opinion on felons with firearms is that as long as one is on probation or parole, its ok to for the state to deny them second amendment rights, voting rights etc, as they are still technically in custody, but once a sentence is completed in full, they should have the same rights as everyone else

 

[Gideon]

Can anyone be made whole with a felony record?

Of course, if someone completes a sentence, they should be made whole, but is this the case in the USSA today?

In answer to the OP:

Yes, Yes and two more words;

Personal Responsibility (which should also apply to LEOs and judges).

 

[phill4paul]

Only the insecure would postulate the question. IMHO. Not talking about you specifically, because I feel you are just asking a question.

EVERYBODY should have a firearm and know how to use it.

Debate 2ndA all you want.

YOU have an OBLIGATION to protect you and your own.

If ya don't believe this and practice with a firearm then you are.... "well your at a dis advantage."

 

[phill4paul]

Bruce Leroy and Gideon I'd have to say that laws regarding guns and drug law equation are bull shit.

Non-violent offenders are deprived of 2nd A rights.

In my mind it is bullshit, because if Americans were taught that gun rights were a necessity then there'd be no problem.

If all citizens were armed there would be no trouble......

LOL..Sry.. This could be an endless debate.

All I can say is those times when I can C.C. I have no worries. Those when I can't I do.

 

[catdd]

Fathers, uncles, or older brothers are suppose to teach young people the fine points of shooting and gun ownership - at least that is how it used to be.
I started with a bb gun and learned a lot before ever firing a high powered weapon.

 

[phill4paul]

Fathers, uncles, or older brothers are suppose to teach young people the fine points of shooting and gun ownership - at least that is how it used to be.
I started with a bb gun and learned a lot before ever firing a high powered weapon.

The trouble lies when Fathers, Uncles and Older Brothers have already been mind-fucked to believe that the "state" will "protect and serve."

 

[catdd]

Kids growing up today are missing so much.

 

[Son of Detroit]

But then I think any prison sentence over 20 yrs is cruel and unusual punishment.

You're talking for ANY crime?

What about those Ukrainian teens that committed 21 random murders and filmed them just for the pure pleasure of killing? Why should they ever see the light of the free world ever again?

Anyone who purposely ends the rights of another person (murder) should have THEIR rights permanently taken away.

 

[Kalashnikov Josh]

2 questions on gun ownership....


Do you think people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own or bear arms following their conviction?

Do you think a person should be allowed to carry, concealed or openly, while they are drinking alcohol? Should there be a limit like driving? If so, what should it be?

You hear the first question all the time from hoplophobes-"well if the Second Amendment 'shall not be infringed',then what about all the violent felons out there,they should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun?"
This argument is really justification for blanket 'prohibited possessors' lists and other more violative of the 2A 'gun control' laws like the background check nonsense.

People convicted of violent crimes should not be free to excersize their rights-hence negating any real need for any form of 'gun control' with prohibited lists.They should be in prison or executed.They have forfeited their rights by violating the rights of another.See my signature line.
Its my opinion that murderers who get gently rocked permanently to sleep by lethal injection get off way too easy compared to what they do to their victims.And dont even get me started on rapists-I'm so sick of hearing about how we need these registries for sex offenders,as if they shouldn't get removed from society permanently as well."oh but they have rights too" you'd say.
No.
They don't.
They forfeit their rights when they violate someone else's.Period.No more parole and registry,no more booty bandit colonies with kiddie molesters all living together like the Waltons.
"Its cruel and unusual" for them to suffer so?Cruel and unusual to who?To these rapists and murderers,whose 'usual' lifestyle involves unimaginable brutality and/or ruining the entire lives of innocent people?

Let the punishment fit the crime.

An old American tradition that desperately needs resurrection -besides the Second Amendment- is the good old fashioned 'short drop with a fast stop'.

And you know what?
That butt pirate registry crap has set a SERIOUSLY dangerous precedent,because now California wants to expand it to include animal abusers.Sounds good till you realize that one day every one who curses too much or spits on the sidewalk might 'need to be registered for the safety of our communities'.Kinda like how the 'prohibited possessors' part of GCA68 keeps growing,and growing.....there is a very dangerous path we tread when we give government control over us beyond simply dealing with those in our midst who violate the rights of others.

Its time to nut up or shut up-either we righteously punish the real criminals and demand government limit itself to doing just that,or we have a nanny state giving cold blooded killers and child molesters 2nd,3rd,4th,and 20th chances to victimize more innocent people,while the rest of us have to suffer huge government,outlandish 'gun control' that puts us at the mercy of their pet projects,registries of everything under the sun,diminishing property rights,and massive federal police forces-to 'keep us safe' from all these lovely 'social experiments' they keep trying to claim they can 'rehabilitate' in places like San Quentin.


As for the rest of us,we have the right to keep and bear arms,which shall not be infringed by the federal government,including any and all forms of 'gun control' they have enacted and continue to enforce outside of the scope of their authority.
We have the implied right,by natural extension of the Second Amendment and protected by the 10th amendment,to defend ourselves from violence and criminal assaults.

Simply put,the federal government is expressly denied the authority to infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms.This means any and all 'gun control' enacted on the federal level is in fact unconstitutional.
It is our right and our duty to defend ourselves from assault whilst bearing those arms.


Now,if your running around drinking and packing,and you do something stupid-then you get to face the consequences of your actions.Its that simple.
Should an officer of the peace be able to disarm you if he finds you slovenly drunk and disorderly,with a pistol on your hip?
Up to him.
He shouldn't be able to permanently keep it,he should give it back or you should be able to re-claim it when you've sobered up.
Should you be arrested for merely being intoxicated and bearing arms?
No-the job of the police,and the job of the government,is not to nanny us or big brother us so we don't stub our toe.
The Supreme Court has even found that the police and the government bear no responsibility or liability to keep you safe.So why should we allow government to claim it needs more authority the Constitution does not grant it to write laws that supposedly 'keep us safe'?
And just look at the track record-all these laws to 'keep us safe',backed up by ever-federalizing state and local police forces with paramilitary equipment and training-and things are getting WORSE,not better.If you can find me a law abiding criminal,then I can find you the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.......

Having a few beers and possibly even getting wasted,while bearing arms is not a crime.

There is no crime until an actual crime -a violation of another persons rights- is committed.

 

[osan]

2 questions on gun ownership....


Do you think people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own or bear arms following their conviction?

Once the criminal debt has been paid, they should be restored to full rights. No exceptions. If they cannot be trusted with a gun, they cannot be trusted to be loose on the street. Period.

Do you think a person should be allowed to carry, concealed or openly, while they are drinking alcohol? Should there be a limit like driving? If so, what should it be?

This is a really silly question. Behavior is all that counts. I'd rather you have a gun if you be drunk and peaceable than sober and ready to shoot.

Should a drunk/drinking person be allowed to have a pocket knife? How about a hammer? Bat? Spoon? Neck tie? Eggs and paper? Soap? Wire? All of these may be fashioned into very serviceable weapons.

 

[osan]

Same - with one exception. The right to firearm ownership might be limited by the state if it can also limit the right to vote for convicted felons.

That is a very big "if". I believe that lies outside of their duly constituted powers. At least, it should, anyway.

The right to vote is the most fundamental right of a citizen.

Not by a long shot. Firearms rights are far and away more fundamental than that of the vote. They do not even compare.

 

[osan]

Pretend you are on a jury where a person is on trial for having a gun despite having a criminal record:
- There is no doubt in your mind that he was carrying a weapon.

Would you say guilty or not?

On that charge alone I would nullify without question.

 

[osan]

in the eyes of the LAW -- (especially the law) there should be NO conditions. For a parent, of course. Protect your children from hammers, knives, stairs, cars, trees, scorpions, dogs, etc...etc///etc.... oh yeah -- and guns.

Freedom isn't free - there is always a price. And a raving lunatic hell bent on destruction (with a hammer, an axe, or a gun) may be part of the price we pay.

I love freedom enough to live with the inconveniences of it.

TMike

Well put.

 

[osan]

No fucking way anyone should own a firearm without training.

Says who?

 

[osan]

Perhaps people should drive without a motor vehicle test.

Hand a loaded weapon to a first time shooter.

Recipe for disaster.

What a load. I've done it several dozens of times over many years. Never had a single problem. I handed a loaded weapon to my gf's 7 year old grand daughter. She showed better discipline than many adults.

Get a grip.

 

[osan]

That's a confusing reply...

I'm not against gun ownership.

I support responsible gun ownership.

Join a club.

You support regulation.

PUNT.