Do you FULLY support the 2nd amendment?

[bigus_D]

I still don't have an answer to why the released ex-con should be made defenseless before his former friends who if they choose to do so will be armed, the law notwithstanding, when they come calling?

The reason I am proposing is that the restriction is punishment for the crime he commited. If that is unacceptable, it sounds like the alternative is that he be made to remain in jail. It is my suspision that given the choice to stay in jail or be released under the condition that no firearms be possessed, most would choose release.

To limit them and make them vulnerable on release sounds to me like "A Clockwork Orange". I'm OK with them having to check in with a parole officer periodically as a condition of the initial sentence, but that has a clearly defined end date. The restoration of someone's ability to lawfully exercise his RKBA or the restoration of his good name is nebulous and undefined and may not happen at all, despite no further wrongdoing. It is that with which I disagree.

If the restoration of the RKBA was defined with an end date like the parole structure we have today, would that satisfy your objection?

 

[Lex Concord]

retracted on further thought.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

People ask me how far would I go then with "shall not be infringed". I tell them that if I could afford an A-10 Warthog, then I should be able to own one.

THE NEXT GREAT INGO GROUP BUY!!!! lol I hope it comes with instructions, cuz I only know how to drive tracked vehicles

 

[gunowner930]

I fully support the 2nd amendment. As others have said we need criminal control. If a felon is too dangerous to own a firearm he shouldn't be out of prison. Not everybody convicted of a felony is a career violent criminal. I can't think of any firearm that couldn't be used defensively under the right scenario. Hell, If you feel the need for a 30 mm cannon and can afford it, why not?

 

[mrjarrell]

And if your neighbors (note American spelling ) were to come over and nicely, politely ask you not to fire it... would you comply?

(no laws figured into this, just voluntary cooperation between neighbors bein' neighborly)

Just curious.

Maybe. I'd have to give it some thought. Then again, I might just invite them over to pull the lanyard.

 

[96firephoenix]

RTKBA is a RIGHT, only remandable through due process of law.

training is a civic responsibility. it is not a requirement.

 

[jedi]

I want an artillery piece to celebrate the Fourth. Shoot, I'll even shoot blanks, out of respect for my neighbours.

Nah mrjarrell what you really want is one of these.

Star Wars Thermal Detonator. This will really go BOOM! more than when you look @ a GLOCK.

 

[Expat]

I am all for unfettered access for all law abiding citizens. Certain classes of convicted felons and the mentally ill excepted.

 

[jedi]

I am all for unfettered access for all law abiding citizens. Certain classes of convicted felons and the mentally ill excepted.

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Again "shall not infringe" means just that. The US Constitution was for all free men (we now include women as well). So if the person is a free person (ie. NOT in jail) then "shall not infringe" applies p-e-r-i-o-d.

A person does their time in JAIL once they get out (not on probation, due to overcrowding, etc..) they are free and "shall not infringe" applies p-e-r-i-o-d.

Anything else and you are not "fully 2A".

Think in terms of free speech.
You may not like what the other person is saying (about for candiate, your faith, your whatever) but if they are not harming anyone they are free to say whatever they like just like you are free to not listen to it or counter their voice with yours.

 

[Eddie]

I am all for unfettered access for all law abiding citizens. Certain classes of convicted felons and the mentally ill excepted.

Aw come on! Think of the joy it would bring to the homeless if we could give them all hand grenades. What could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[littletommy]

I guess I'm gonna have to come down on the no side. I couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting somebody I don't think should own a gun. I drive through my town, what used to be a true "small town" and just shake my head anymore. Any of you who answered yes, think of this thread the next time you're out at, say, walmart, or just about any place that people gather, look at some of the trash you see, and ask yourself if they should be able to walk around with a firearm. Just try it, then post again in this thread, and be honest. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I just don't think people try to live up to the same standards they did even as recently as 30 or 40 years ago, and it seems to be getting worse every day. Some people just don't seem to give a flying **** anymore, and fortunately, most of em are too dumb to fill out the forms to buy a gun.

 

[Expat]

Aw come on! Think of the joy it would bring to the homeless if we could give them all hand grenades. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I know, I know... what's wrong with me being against an adjudicated psychopath running around with a bazooka. As long as we are unwilling to lock up and kill people that need to be locked up or killed, then I would be against those people having weapons. Crazy talk I know.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I guess I'm gonna have to come down on the no side. I couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting somebody I don't think should own a gun. I drive through my town, what used to be a true "small town" and just shake my head anymore. Any of you who answered yes, think of this thread the next time you're out at, say, walmart, or just about any place that people gather, look at some of the trash you see, and ask yourself if they should be able to walk around with a firearm. Just try it, then post again in this thread, and be honest. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I just don't think people try to live up to the same standards they did even as recently as 30 or 40 years ago, and it seems to be getting worse every day. Some people just don't seem to give a flying **** anymore, and fortunately, most of em are too dumb to fill out the forms to buy a gun.

Not going to flame you, just want to know how: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" factors into that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The reason I am proposing is that the restriction is punishment for the crime he commited. If that is unacceptable, it sounds like the alternative is that he be made to remain in jail. It is my suspision that given the choice to stay in jail or be released under the condition that no firearms be possessed, most would choose release.



If the restoration of the RKBA was defined with an end date like the parole structure we have today, would that satisfy your objection?

Not really, but it would be a step in the right direction. What is wrong with a person who is living in his home (to include apartment) being able to defend that home and its occupants from those who would do them harm?

Conversely, if they remained in prison longer, would it satisfy your objection to them exercising the RKBA on release?

(that is, sentenced currently to two years, they can expect to serve one and be released. If they served the full two, or even if they served four for the same crime, would you object to them owning and carrying firearms on release?)

 

[jedi]

I know, I know... what's wrong with me being against an adjudicated psychopath running around with a bazooka. As long as we are unwilling to lock up and kill people that need to be locked up or killed, then I would be against those people having weapons. Crazy talk I know.

Ahhh I see that you and me are "really" on the same page then. Your concern is with those people that we send to lockup only to have them out BEFORE the end of their term due to whatever (overcrowd, good behavior, etc..). So if they did do all their time and then got out would you be ok with them?

 

[Expat]

Ahhh I see that you and me are "really" on the same page then. Your concern is with those people that we send to lockup only to have them out BEFORE the end of their term due to whatever (overcrowd, good behavior, etc..). So if they did do all their time and then got out would you be ok with them?

It would go a long way to getting me there. I would probably have a longer list of people subject to capital punishment than you would like and the prison time for some offenses would be even longer than what we pretend they are currently sentenced too. But we still have some mental illnesses to deal with. My understanding (as one example) schizophrenics can not be cured, only medicated. So they go to the hospital, get on the meds, appear normal, they get released, go off their meds, do stupid stuff and then go back to the hospital. Those people can go violent without warning (once again, my understanding from stuff I have read) when off their meds. Those people should not be allowed to be armed. Maybe they need to be locked up for life, but currently they are now. Like Eddie said, many of them are the homeless on the streets.

 

[jedi]

But we still have some mental illnesses to deal with. My understanding (as one example) schizophrenics can not be cured, only medicated. So they go to the hospital, get on the meds, appear normal, they get released, go off their meds, do stupid stuff and then go back to the hospital. Those people can go violent without warning (once again, my understanding from stuff I have read) when off their meds. Those people should not be allowed to be armed. Maybe they need to be locked up for life, but currently they are now. Like Eddie said, many of them are the homeless on the streets.

What about letting nature deal with this?
Pyscho guy is off his meds and walks into Wal-Mart and pulls out weapon (lightsaber, bazokka, ak, etc..) and begins to blast away.

Since everyone else should be armed as well they deal with the issue at hand.

Yes some will die in the process. (Ie those that are not fit) but in the end only those that are fit live and thus the "breed" is thined and only the "best of the breed" continue. Is it perfect nope.

 

[littletommy]

Not going to flame you, just want to know how: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" factors into that.

Perhaps it doesn't, it's my opinion. I am answering the OP's question with a "NO". If I don't feel that anybody and everybody should be able to buy any type of weapon they wish to possess, wether it be a gun, or a biological weapon, then, going by some of the previous posts, I don't "FULLY" support the 2nd amendment. And I'm betting there are a lot of others here who feel the same.

 

[infidel]

Also, if families were faced with the ultimatum of do I take care of my mentally disabled kid, whether that be caring for him themselves or having someone else do it, or let them out into a world of people ready to defend themselves, I think the whole scenario of a mentally ill person going on a shootig spree would be greatly reduced.

Freedom demands a level of responsibility that today's society is not comfortable with.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It would go a long way to getting me there. I would probably have a longer list of people subject to capital punishment than you would like and the prison time for some offenses would be even longer than what we pretend they are currently sentenced too. But we still have some mental illnesses to deal with. My understanding (as one example) schizophrenics can not be cured, only medicated. So they go to the hospital, get on the meds, appear normal, they get released, go off their meds, do stupid stuff and then go back to the hospital. Those people can go violent without warning (once again, my understanding from stuff I have read) when off their meds. Those people should not be allowed to be armed. Maybe they need to be locked up for life, but currently they are now. Like Eddie said, many of them are the homeless on the streets.

Hold on. Not allowed to be armed? Or not allowed to have guns? They're not the same thing, unless you want to start regulating any and every object that could possibly be used as a weapon. Such a person could not have kitchen knives, a pitchfork, a piece of pipe, rust and aluminum (together), diesel fuel and fertilizer, or bleach and ammonia. We would be better served removing such peoples' hands, removing their ability to pick up any weapon... Except that they would then learn to use their feet.

OK, all sarcasm aside, you're not going to be able to make the world comfy-cozy, baby-nursery safe. It's just not possible. Those people that cannot be trusted due to criminal behavior or insanity need to be where they can be monitored. For those that are not in such a place, the rest of us need to be armed to fend off their attack when it happens. We need to stop knee-jerking and implementing draconian policies and laws designed to address the most recently successful attack and prepare people to address the next, whatever it is.

Carroll O'Conner, in the role of Archie Bunker, discussed armed passengers on airplanes in the 1970s. (mainly because Norman Lear, the producer, was vehemently anti-gun and this was designed as parody) Why did it take until after 9/11 for us to accept that armed pilots would have solved most of the hijacking problems that started after 1968?

School shootings. We saw what happened at each of the tragedies. Why, in 2010, is Utah the only state that explicitly allows carry of a firearm on a k-12 campus by someone with a CFP? My usual question of those who make or maintain stupid, useless policies is, "Are you stoned or are you just stupid?"

We're all in agreement that "gun control" laws do not work, restricting those who obey them and making them helpless for those who do not. Why then, do we keep hearing a push for more of these dumb laws that don't work?

Blessings,
Bill