Gun Control - Would ANY form benefit us?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I can't imagine why we don't let criminals have guns in jails and prisons, but for some reason, we don't. The penal institutions of our founding fathers didn't allow weaponry either. Everyone seemed fine with infringing the right.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that people lost many of their rights when they became felons .... nowadays, felons get to vote ...... I agree with the poster above that said making nearly everything a felony is just backdoor gun control.
 
I support making possession of firearms by violent felons(the prohibition on ALL felons is too broad) illegal.

It's easy to say "If they are still dangerous, keep them locked up". The concept, in theory, sounds great. In reality, that isn't going to happen.

First off, you would have to institute a life sentence with the possibility of parole for all violent crimes. Not likely to withstand court challenges of being "cruel and unusual".

If the laws were allowed to stand, then you would have to have a parole board with the ability to determine when they are no longer a threat to society. Seeing how currently, violent thugs are locked up and paroled over and over again, parole boards crystal ball abilities seem to be pretty dismal.

People should not lose a civil right for no reason, but a violent felon has received due process and lost it due to his own actions. He has proven his own unworthiness.

Would such laws prevent violent felons from obtaining firearms? Of course not, but if they are caught in possession of one, then they can perhaps be returned to prison where they belong, hopefully before they commit another crime with it.
 
JN01 said:
I support making possession of firearms by violent felons(the prohibition on ALL felons is too broad) illegal.

It's easy to say "If they are still dangerous, keep them locked up". The concept, in theory, sounds great. In reality, that isn't going to happen.

First off, you would have to institute a life sentence with the possibility of parole for all violent crimes. Not likely to withstand court challenges of being "cruel and unusual".

If the laws were allowed to stand, then you would have to have a parole board with the ability to determine when they are no longer a threat to society. Seeing how currently, violent thugs are locked up and paroled over and over again, parole boards crystal ball abilities seem to be pretty dismal.

People should not lose a civil right for no reason, but a violent felon has received due process and lost it due to his own actions. He has proven his own unworthiness.

Would such laws prevent violent felons from obtaining firearms? Of course not, but if they are caught in possession of one, then they can perhaps be returned to prison where they belong, hopefully before they commit another crime with it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for providing the counterpoint I couldn't quite articulate. You can't give a lifetime prison sentence to every guy that goes after someone with a 2x4 or commits 2nd or 3rd degree sexual assault or any number of dozens of more minor than murder violent felonies. Jails are jammed as it is. Nor should the law facilitate and ease the purchase of firearms for those folks even if they can obtain weapons on the black market. Pedophiles can get child [edited to avoid angering the word filter] illegally too. So should we stop banning it? Of course not. There's a principle at work there.

I'm at a loss for any argument other than what seems to me to be plain common sense. A convicted violent felon should not be able to own a gun. I bet if you submitted that to national polls 98-99% of folks would agree with that statement.
 
How about we get the federal prosecutors to actually charge and bring to court all the illegal weapons charges to begin with?
How many convicted felons that use a firearm to commit another crime actually get charged for the federal offense? IMHO, not many.
Click to expand...

The Federal prohibition is pretty much a joke. I remember when the Brady Bill first passed, Sarah Brady bragged about how many illegal sales were blocked, but didn't mention that only 4 or 5 were prosecuted. Hell, look at Fast and Furious, the Feds are committing weapons violations. :mad:

I think the majority of weapons charges are made on the state level.
 
Finally.

I think most everyone can get behind the prohibition of firearms for those that commit and are convicted of violent felonies. Now....

First, can we define "felony" and second, can we define "violent crime?"
 
And, as pointed out by a previous post in opposition to my view, how do we predict which violent felons are still violent when they come up for parole?

It wasn't always this way. At least in the 1800s, people who committed armed felonies did their time in prison and were able to legally buy a firearm the day they were released from prison. I don't know when that changed. But, just as a f'rinstance, I stumbled across an article just today about a guy who back in 1983 tried to kill his ex-wife with a knife. He very nearly succeeded; she sustained multiple stab wounds, very nearly died, and she was left partially paralyzed. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and served seven. It is now 25 years later and he has not committed any further crimes.

I concede that it's far from guaranteed that every felon who is granted parole is safe to be out on the streets, but it's also not guaranteed that every violent felon will be a repeat offender after serving his time. It's also not at all certain that guns are the issue. The two creeps who murdered the Petit family in Connecticut a few years ago had no violent felonies on their records prior to the incident. They didn't use a gun. In fact, I believe the baseball bat they used to beat Dr. Petit was found in the house after they broke in. They killed the wife by strangling her, then tied the two daughters to their beds, doused the house with gasoline, and dropped a match on the way out.

Sure was a good thing they couldn't buy a gun.
 
Aquila, I think the prohibitons came in with the CGA68. Before that there were no FFL's to write down or check who purchased what,
 
hermannr said:
Aquila, I think the prohibitons came in with the CGA68. Before that there were no FFL's to write down or check who purchased what,
Click to expand...
I think that's probably correct. I don't know how to look up statistics, but if there is any validity to the theory that barring convicted felons from possessing firearms prevents crime, if we could find historical statistics on violent crime we SHOULD see a very perceptible drop starting in 1969. I'll bet it's not there.

Certainly, the draconian gun laws in England and Australia have had precisely the opposite effect. Violent crime is up by orders of magnitude since the populace was disarmed.
 
I don't have a problem with restricting purchases to those 18 or older. I wouldn't mind not worrying about whether my kids were buying weapons - back when they were under 18.

I don't have that much of a problem with restricting purchases so that violent criminals can't walk into Gander Mountain and buy something. Probably using a felony convinction is too broad. On the other hand there are some violent misdemeanors that we might think about. But it's close enough.

I don't mind needing a license to own a fully automatic weapon.

I'm a little concerned about the move towards getting people's medical histories on line and winnowing out those with severe violent psychological problems. I wouldn't want it to evolve to where the government has a small army of LPCs, psychologists etc. who look deeply into your eyes and decide if you are worthy to exercise a fundamental right.
 
Hehe, back in the 80's when I was 10 years old I could walk into the local wal-mart and buy shotgun shells in southern Missoui. (town population 2500)

I think the theory with felons is that offenders tend to repeat at some time or another. It's a generalization, not particularly fair, but that's the reasoning. So they decided to not make it easy for them to buy guns. It gives politicians the excuse that they "tried" to stop it.

Many of our laws today are more about emotion than logic. IE "Will someone PLEASE think of the children, PLEASE". :rolleyes:
 
Violent crime:

A crime where the actor used physical force and knew or reasonably should have known that such force would injure, seriously injure or kill another person and/or cause significant damage to another person's property.

Felony:

See Violent Crime
 
I think the theory with felons is that offenders tend to repeat at some time or another.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, our current penal system makes recidivism for felons a difficult thing to avoid. Impossible conditions are often tied to parole, and mental illness or substance-abuse issues that may have led to the initial offense are left unaddressed. Certain interpretations of "three strike" laws make it very easy to turn misdemeanors into felonies.

The definition of "felony" is far broader than it was during the founding days. As such, I'm always leery of seeing someone stripped of gun ownership for life over a youthful indiscretion or for writing a couple of bad checks.
 
Last edited:
"What if someone is mentally unstable, should they own firearms?"
Click to expand...

Then outlaw being mentally unstable since that's the root cause of that problem...a law against being mentally unstable would be equally as effective and another "gun law."
 
You can't make a medical condition a crime. People who willing choose to break the law had a choice.

I do think they need some sort of review, say at 10 years after release. If the person has been holding down a job and seems to have their act together then a restoration of rights should be considered.
 
You can't make a medical condition a crime. People who willing choose to break the law had a choice.
Click to expand...

Sure you can - look at the the 10 of thousands of ridiculous laws that are currently on the books...

Obviously, you missed the irony in my comment - making it illegal to be mentally unstable versus another gun law being equally as effective - THAT'S THE POINT - more gun laws would work just as well.

My Lord - quit taking everything literally....
 
The SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is not without restrictions, and I agree.

Here are some restrictions with which I agree.
Age, felons, full auto weapons, mental incompetents. Other weapons such as rocket launchers should be banned as they are.

Jerry
 
No gun control period. Once the door is opened even a crack there will be a rush to squeeze in more..

Enforce the ones on the books.
 
NJGunowner said:
I think the theory with felons is that offenders tend to repeat at some time or another. It's a generalization, not particularly fair, but that's the reasoning. So they decided to not make it easy for them to buy guns. It gives politicians the excuse that they "tried" to stop it.
Click to expand...
But they failed. It's still easy for criminals and "prohibited persons" to buy guns -- it's just not legal. "Hot" guns are readily available in every state, and the ex-felons and gang bangers all know where to find them.
 
^ yep, we certainly don't need anymore laws. One thing for sure is the federal gov't needs to stay out of it. At least at the state level you can choose the level of control that you are ok with. There are what, about 5 states on the couldn't live there list and about 6 I would move to in a heartbeat if my state got worse (meaning good gun laws and i'd like to live there). I pay a lot of taxes. If a state wants my money, they better support my views or I'll simply move elsewhere. I'd have no problem living in WY. I think states need to consider this when making their laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top