Reasonable Gun Laws ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't Randy Weaver a convicted felon? I submit that there are felonies out there that don't warrant alienation of civil rights. But it's also wrong to suggest a Felon loses all of their rights. They still have a right to due process and the right to humane treatment while in jail.

The problem I see is that many of the same style of posters who are all for letting somebody rot in jail are also against government excesses. Looking at the Weaver Case, I do believe that he was wrongfully accused and convicted. In this instance, he was justified in his actions by rightfully and lawfully defending himself from the government that murdered his wife and son for HIS failure to appear in court. It is that same government that convicts people of crimes. It is this same government that that decides what rights to and what rights not to take from people it entraps.

Anarchy isn't the answer, but the first post WAS about REASON wasn't it? A person should not have any of their constitutional rights taken away without giving them the right to sue for the return of such rights.

Isn't it a damn shame that while in prison, a person convicted of a crime still has their freedom of speech intact?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why not howitzers?
Are you scared that a gang member will do a driveby with his howitzer?

Or that he'll take you out with his howitzer instead of a scoped rifle?

Have you ever watched the (muzzleloading - not (yet) verboten) cannon enthiusiasts enjoying their sport? Looks like a hoot.
[/quote]

Black powder cannonry, which is something I participate in now and then when I find a chance to go to my uncle's house, is a totally different thing than having a howitzer. Having an artillery piece with an effective range of many miles is quite a responsibility, and more importantly, the ordinance for it is vastly more dangerous if mis-handled. It is the accident factor, which would result most often from neglect that worries me. In the case of Bosnia, they didn't have local governments with organized militias. If we did, our local governments could have more responsibility over such weapons. This would be a good compromise. People could still have some access to greater weaponry, but yet would leave such weapons in the hands of an accountable body.

You all must realize that none of the founding fathers would ever have written into law the ability of the people to have unlimited weapons, and in fact I don't believe that they did write such a law in the form of the 2nd ammendment. If they had nuclear weapons at the time they would have made it quite clearly illegal to own.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
I also agree with people that think non-violent felons should have a right to bear arms too, and felons should have a right to regain that right.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Jeff: Well, that's certainly a reason you might want to put some unique mark on your property, but it's scarcely a reason to require it by law... with all the attendent problems, such as facilitating gun registration, enabling the government to track manufacture, and so forth.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top