What crimes should disqualify gun ownership ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crimes in which the victim is deprived of his or her life, or is of such a traumatic nature that it substantially affects the rest of the victims life.

If the victim has to deal with the crime for the rest of her/his life, I think it's only fair that the critter do the same.

LawDog
 
No one should be disqualified from owning guns. Period.

If a person is safe enough to exist outside of a prison then they have the right to defend themselves the same as any of us. What makes you think that just because a person committed a crime 20 years ago that he no longer has the right to defend his wife and children? I agree that there are a lot of people now out of prison that should have been executed or locked up for life, but that is not a gun control issue. Restricting any free man's right to protect himself is the first step to disarming all of us.
 
If committing a felony disqualifies, then you should obey the law. It's funny that all the law and order boys forget it when some buddy can't have his gun. Tough.

Also, having a crackwhore girlfriend says something about you. My heart bleeds for him.

I'm sorry, just more complaining about how gun owners do no wrong.

If the moderator commits a felony, every day - I hope that was simply rhetoric as you should not do that.

If your felony is illegal carry - thanks for announcing it on the Internet.
 
If committing a felony disqualifies, then you should obey the law.

Suppose it was a felony to shave one's head (because everyone knows that only racist thugs shave their heads, right?). Should we obey that one?

It's funny that all the law and order boys forget it when some buddy can't have his gun. Tough.

Explain to me, please, exactly what Lord did that was so horrible that he needs to be disarmed for the rest of his life.

Also, having a crackwhore girlfriend says something about you. My heart bleeds for him.


Like YOU'VE never made a bad decision? Yeah, he's stupid about women. Again, does that mean he should be disarmed for the rest of his life?

If the moderator commits a felony, every day - I hope that was simply rhetoric as you should not do that.

I drive within 1000 feet of a school with a gun in my car every day. Oh goodness, the evil Scary Bald Guy is a DANGER! TO! SOCIETY!

:rolleyes:

If your felony is illegal carry - thanks for announcing it on the Internet.

Define ILLEGAL carry. No, don't bother, you can't, because there ain't no such animal.
 
I think murderers, rapists, child mollestors and other individuals with psychopathic tendencies should be barred from having guns simply cause they should either be locked up for the rest of their lives or executed. If we as a society deem them fit to be returned then they should be allowed to defend themselves and their families like the rest of us. Look at the progression of right limiting laws we have on the books. We started out limiting the rights of violent felons, then we classified drug related crimes as felonies, then we got domestic violence as a felony... Where do we think this is leading???
 
I was not aware that my ex was a crackwhore when I started going out with her, so it isn't fair to condemn me for that. I tried to help her out of her troubles for nine months before things went sour... She used to throw things at me, break things, start fights, the whole nine yards... and never once did I touch her. One night she called me at work and started harassing me, I came home and she started it again at 5 in the morning. For once in my life I DEFENDED myself from her, and she got hurt in the process. And because I could not afford a lawyer and such, I settled for DV classes for a year and three years probabtion and such. Cops in Colorado do not care what the truth is, they just want to take people downtown and forget about them.

It is simply amazing how quick some people are to judge others. Except for this one incident, I have never hurt another human in my life. I have never even raised my fist to someone. I have tolerated physical abuse all of my life, and my recent ex Katie used to hit me all the time, and I never hit her back. Or filed DV against her (which I should have) People can back me up on this, so why I am suddenly labeled as violent? I am one of the nicest, giving, caring people around... and now I can not defend myself because I chose to do so 5 years ago? I have been robbed, I have been shot at... all I care to do is defend myself, and now I cannot because I made a mistake and went out with a drug addict? Who is, yes, still in prison for having a few too many pounds of coke in her car.

Coinneach has known me for years, and he can/is/will vouch that I only defended myself, and have never lifted a finger to another human accept this one time. So before you go judging me and condemning me to death, you should know the whole story. I just happened to try to help the wrong person out of her problems. Coinneach was right, I am crazy over females, but I try to help them out of abusive situations and such... so now why am I the evil one?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gRAVEdgN:
Coinneach's friend is a prime example of how laws tend to work. Laws tend to fall on the black and white, right and wrong there is no in-between. We have elected a lot of law makers who take the easy way and write a lot of feel good laws. Unfortunatly the time is not spent in making the laws flexible enough to deal with such situations and/or through overly agressive prosecution the laws effect people they should of never touched.[/quote]

Yes, I totally agree that they seem to skip *any* gray area at all. My case should have been seen for what it was, self-defense. Not like she didn't have a record a mile long, and they took all of her children due to her abuse of them, and her last one was born without part of his spine because she was shooting heroine. All they had to do was look at the records... which is something I didn't have until her... but like I said, God forbid that we allow an Ordained Minister to have a weapon to defend himself... and what saddens me even more is that I think she has one of my children. Love is stupid, justice is blind, people judge when they do not have the right...

[This message has been edited by Dellamorte (edited August 08, 2000).]
 
I find it interesting that so many include child molestors in this mix. I wouldn't normally stick up for those scum, but what the heck has that to do with firearms ownership? Aren't we just falling into the same trap as the gun bigots? Denying fundamental rights to someone because they disgust us, and it is uncomfortable to defend them?

To be frank, I'm not sure of the best policy. But, I would vote for certified nutcases to be denied the RKBA. Defining 'nutcases' becomes problematic I realize.

The anti's certainly do use this area as fertile ground for incrementalism. Having said that, can you imagine how tough it will be to push some of this cr*p back?

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coinneach:

If the moderator commits a felony, every day - I hope that was simply rhetoric as you should not do that.

I drive within 1000 feet of a school with a gun in my car every day. Oh goodness, the evil Scary Bald Guy is a DANGER! TO! SOCIETY!

:rolleyes:

If your felony is illegal carry - thanks for announcing it on the Internet.

Define ILLEGAL carry. No, don't bother, you can't, because there ain't no such animal.[/B][/quote]

I would trust Coinneach more than I would the local police or admin. He is very much on the level, very straight-forward, very safe, very trustworthy, and incredibly stable. He does not break the "law", he simply knows the law... and never would he illegally carry.
 
Folks,

The Constitutional argument ended here at 12:50 PM, when cuerno de chivo
stated, “... The Second Amendment does not mention ‘except ex-cons’.
This requires an actual belief and respect for the Second Ammendment.
Something that most folks, including 'gun folks', don't really have....”

To that I add, “Amen!” and a quote from DC, “Thou shalt not parse!”

If *you* are willing to infringe upon the Constitution, then you must also give the same power to is Sarah Brady, Chuckie Schumer, etc.

As Smokey the (Constitutional) Bear might say, "Remember folks, only YOU can prevent tyranny!" ;)
 
I've noticed on a lot of gun bullitin boards there is a dim view on child molestation. I have a dim view also but the same people frequently are quick to defend the Davidians, you know, that waco incident. There is no question child molestation took place. So why is one wrong and the other right?
 
I've thought of one crime that deserves a lifetime ban on firearms ownership....

How about 18 USC 1984 -- violating civil rights under color of law?

Politicians who pass laws infringing the RKBA should be ineligible for firearms ownership.

Has a certain ironic appeal...
 
What crimes should disqualify gun ownership?

Terminal stupidity. In all seriousness, if we have to choose between "too many" folk or "too few" having the "priviledge" (!@#$%^&*!) of gun ownership, let if be too many. Our society is rapidly becoming a very stupid one, because actions are not rewarded with adequate consequences.
 
Dennis, let's talk about the Constitution. I believe Article III talks about a trial and Jury. The 6th ammendment says impartial jury and other important items for an accused's defense. Now the 8th I think applies here. In part it says "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Is the taking away firearms a cruel and unusual punishment? Ending someone's life or putting them in jail for a long time doesn't seem to be. Where to draw the line seems to be the question? I don't see it as a all or none issue. MWT
 
If someone has committed such a heinous crime that they shouldn't own a gun, then they shouldn't be walking the streets.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Also, having a crackwhore girlfriend says something about you. My heart bleeds for him.[/quote]
If you hit your girlfriend because she burned the beans, you're a jerk. If you hurt your girlfiend because she tried to kill you, that's another story. Unfortunatley, it doesn't play out that way in court, especially when the system makes it easier to accept a plea bargain than to defend yourself in court. Intersting that the idea of the U.S. judicial system was to avoid having to defend yourself. You're supposed to be proven guilty. Apparently, it is human nature to determine someone to be guilty before they even have a chance to explain. Is Dellamorte guilty simply because of the company he keeps/has kept in the past? I certainly hope not. Hmmm...hindsight is 20/20, especially when it's someone else who made a bad judgement. Personally, I've found that the most trusting people are the ones I want as my friends because they believe others to be as honest as they are. (ooops...sorry, Dennis, I strayed.... :o )
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If committing a felony disqualifies, then you should obey the law. It's funny that all the law and order boys forget it when some buddy can't have his gun. Tough....
If the moderator commits a felony, every day - I hope that was simply rhetoric as you should not do that.[/quote]
ANY-way....should we follow every law just to avoid being felons? Should the American colonists not have committed treason against the Crown to avoid being felons?
The Colonists chose to be criminals to preserve their rights against a tyrranical government. Not all laws are fair and people shouldn't follow every asenine law passed by Congress (NOT the people!) just to avoid being a felon.
As to the original question, the only crimes that should bar one from owning a gun are those that keep a person from walking the streets. Do the crime, do the time, it should END right there.



[This message has been edited by CindyH (edited August 08, 2000).]
 
I would say any crime that causes harm to an innocent bystander. Also any felony or crime in which a weapon was used in the comission of.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre:
What crimes should disqualify gun ownership?

Terminal stupidity. In all seriousness, if we have to choose between "too many" folk or "too few" having the "priviledge" (!@#$%^&*!) of gun ownership, let if be too many. Our society is rapidly becoming a very stupid one, because actions are not rewarded with adequate consequences.[/quote]

This is good . Stupid people should not own guns . People that do not look when you yell their name at the Fair is another . People that take up 2 parking spaces ( unless it's dark and someone cay "key" their car . Oh yes , ugly . Ugly people should not own guns .People that want to tell you what happened to them last night but must detail their whole day leading up to the incident which turns out to be stupid as dogsnot .
Anyway , on a good note . Many people are able to go back and get their records upgraded . A new look at an old problem can be very enlightening .Ask your lawyer if an old trial can be revisited with a better outcome based on the new and improved defendant .



------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
Powermwt, “... the 8th [Amendment} I think applies here. In part it says
"nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Is the taking away firearms a
cruel and unusual punishment? Ending someone's life or putting them in jail
for a long time doesn't seem to be. Where to draw the line seems to be the
question? I don't see it as a all or none issue. MWT”

I do.

As I understand it, prisons have three punishment roles: correction,
warehousing, and extermination.
- Our laws identify offenses and establish a range of possible punishments.
Most are intended to be “corrective”. Some are not (e.g. life in prison and
death sentence).
- Within those guidelines, judges and juries determine what punishment is
appropriate for an offense.
- We kill (execute) those whom we believe uncorrectable and unworthy of
being warehoused.
- We warehouse those whom we believe to be unable to function within our
society (life imprisonment).
- We use punishment to correct those whom we believe need “correction”.

So when is the correction finished? Upon completion of the sentence, we
*say* we expect the former felon to take an appropriate place in our society.
To me, that includes the right to protect himself, his family, and his property.
It is immoral to punish those who have been “corrected” for their entire lives.

If they’re not able to be good citizens, punish them again for transgressing.
But if they have fulfilled their so-called “debt to society”, then they should
again be citizens - people who have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

To presume otherwise, is:
- to admit our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not a Right but a mere
privilege,
- to admit correction and rehabilitation are myths and punishment is mere
revenge, or
- to presume them guilty of, and punish them for, a future crime before it is
committed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top