Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 6/12/2002 5:21:22 AM EDT
[url]http://www.sierratimes.com/02/06/12/venable.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 5:46:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 5:58:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:10:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
The only folks who should not have access to guns are those who are not free anyway. They are either locked up in jails or mental institutions. But if they are out on the streets with the rest of us, they have the same rights, and we had better start including everybody in the defense of those rights or none of us will have any! Does a building have to fall on everybody before they see that?
View Quote
I have argued this, to no avail. I can't figure out the cognitive disconnect that most people insist upon.
View Quote
Well, since most violent crime is committed by repeat violent offenders, perhaps convicted VIOLENT felons should not be allowed to own. Some have said that would be an incentive to go straight, to which I say it should be enough incentive to not get in trouble initially. If someone is known to be prone to violence, why make it easier for them. The rest of us have managed to lead our lives in a manner not to go to jail, why have pity on those violent fools who do?
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:52:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: Her comment, "Does a building have to fall on everybody before they see that?" unfortunately has the answer of "yes". From the short 37 years of life I have lived, that always seems to be the case. When I was in Okinawa Japan, I was gripping and complaining about no one doing anything about the G.I.'s causing trouble off base. I still have a copy of a letter I wrote to the Stars & Stripes newspaper in which my last sentence asked, "Does someone have to get hurt, raped or killed before someone does something about this?" A year and a half later the 2 Marines and Seaman raped a 13 year old Japanese girl...then they started to do something about it! I've got plenty examples of this, and I'm afraid that it's just some kind of natural law. "Don't touch that, it's hot!" "Really? OUCH!!!!"
View Quote
i TOTALLY agree Sweep. i was in the military too and saw a lot of instances of the sort. people are more prone to address "curative" measures rather than "preventive" measures. and by that time its way too late.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 7:34:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Well, since most violent crime is committed by repeat violent offenders, perhaps convicted VIOLENT felons should not be allowed to own. Some have said that would be an incentive to go straight, to which I say it should be enough incentive to not get in trouble initially. If someone is known to be prone to violence, why make it easier for them. The rest of us have managed to lead our lives in a manner not to go to jail, why have pity on those violent fools who do?
View Quote
If we have a problem with repeat offenders, perhaps we shouldn't release them. Laws that "prevent" them from owning guns don't work very well, unless they are confined to jail . . .
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 8:06:17 AM EDT
Is there no Constitutionally sanctioned restrictions on speech? After all, "Congress shall make no law. . . ."
Top Top