Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/21/2001 7:45:26 PM EDT
Should a covicted felon who has served his full sentence be allowed to own guns? Should a parolee be allowed to own guns? Should the form 4473 be done away with? Are instant checks a bad thing if they are done quickly and properly and no record is made of the check? Does the 2nd protect our right to own: mortars? artillery? Stingers? AT-4s? LAWs? M202 Flashes? 500 pound bombs? F-16s? chemical weapons? biological weapons?
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 7:49:44 PM EDT
Why even post anything here? GovtThug will just erase the damn thing. So why bother, he is just gathering evidence. Piss off GovtThug. [rail]Railgun....
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 7:50:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 7:51:05 PM EDT
"Should a covicted felon who has served his full sentence be allowed to own guns?" Violent felon no. Nonviolent felon maybe...he should be able to petition to get the right to own guns back. "Should a parolee be allowed to own guns?" Nonviolent crime parolee yes. Violent crime (and by this, let me make clear, I mean a REAL violent crime such as assault and battery, rape, murder, child molestation, etc) no. "Should the form 4473 be done away with?" Yes. "Are instant checks a bad thing if they are done quickly and properly and no record is made of the check?" I have no problem with that sort of instant check. "Does the 2nd protect our right to own: mortars? artillery? Stingers? AT-4s? LAWs? M202 Flashes? 500 pound bombs? F-16s? chemical weapons? biological weapons?" No. It refers to arms that you can "bear" not artillery pieces or crew-deployed weapons. LMGs are probably the heaviest thing guaranteed in the RKBA.
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 7:51:41 PM EDT
Just do a search for GovtThug up above and find that not a single post, he rarely posts on other threads cause he can't erase the entire thread. He will also erase his input to those rare examples that he will post on someone elses thread. [rail]Railgun....
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 8:04:30 PM EDT
No person who has forfeited their rights by failing to live responsibly should be allowed to excercise them. That said, a lot of things that are felonies shouldn't be, and we should change that through the legislatures. If no record is made, they're fine. Problem is ensuring that no record is made. 2nd protects your right to own any instrument of personal self-defense. That includes, for example, body armor, fully auto weapons, and (perhaps) even a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher or bazooka, but not crew-served weapons like artillery and tanks. It also doesn't cover chemical or biological weapons, because those aren't personal instruments of self-defense, they're terror weapons of mass destruction.
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 8:05:57 PM EDT
#1 depends on person's case #2 depends on person's case #3 a reworked form #4 only if done fast & properly #5 Yes ( if government can fight over what "IT" means then I can argue what "BEAR" means)
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 8:23:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/21/2001 8:24:14 PM EDT by SWIRE]
Yes Yes Yes No. But get rid of them anyway. Does the 2nd protect our right to own? Anything one soldier can carry. Where has any gun law or yellow piece of paper ever stopped a felon from getting a gun? Those types of laws just don't work. Instead how about let anyone own a gun, no restrictions, but if you commit a crime with a gun you get a very strong sentence and if you are criminal and commit a second crime with a gun you get a much stronger sentence. The entire idea of restricting gun ownership for any reason goes against the second amendment and only promotes the gun control view. A felons right to vote is restored after they leave prison, so should their right to legal self defense.
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 8:30:04 PM EDT
A felon's right to vote is Not restored once they leave prison, not in all areas of the country anyway. Frankly, I'd rather see the vote restricted further than widened to include convicted criminals. And I'd rather see convicted criminals have a right to carry than a right to vote, for that matter.
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 8:35:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AnotherPundit: A felon's right to vote is Not restored once they leave prison, not in all areas of the country anyway. Frankly, I'd rather see the vote restricted further than widened to include convicted criminals. And I'd rather see convicted criminals have a right to carry than a right to vote, for that matter.
View Quote
what if the convict was a home/ shop owner that was defending his property but with today's bullshit laws the courts found him guilty. do you still think that person should have his god giving right taking away????
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 8:54:21 PM EDT
1. Only if his rights are restored. 2. Only if he never LOST his rights, or see #1. 3. No but these should never be turned over to ATF. 4. No, but again, ATF should NOT be in the loop. 5. The private indidvidual SHOULD have personal arms, comparable to that of a foreign soldier. From the list items like mortars and laws should be available for lawful ownership but strictly regulated. The others are not really personal weapons.
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 9:38:17 PM EDT
I have a question or two. Where is 'personal weapons' in the 2nd? Where does it say you have to be able to carry anything? "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." arms: (noun)weapons, a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense. The way I read the second is for a 'state 'defense' as opposed to a 'personal defense'. After all what is the militia? Isn't it every male between 18-65 (or something) NOT in the armed forces or other public officials? After all ordinary citizens owned, used, and supplied cannon, in not only the Revolutionary but also the Civil War. So I believe that it refers to weapons, of any shape or form, that could be used in the defense of the country. Silence TANSTAAFL
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 9:54:38 PM EDT
I have no problem with cannons. I was thinking more of 88mms.
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 9:56:29 PM EDT
Should a covicted felon who has served his full sentence be allowed to own guns? Yes he/she should be able to. If he/she is so dangerous that they cant own a gun, then they should not be allowed to walk the streets freely (still be in prison). Once your crime has been paid for all rights should be restored. Otherwise keep em in jail or give the death penalty.
Link Posted: 4/21/2001 9:57:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: I have no problem with cannons. I was thinking more of 88mms.
View Quote
yeah a copter pilot can be in for a world of hurt with those fired at him
Link Posted: 4/22/2001 9:29:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/22/2001 10:52:12 PM EDT
Yeah, and then after a couple of days the whole thread is nuked under the guise of saving bandwidth. I say El Toro Poo-poo to that. He erases after a hard copy I'm sure. [rail]Railgun....
Link Posted: 4/23/2001 12:05:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GovtThug: Should a covicted felon who has served his full sentence be allowed to own guns? Should a parolee be allowed to own guns? Should the form 4473 be done away with? Are instant checks a bad thing if they are done quickly and properly and no record is made of the check? Does the 2nd protect our right to own: mortars? artillery? Stingers? AT-4s? LAWs? M202 Flashes? 500 pound bombs? F-16s? chemical weapons? biological weapons?
View Quote
No to the last 10. The problem I see with the first two is that politicians are dreaming up new "felonies" every day. Voilent criminals shouldn't be allowed to have firearms, but the are soooo many felonies out there on the books that shouldn't prevent you from having the right to self-protection once you get your shit together. Instant checks are a good thing, no paper work should be involved because they can be compiled into a registry. In fact I bet thats already happened. Every honest law-abiding citizen should be able to own a standard issue military weapon with all the "evil" features.
Link Posted: 4/23/2001 12:33:24 AM EDT
Top Top