Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/19/2006 11:54:11 AM EDT
I honestly feel uncomfortable knowing that some of the people i've seen qualify will be carrying a firearm in public.

One of the applicants today missed the silhouette at 9 feet and we had two people who didn't know how to load their mags.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:55:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 12:05:24 PM EDT
I'm all about the 2nd and owning as many guns as your heart desires. But when you get into carrying, where your responsibilities go up along with the consequences, I think the owners should have to meet a higher standard.

I see concealed carry as a privilege and not a right. If it were a right we wouldn't have to pass criminal history checks, psych history checks, and so on.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 12:09:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BadSVT:
I'm all about the 2nd and owning as many guns as your heart desires. But when you get into carrying, where your responsibilities go up along with the consequences, I think the owners should have to meet a higher standard.

I see concealed carry as a privilege and not a right. If it were a right we wouldn't have to pass criminal history checks, psych history checks, and so on.




sorry dude but the right to protect yourself and your family is a right for everyone. What you are saying is just another form of gun control and is a step in the direction of may issue
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 12:22:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 12:23:11 PM EDT by BadSVT]

Originally Posted By Jeff_1:

Originally Posted By BadSVT:
I'm all about the 2nd and owning as many guns as your heart desires. But when you get into carrying, where your responsibilities go up along with the consequences, I think the owners should have to meet a higher standard.

I see concealed carry as a privilege and not a right. If it were a right we wouldn't have to pass criminal history checks, psych history checks, and so on.




sorry dude but the right to protect yourself and your family is a right for everyone. What you are saying is just another form of gun control and is a step in the direction of may issue



i dont see it as gun control, i see it as people control. Criminals aren't allowed to own firearms because they pose a threat to society, the same should apply to morons.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 12:34:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 12:42:05 PM EDT
I do believe that CHL holders should have to qualify more often than every 5 years.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 1:00:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Txgunracer:
I do believe that CHL holders should have to qualify more often than every 5 years.



You get a new drivers license every 8 years and you don't have to qualify for it. A car is a lot more deadly than your pistol.

I took the renewal class on sat. I learned a lot. Not any of it was in the state issued material.
Things I learned:

The class is mostly feel good type learning. They try to teach you about communication, and how to diffuse crisis situations. They go over the laws. That is about it. Most of the changes that have taken place in the laws were done in an "oh, by the way" manner. I am sure that this is all "state approved". They also teach you to stand there and throw lead down range. This they call qualifying. All the time I was doing this, I kept hearing in my head, "This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Wyatt Earp."
What I am trying to say here, is they say nothing about shooting and moving. Using cover, or any other real life type shooting situations. All this qualifying proves is 3 things: You know how to load your weapon, you know how to point it down range, and you know how to discharge it.

Things that weren't taught (but should have been):

How to properly conceal a firearm.

Moving and using cover.

Drawing from concealment and firing.

One more thing: Why do all the instructors seem to thing they are the baddest dudes around?



Link Posted: 3/19/2006 1:05:06 PM EDT
yeah, i took the class 3 weeks ago and was surprised at the conent and at the actual shooting part. Both the written and shooting tests were entry level and very watered down.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 1:17:27 PM EDT

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Vermont appears to be the only State that does concealed carry in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. For Texan freedoms to be surpassed in the matter of gun laws, by a YANKEE State, is down right shameful.

If you want to be safer, I suggest you raise the requirements for obtaining a drivers license, and go back to only allowing property owners the right to vote.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 1:27:05 PM EDT
there have been more restrictions imposed on the new drivers so they are indeed going in the right direction.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 2:08:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DPeacher:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Vermont appears to be the only State that does concealed carry in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. For Texan freedoms to be surpassed in the matter of gun laws, by a YANKEE State, is down right shameful.






damn straight Peacher!!!
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 2:09:00 PM EDT
More extensive gun trainng? Absolutely needed, but not as a requirement for the permit.

Now, LEGAL training, damn right. I've found that the majority of CHL holders are completely clueless about UOF issues. Knowing WHEN to shoot/not shoot is just as important as having something to shoot in the first place.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 3:28:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 338winmag:
Moving and using cover.

Drawing from concealment and firing.



Your class is going to be a LOT longer than 10 hours if they try to teach this.

There are plenty of people who ARE badasses that teach this.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 3:38:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By txsouthpaw:

Originally Posted By 338winmag:
Moving and using cover.

Drawing from concealment and firing.



Your class is going to be a LOT longer than 10 hours if they try to teach this.




and a lot more wounded RSOs
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 3:48:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By BadSVT:
I honestly feel uncomfortable knowing that some of the people i've seen qualify will be carrying a firearm in public.

One of the applicants today missed the silhouette at 9 feet and we had two people who didn't know how to load their mags.



The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

'nuf sed.

TRG



you don't see me begging or paying for a permit - RKBA - shall not be infringed....
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:05:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BadSVT:

Originally Posted By txsouthpaw:

Originally Posted By 338winmag:
Moving and using cover.

Drawing from concealment and firing.



Your class is going to be a LOT longer than 10 hours if they try to teach this.




and a lot more wounded RSOs



I get to shoot back though
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:14:06 PM EDT
me too and when we run CHL classes we wear body armor. I wear a level III vest
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:20:21 PM EDT
SAD , HUH...

PRACTICE---

Hell, you only have to get 35 points. It is a joke.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:45:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

'nuf sed.

TRG



That is it, in a nut shell.

What should be happening is marksmanship and firearm safety classes in all of our high schools. Should be required courses. Also, the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be heavily funded and supported. Should get tax breaks for fireamrs, ammo and instruction.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:55:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jrosto:

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

'nuf sed.

TRG



That is it, in a nut shell.

What should be happening is marksmanship and firearm safety classes in all of our high schools. Should be required courses. Also, the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be heavily funded and supported. Should get tax breaks for fireamrs, ammo and instruction.




+1


I agree - just like driver's ed or shop class, weapons training should be taught aggressively!

my libtarded associates think I am nuts for even suggesting that avenue...
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:08:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Txgunracer:
I do believe that CHL holders should have to qualify more often than every 5 years.

Oklahoma does not make you retake the class ever Just send them $85 bucks and pic.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:22:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BadSVT:
I'm all about the 2nd and owning as many guns as your heart desires. But when you get into carrying, where your responsibilities go up along with the consequences, I think the owners should have to meet a higher standard.


There are sufficient remedies at law for a CHL fucking up. If a CHL fucks up - like you already said - there are consequences. You're entirely correct, also, in linking the escalation of consequences to the escalation of responsibilities. However, that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the armed citizen. While some other posters on here have already compared guns/cars to death (with good intentions AND results), you don't hear anyone comparing these ever more-restrictive qual requirements to poll taxes or min educational requirements to vote. That's where I step in.

Originally Posted By BadSVT:
I see concealed carry as a privilege and not a right. If it were a right we wouldn't have to pass criminal history checks, psych history checks, and so on.


We disagree here. I *will* agree that the State sees it as a priv, and not a right (because of the very reasons you outline). Like another poster mentioned, VT is the only state which treats concealed carry that way (as a right). IIRC, even in AZ, concealed is a priv, and open is a right.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:25:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BadSVT:
there have been more restrictions imposed on the new drivers so they are indeed going in the right direction.


Regardless of the answer in this particular circumstance, the question we first need to be asking ourselves is this:

"Is *more* gov't regulation ever the answer?"

Again, maybe yes and maybe no, but it should be the first question we ask ourselves before shooting from the hip and lamenting "There oughtta be a law......."

My $0.02.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:29:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By DPeacher:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Vermont appears to be the only State that does concealed carry in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. For Texan freedoms to be surpassed in the matter of gun laws, by a YANKEE State, is down right shameful.


damn straight Peacher!!!


I agree. Maybe we should start calling him *Preacher*!

(that's a church I'd attend in a heartbeat)
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:30:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
More extensive gun trainng? Absolutely needed, but not as a requirement for the permit.

Now, LEGAL training, damn right. I've found that the majority of CHL holders are completely clueless about UOF issues. Knowing WHEN to shoot/not shoot is just as important as having something to shoot in the first place.


I always thought I'd go to Hell if I said this, but it probably already frozen over:

"I agree with Johninaustin."



Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:44:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:

Originally Posted By jrosto:

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:
The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

'nuf sed.

TRG


That is it, in a nut shell.

What should be happening is marksmanship and firearm safety classes in all of our high schools. Should be required courses. Also, the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be heavily funded and supported. Should get tax breaks for fireamrs, ammo and instruction.


+1

I agree - just like driver's ed or shop class, weapons training should be taught aggressively!

my libtarded associates think I am nuts for even suggesting that avenue...


Two things:
a) jrosto's really getting down to part of the root of the problem
b) mikejohnson: ask your libtarded associates if they think there's a need for *less* gun safety!
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:44:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:19:01 AM EDT
It's their own damn fault if they choose not get training or at least practice.

I know what you mean though. I thought the same thing after going shooting at the club after a CHL class. The pistol range goes out to 25 yds and it's partially covered with one of those sheet metal carport things. There were holes in the support posts and the roof! The target stands were shredded at probably 7 yds etc. Then I figured hey it's their own damn fault.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:33:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ManiacRat461:
It's their own damn fault if they choose not get training or at least practice.

I know what you mean though. I thought the same thing after going shooting at the club after a CHL class. The pistol range goes out to 25 yds and it's partially covered with one of those sheet metal carport things. There were holes in the support posts and the roof! The target stands were shredded at probably 7 yds etc. Then I figured hey it's their own damn fault.


Agreed. It's a conscious choice a CHL makes by not pursuing further training. Therefore, it's a consequence they accept if they try to take down a BG at point blank and end up perforating a family of four at 50yds.

Again, I [generally] dislike the vehicle/driving comparisons, but even if I don't take a tactical driving course, I risk being cited for "failure to control speed" in an accident or other scenario that the state minimum requirements don't prepare me for......
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:44:45 AM EDT
Why is it people always want others to stop doing something?
No one ever says "please pass this law so I have to stop doing this".

Everyone who wants something regulated is always within the specs of acceptable behavior in their own minds.

Hell, that's why Commieforna still has a concealed carry law, so those who do the controlling and their friends can carry arms for their protection, but the mere masses can't.

Effective self defense is a right, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment the Constitution of the United States. That right doesn't evaporate due to a lack of training.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:46:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:46:24 AM EDT
Then again it wouldn't suprise me if someone made a shoot and hit a bystander and then tried to blame the state for not providing sufficient training. It's all about taking responsibility for your actions.

I don't know about other places in the state but the classes around here make it very well known they are not going to teach you how to shoot and you should be proficient before taking the class.


Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:48:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 9:30:50 AM EDT by cajunconan]

Originally Posted By COZ_45:

Originally Posted By Jeff_1:

Originally Posted By BadSVT:
I'm all about the 2nd and owning as many guns as your heart desires. But when you get into carrying, where your responsibilities go up along with the consequences, I think the owners should have to meet a higher standard.

I see concealed carry as a privilege and not a right. If it were a right we wouldn't have to pass criminal history checks, psych history checks, and so on.




sorry dude but the right to protect yourself and your family is a right for everyone. What you are saying is just another form of gun control and is a step in the direction of may issue



What he said....above....I find it stupid that we have to get a license to carry a firearm, but, there's no requirment to get a license to be a parent. How many people are completely unqualified to be parents and are breeding like rabbits?

Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.





I totally agree. I think that a simple background check just to make sure you are not a felon.

It should be legal to Carry-n-Conceal with out paying for it and taking a course.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:49:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:53:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By ManiacRat461:
It's their own damn fault if they choose not get training or at least practice.

I know what you mean though. I thought the same thing after going shooting at the club after a CHL class. The pistol range goes out to 25 yds and it's partially covered with one of those sheet metal carport things. There were holes in the support posts and the roof! The target stands were shredded at probably 7 yds etc. Then I figured hey it's their own damn fault.


Agreed. It's a conscious choice a CHL makes by not pursuing further training. Therefore, it's a consequence they accept if they try to take down a BG at point blank and end up perforating a family of four at 50yds.

Again, I [generally] dislike the vehicle/driving comparisons, but even if I don't take a tactical driving course, I risk being cited for "failure to control speed" in an accident or other scenario that the state minimum requirements don't prepare me for......



The problem is, our founding Fathers never envisioned a mass of society that was not accustomed to defending thier homes, property and possessions with their personal firearms. The Fouders were expecting us to remain a self-reliant, free-thinking, self-protecting populace that was armed to the teeth.

There was no desire for a standing army, a police-state or widespread taxation.

Since the decline of 'that' America. More people rely upon our civil systems for their personal protection. They assume the police or the government will be there to protect their personal property, their individual freedoms and thier life.

Very few Americans are self-reliant anymore.

The need to be proficient with a firearm has simply faded away.

Frankly, I am still surprised that we have the ability to own guns anymore. I am not surprised that most people do not know how to use them.

TRG



Another good point. I was gonna mention that but didn't want to ramble. I've been buying firearms myself for 6 years rougly and have been around them since I was born. I am still amazed by the sheer ignorance of use, handling, general knowledge of firearms by average citizens.

People just aren't raised around them anymore. At most it's a .22, .380 or .38 in daddy's sock drawer. Most people would shit at the type and amount of firearms the average person on this board owns. If I have chirrens they will be shooting at a young just as I was and I have some of my cousins doing. 3 yo cousin has a blast with a Red Ryder I bought him and his sister who is 9 started on my 10/22 then begged to shoot my 14.5 carbine. Collapsed the stock, ran down the rules again and again and made sure she understood the operation and let her go at it at 50 yds of course my watchful eye was right there with her.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:55:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By ManiacRat461:
Then again it wouldn't suprise me if someone made a shoot and hit a bystander and then tried to blame the state for not providing sufficient training. It's all about taking responsibility for your actions.

I don't know about other places in the state but the classes around here make it very well known they are not going to teach you how to shoot and you should be proficient before taking the class.





The law is pretty clear, you are responsible for the bullet at all times.

TRG



The law is pretty clear about a lot of things. But that hasn't stopped peoples stupidity and wallet from clogging up the court systems before.....
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:02:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 9:08:50 AM EDT by MauserMark]
wow, Ironic, I kind of thought the same thing when I took my test.

For different reasons though.

One of the guys who took took the class works in the mall a few shops down from my wife. He's a complete dirtbag. Probably in his late 50's, he looks like the profile of a down and out ugly pedophile. That's hard to imagine, but if you saw him you'd agree. Why do I know he's a dirtbag? He tried to grope my wife at her store one day. He's also done the same with a few other girls that have worked at my wife's store. Nothing was reported, and my wife told me about this long after it happened, and I felt nothing could really be done. Yet this same asshole was at this class getting his CHL, kind of put a damper on the whole class for me. Luckily he's no longer working at the store in the Mall (to my knowledge), probably because of sexual harrasment. I was told the Mall was even notified about him. How he was able to get a CHL and own a handgun without having anything prior on his record is beyond me, but knowing how much of a low-life he is, and saying the shit he said to my wife and others that have worked at the mall, I'd be scared to let him walk around with a weapon. And don't pander the idea about everyone's right to a firearm. It's a priviledge IF you're a law abiding citizen, that's how it should be. You commit a felon? tough shit, looks like you'll be defenseless for the rest of your life. deal with it.

Those who tow this line honestly want convicted sex offenders the freedom to walk into academy and buy a 12-guage?

I know of a personal friend who fucked up his life in the past selling drugs (and was convicted, 2 years), and assaulted someone over a bar fight. He's screwed for life, will never own a firearm nor have the right to shoot one. He's bitched about it before, and there's nothing that can be said, he should of thought about that when selling dope. Not to mention when I had my first WASR (my first firearm after I turned 18) upon seeing it, he tried to convince me on converting it to full auto and assured me it's not that big of a deal... Luckily I found this board shortly after and didn't make that mistake.

Just my thoughts.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:11:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
wow, Ironic, I kind of thought the same thing when I took my test.

For different reasons though.

One of the guys who took took the class works in the mall a few shops down from my wife. He's a complete dirtbag. Probably in his late 50's, he looks like the profile of a down and out ugly pedophile. That's hard to imagine, but if you saw him you'd agree. Why do I know he's a dirtbag? He tried to grope my wife at her store one day. He's also done the same with a few other girls that have worked at my wife's store. Nothing was reported, and my wife told me about this long after it happened, and I felt nothing could really be done. Yet this same asshole was at this class getting his CHL, kind of put a damper on the whole class for me. Luckily he's no longer working at the store in the Mall (to my knowledge), probably because of sexual harrasment. I was told the Mall was even notified about him. How he was able to get a CHL and own a handgun without having anything prior on his record is beyond me, but knowing how much of a low-life he is, and saying the shit he said to my wife and others that have worked at the mall, I'd be scared to let him walk around with a weapon. And don't pander the idea about everyone's right to a firearm. It's a priviledge IF you're a law abiding citizen, that's how it should be. You commit a felon? tough shit, looks like you'll be defenseless for the rest of your life. deal with it.

Those who tow this line honestly want convicted sex offenders the freedom to walk into academy and buy a 12-guage?

I know of a personal friend who fucked up his life in the past selling drugs (and was convicted, 2 years), and assaulted someone over a bar fight. He's screwed for life, will never own a firearm nor have the right to shoot one. He's bitched about it before, and there's nothing that can be said, he should of thought about that when selling dope.

Just my thoughts.


It's (2A/RKBA) a right. As with most rights (speech, press, assembly, religion, voting, etc), they are not absolute and can be curtailed. Concealed carry (the actual subject of this thread) is treated like a privelege by all states, minus VT.

So, while it is treated as a de facto privelege by 49/50, it's still a right (else SCOTUS would have struck VT's *right*, had it been challenged).


Note: My logic's a bit fast and loose righ tnow, as it's lunch timne.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:25:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 9:28:58 AM EDT by MauserMark]

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

It's (2A/RKBA) a right. As with most rights (speech, press, assembly, religion, voting, etc), they are not absolute and can be curtailed. Concealed carry (the actual subject of this thread) is treated like a privelege by all states, minus VT.

So, while it is treated as a de facto privelege by 49/50, it's still a right (else SCOTUS would have struck VT's *right*, had it been challenged).


Note: My logic's a bit fast and loose righ tnow, as it's lunch timne.



they are not absolute and can be curtailed.

I agree with that statement and make it the basis of my logic above. curtailing it so that people who are a threat to society (convicted of felonies) cannot legally purchase a colt LEO 6920 is curtailing it in my opinion.

Before anyone points it out, I ALSO understand there are many felonies that do not involve violence. But as I said above, tough shit, you commit one, you should of thought about that before hand. Like my friend above who was convicted of a felony for intent to sale (got busted by an undercover cop none-the-less) wasn't commiting violence against anyone, nor do I feel he would commit violence against people randomly, but he did what he did and now has to live with it.

-mark
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:30:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:35:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:
I don't agree that a felony conviction removes the 'right' to keep and bear arms. If it was applied to crimes related to the use of a firearm, I could agree with it.

As for the 'sex offender' part, I still disagree. There are many types of 'sex offender' charges, not all of them are drooling pedo's with children in the basement.

It should not be a blanket loss of personal freedom, based upon a felony conviction.

TRG



Than what would be the best way to make sure the wrong Felons don't get a gun.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:40:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cajunconan:

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:
I don't agree that a felony conviction removes the 'right' to keep and bear arms. If it was applied to crimes related to the use of a firearm, I could agree with it.

As for the 'sex offender' part, I still disagree. There are many types of 'sex offender' charges, not all of them are drooling pedo's with children in the basement.

It should not be a blanket loss of personal freedom, based upon a felony conviction.

TRG



Than what would be the best way to make sure the wrong Felons don't get a gun.



agreed, that would be a phonebook sized bill, to meet every type of felony and describe why it applies or doesn't.

Any Felony period makes sense to me, it's a form of additional punishment after the person is released, sucks but that's how it goes.

Also, I know there are sex-offender crimes that are pretty minor in my book, like an 18 year old sleeping with his 16 year old gf. The laws need to change on this stuff not re-write gun laws. First fix the problem with these types of "crimes" rather than mess with rules about owning guns based on what type of felony was commited.

A 50 year old man raping a 5 year old agreed is nothing like what I stated above.

-mark
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:53:38 AM EDT

Than what would be the best way to make sure the wrong Felons don't get a gun.



Any Felony period makes sense to me, it's a form of additional punishment after the person is released, sucks but that's how it goes.



Sorry guys, but in this day and age it seems like spitting on the sidewalk now makes you a felon. The felony convictions are way to easy to stick to someone today. Like TRG said, a felony conviction should not be a blanket arguement to you loosing your rights. How do you "fix" it, or what is the best way to make sure the "wrong" felons don't get a gun.

Pretty damned simple.....

If you commit a violent felony - murder, attempted murder, rape, sexual assault against a minor, or deal in large quantities of drugs (not the kid selling dime bags to his HS friends) then you should be put to death. Keeps you from harming society, and keeps you from acquiring a gun.

The right to life means the right to be capable of defending yourself against gross violence. If you no longer have that right then you should have been put to death for your crime in the first place.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 10:23:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 10:27:55 AM EDT by Bulldawg]
The whole "should-a-convicted-felon-and-or-pedophile-have-their-rights-restored" line is bullshit.

If a convicted felon has paid paid the fines, done the time, and finished out any parole or probation, you're damn right their rights should be restored.

Don't want convicted felons having guns? Keep their asses in fucking prison where they belong. I guess this can go along with TRG's thinking about not lumping all felonies together. If you commit a felony that's bad enough to strip you of your RKBA, then your ass should be in prison. Just finished up a 5-year stint for tax evasion? Here's your guns back.

I kinda feel the same about sex offenders. Like TRG said, not all sex offenders are the same. 18-year-old boy fucks his 17-year-old girlfriend, breaks up, she tells daddy who tells the po-po. Guess who's a sex offender now? And beyond that, sex offender registration is all fine and dandy for the true kiddy diddlers out there... but then again, why the fuck are they out in the first place? We shouldn't need this registration bullshit.

As it is, it's illegal for any felon to possess a firearm. How many felons do you reckon stop to think "Oh, I better not purchase/steal/procure that gat from Cleofus down on the street corner, as it's illegal and I could go back to prison for 6 months..."?

You can make all the feel-good laws you want, but they won't mean jack shit unless and until the juries and the judges out there start giving criminals the punishment they deserve.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 11:15:43 AM EDT
TheRedGoat is right on. Most of these issues would go away if kids and society at large
were brought in a the manner to understand these things as well as they know how
to use a remote control today.

And I fall into the catagory that thinks it is a RIGHT, you have the right - that is trampled - to
carry anywhere you want without the license.

Should you train, heck yeah. Have to, no way!

Oh and I am sickenly humoured at the fact we are our own worse enemies. Heck, we can't
even agree to what the 2nd is about amoung ourselves. We are doomed.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:14:17 PM EDT
Vermont, Alaska and now Wyoming are the only states that slightly resemble what the constitution envisioned for the right to bear arms. There is still the federal legislation that prohibits, or restricts what we can actually have.

As far as felons go, if you have done the time and paid your fines, I don't have a problem with them having their rights restored. This also goes for voting rights. Remember taxation without representation is slavery. How would you feel if you had misrepresented yourself on your taxes and done a couple of years in club fed? When you get out you have no say in the government. If you notice lately, they really don't enact any much legislation making it misdemeanors any more. Everything is a felony. Everything has a 20 year sentence and a 100,000 dollar fine. Oh, and one other thing, if you are convicted of peeing in public, you are a sex offender. Now I know no one here has ever done that. Right?
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:33:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 12:36:10 PM EDT by MauserMark]
338winmag, I agree.

I said in my posts before first fix the problem with what is defined as a felony, especially for sex offenders crimes. As someone pointed out and as I pointed out before that, an 18 year old that has sex with his 17 year old gf isn't a sex crime (talking consentual of course) and the peeing in public thing is pretty rediculous. Start by fixing these problems with laws, before making a blanket amnesty for everyone, even a 10 year old to have the right to pack a handgun going to school. Fix the society and the laws making the problems. I don't have a problem buying any firearm because I haven't commited or plan to commit a felony.

on another note, what is considered in public? in view of another person who has a problem with it? I have a big problem if I'm walking downtown and I see some drunk asshole pissing on a building, I don't have a problem if I'm out in the country and I see someone going off into a bush and I can barely see what they're doing.

-mark
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:41:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:43:45 PM EDT
It's funny, but just the other day I was talking to an older gent at a gun store. He used to ride his bike through town, rifle across the handlebars, to go out to the woods and hunt.

Oddly, he never shot anyone. His friends never shot anyone. And yet his possessing the firearm where not regulated in the least. How very odd.

It seems we not only have forgotten what a right is, but we buy into the idea of making things even more illegal. After all, if you commit ten crimes in murdering someone, you obviously would think twice. But if you only commit one crime, well hell, then everyone would do it.

Please, criminalize actions, not possible actions, not objects.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:14:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
I see someone going off into a bush and I can barely see what they're doing.

-mark



The question is, how hard are you looking?

A glance is an accident, staring is teh ghey.

TRG



you would definately know.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top