Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thinking is that if they're too unstable to be trusted with a firearm, than they're too dangerous to be on the streets at all.
I don't know if I completely buy in to that lock, stock, and barrel ( no pun intended ) but I see where he's going with it. Just like I don't agree with him at all that all felons should have their rights restored when their sentences are up. He needs to brush up on the reoffending rates of convicts.
what I meant by my statement whipper, is that when a criminal has paid their entire debt to society, then they get all their rights back. if you do not want criminals to have firearms legally, then keep them in prison, or keep them on parole for life.
Interesting topic. When the Japanese invaded China during World War II they loved the Buddhists who did not want to fight the Japanese because of their religion. The Japanese broke them killed them as if they were some stupid fools. Listen. If you don't defend your self others were bully you. They will beat you up. And they will make you come the dollars for their profits. So there you have it. The Buddhist perspective on guns.
Communists have always had a bit of a discomfort with Buddhism because they saw Buddhism has nothing but passive obedience to power. The solution? It was to bring aggressive Russian coming to east and southeast Asia, to change the people into competitive but a strategic thinkers.
Along with limiting the amount of ammo that can be purchased and loaded into a gun. Limiting the types of guns. Additionally I would like to see ammo be marked in such a way that it can be determined who bought the ammo.
If we started doing sh*t like this, (marking ammo so it can be traced), it would drive the cost of ammo up to the point where hardly anyone could afford it.
I agree there are people in society that should not be allowed to own guns. For that reason I support background checks. However, at the end of the day, I don't care what Buddhists, or any other religion thinks, if anyone tries to harm me or my family I will shoot first and questions later
I love guns and have a lot of 'em.
I love cars and have a lot of 'em.
Both should be a lot harder to get bc the general public is full of irresponsible morons.
Ya know I'm tired of hearing this mantra that "since we can't stop it all, let's just make it legal"..... Why is murder illegal? People are going to just go on killing anyway?
In this case freedom is more important, other than the spouse that may end with disease there is no victims here.
Quote:
Ever read the book "Lord of the Flies"???
Numerous times, even before the required reading in HS.
Quote:
Does the government have a strong enough interest in public health and public safety...
And I'm tired of hearing about the public interest and public safety, that argument can be used for almost anything.
When you vote, you don't exercise lethal power. So no. When you operate a gun, you do. It's different.
As the saying goes the pen is mightier than sword, words or government in this context can be far more dangerous than weapons. This is why they made it extremely difficult to change the Constitution.
I think that if someone is declared mentally incompetent, then they should be institutionalized and kept under the care of a doctor. if that person is under the care of a doctor and was convicted of a crime, then when the doctor declres them sane and metally able to care for themselves, they should serve their sentence in a prison.
Yep, if a person isn't considered safe enough to own/operate a firearm, then why are they safe enough to have access to knives, cars, fire, the general population?
what I meant by my statement whipper, is that when a criminal has paid their entire debt to society, then they get all their rights back. if you do not want criminals to have firearms legally, then keep them in prison, or keep them on parole for life.
But losing some of your Rights when you commit a serious crime is part of that debt owed to society. In other words, you never fully pay that debt.
I don't have a problem with there being a process with which felons can apply to get their Rights reinstated, and a decision will be reached through due process of law. But to just give them their Rights back as soon as they walk out of the Prison doors? Nah.... I can't get behind that thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
