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.
Those who are pushing for gun legislation want a system of verification of gun purchases that can ultimately bar certain citizens from obtaining a firearm. However, what is it about a felon owning a gun questionable? Are all felons violent? Being an ex convict doesn't indicate mental capacity. Are you of the opinion that those who are felons aren't worthy of protection?
I think if you served your time, to deny them a gun right is to punish them a second time. If they are not suitable to have a gun then they are not suitable to be free in society. If they can't own a gun then they should not be walking around free.
Those who are pushing for gun legislation want a system of verification of gun purchases that can ultimately bar certain citizens from obtaining a firearm. However, what is it about a felon owning a gun questionable? Are all felons violent? Being an ex convict doesn't indicate mental capacity. Are you of the opinion that those who are felons aren't worthy of protection?
Those who are pushing for gun legislation want a system of verification of gun purchases that can ultimately bar certain citizens from obtaining a firearm. However, what is it about a felon owning a gun questionable? Are all felons violent? Being an ex convict doesn't indicate mental capacity. Are you of the opinion that those who are felons aren't worthy of protection?
No inherent right is absolute. As the adage goes, "your rights end at my nose." Those who abuse their rights by harming others are removed from society (put into prison). Why would anyone want to put a tool to harm others in the hands of a known (convicted) rights abuser?
Should we allow convicted arsonists to purchase flamethrowers?
No inherent right is absolute. As the adage goes, "your rights end at my nose." Those who abuse their rights by harming others are removed from society (put into prison). Why would anyone want to put a tool to harm others in the hands of a known (convicted) rights abuser?
Should we allow convicted arsonists to purchase flamethrowers?
Should a felon that committed a non violent fine not be able to protect themselves?
Should Martha Stuart lose her civil rights?
There is a supreme court case that established that it is illegal to require a felon to register their firearm.... So if we did do a gun registry only law abiding citizen's guns would be registered, lol.....
Last year 48,000 cases were referred to ERIC HOLDER and the Department of Justice where felons were busted trying to purchase guns.... They prosecuted 44 of those cases.
I think if you served your time, to deny them a gun right is to punish them a second time. If they are not suitable to have a gun then they are not suitable to be free in society. If they can't own a gun then they should not be walking around free.
If convicted of a felony, part of the punishment includes being prohibited from exercising their right to vote and bear arms, for life. It is not a "second" punishment, it is part of the original punishment for committing a felony.
Should a felon that committed a non violent fine not be able to protect themselves?
Should Martha Stuart lose her civil rights?
Of course they should be able to protect themselves. That is inherent. They will just have to find another tool besides a firearm in which to protect themselves if they are convicted of a felony, and that includes Martha Stuart.
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.