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.
Have we passed a single law that has kept heroine, meth or cocaine out of the hands of drug addicts?
Maybe not but I bet we have a lot less drug addicts now than we would have if all said drugs were legal and available for purchase at the nearest corner store.
The goal is not to prevent all drug addiction/gun violence, because that is impossible. The goal is to reduce it effectively while keeping our rights in tact.
Even the founders supported keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceablecitizens from keeping their own arms … ” — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Felons are not "peaceable" citizens, and depending on the degree and severity of a mental condition, neither are the mentally ill.
Do you think that felons can become peaceable citizens?
Do you think that removal of 2a rights should depend on the felony, rather than the fact that it is a felony?
.... but that's not a reason to scrap the entire program. We as 2A advocates say that we would only support laws that would actually work, now do we really mean that or is it just more rhetoric? A law mandating the seizure of guns from newly convicted felons is fine with me and has the potential to do some good.
Scrap it? No. But should 9 officers shop up at 8pm and force their way in? Why can't someone call the people and ask them to turn them in IF they are on the list for a valid reason? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Maybe not but I bet we have a lot less drug addicts now than we would have if all said drugs were legal and available for purchase at the nearest corner store.
The goal is not to prevent all drug addiction/gun violence, because that is impossible. The goal is to reduce it effectively while keeping our rights in tact.
How are federal laws banning drugs different from federal laws banning alcohol? Before 1919, the federal government had no power to ban alcohol. After January 16 of that year, they had the power. In 1933, the power to ban alcohol was removed from the feds.
Why didn't the federal government follow this same process for drugs? Or better yet, just leave it to the states to pass the laws. There is no federal murder law but every state has their own law covering murder.
Do you think that felons can become peaceable citizens?
Do you think that removal of 2a rights should depend on the felony, rather than the fact that it is a felony?
Absolutely I'd go along with that. In my opinion, once a felon has served his/her time, they have repaid their debt to society and their Rights should be restored, depending on what type of a crime was committed. I don't think violent offenders should ever have their 2A Rights restored. Lets say someone goes away for something like embezzlement or something similar.... There is no reason that they shuoldn't be permitted once again to own a firearm after they have shown a consistent pattern of being on the right track and completing their probation etc.
That is a complicated issue though, but yes, I agree that the "one size fits all" classification of a felon is flawed and unjust.
Scrap it? No. But should 9 officers shop up at 8pm
and force their way in?
I don't know, maybe. What did he person do? Were they convicted of a violent crime? Do they have a history of being aggressive with authorities? In that case, yes. That would be one hellova dangerous job, one I sure wouldn't want.
Quote:
Why can't someone call the people and ask them to turn them in IF they are on
the list for a valid reason?
I don't see any reason why not..... This may well be a problem with the law that needs worked out. Although a call would tip the felon off to hide the guns or move them somewhere else.
Quote:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty
Once you've been convicted of a felony, and it has been proven you have firearms in your possession, you are already proven guilty. A warrant should be issued and the firearms seized
Felons are not "peaceable" citizens, and depending on the degree and severity of a mental condition, neither are the mentally ill.
Actually they are. I have a friend that committed a white collar crime right out of college. In the last 20 years, she has been a model citizen but that one blemish prevents her from owning a gun and protecting her two girls.
I have always stated that if someone is allowed to walk free among the rest of the citizens then their full rights should be restored. If you say that someone has served their time but they can't own a gun, vote, go near 100 feet of a school, etc. then why let them loose?
Actually they are. I have a friend that committed a white collar crime right out of college. In the last 20 years, she has been a model citizen but that one blemish prevents her from owning a gun and protecting her two girls.
I have always stated that if someone is allowed to walk free among the rest of the citizens then their full rights should be restored. If you say that someone has served their time but they can't own a gun, vote, go near 100 feet of a school, etc. then why let them loose?
Let me clarify..... "violent" felons are not peaceable citizens. I said in another post that a white collar criminal should have their rights restored after they have served their time and have met a special set of standards that proves they are reformed.
There aren't any one size fits all solutions to these types of problems.
Let's talk about mental illness again for a moment.
Someone who has a mental illness isn't committed a crime is having a constitutional right removed. In California, for example, if you check yourself in for mental distress, you lose your second amendment right for a period of 5 years but have committed no crime.
Let's talk about mental illness again for a moment.
Someone who has a mental illness isn't committed a crime is having a constitutional right removed. In California, for example, if you check yourself in for mental distress, you lose your second amendment right for a period of 5 years but have committed no crime.
future crime?
As far as mental illness goes, it's an extremely complicated issue, one that I am not qualified to speak about. As I said in an earlier post, that is best left up to the professionals. People suffering from paranoia, delusions, hallucinations, etc, or people who are disconnected with reality shouldn't own a gun for what should be obvious reasons.
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.
