Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In a gesture of goodwill, Southwest named a row of seats after her.

Is it hand cranked?

People make mistakes: it's called life. What's with the sweeping judgments? If only there was someone on BODN who has also sent an "email heard 'round the world."... A moderator, perhaps... Who fl

Posted Images

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I’ve read all your posts and I think I understand your viewpoint excepting the above and similar statements.  What are you talking about?  The AWB of 94-04 (I think those were the years) never made ARs illegal.  In fact, this entire Vegas massacre could have been prosecuted with the same ARs available for purchase during the AWB era, as the ban was cosmetic, not functional.  The sole piece of hardware banned during that period but used in this attack was “high capacity” magazines; under the AWB era mags were limited to 10.  However, mags produced before the ban date were grandfathered in and readily available for purchase.

And that’s really key to your debate: the previous ban would not have stopped this attack, just like it didn’t stop Columbine.  Crazy people kill.  Nothing you’ve suggested would stop this incident, other than magazine capacity restrictions.  However then we’re left facing the fact that law breakers don’t follow laws.... so, your inability to justify high capacity magazines wouldn’t stop this guy from using them.  Given the level of lucidity he showed during attack prep & execution, in addition to financial resources, this guy seems like he could make his own magazines.  Yes that’s a real thing.

I’m solidly on the side of maintaining gun rights as they exist; I’d even repeal the NFA.  But for arguments sake let’s say you banned all semi-autos.  Do you think we’d not have shootings still?  The US is not Australia (to cite a commonly held comparison): were already flooded with weapons, have easy borders to cross, have a culture of gun ownership, etc.  Mexican cartels move cocaine shipments protected by full auto weapons, do you think they aren’t business savvy enough to start moving weapons instead?  Where I’m going is this: there is no putting the gun genie back in the bottle here.  It’s impossible.  There is no law which can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening when an intelligent and rich and insane person sets his mind to doing it.

if the gun control lobby wants to find a middle ground and work together, I’m happy to discuss potential legislation on mental health issues.  That they are laser focused on restricting the 2A, despite years of data disproving a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime, tells me they’re uninterested in “solving” the mass shooting issue, and instead shamelessly using these tragedies to advance their partisan agenda.  I get your point- we gun owners should brace ourselves for inevitable forthcoming bans and be prepared to question the necessity of every weapon and weapon add on.  I get it, but I reject your entire premise.  What law would have stopped this crime?  The same laws that stopped Nice & Paris attacks in France?  The laws that stopped the Utoya massacre in Norway?  The laws that keep Mexico so safe?  I reject the notion of gun-violence, it’s just violence.  What fixes violence?  Culture.  

I took the time to type this out because I think your original questions were well intended, and demanded a reasoned reply.  Hope you found something in here we can agree upon.

Well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

 

Go for it.  While you're at it, let's fix the anchor baby and term limits issues. 

I am not advocating that we change the 2A, my point that while as written it is not negotiable (unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise in the interest of public safety or some such...such as random stops for DUI checks) only that the Constitution and the amendments are amendable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, gearpig said:

Those three snarky posts were intended to mock the earlier absurdly simplistic immovable conviction that any restriction or limitation on any type of weapon, firearm, or accessory is an infringement on a constitutional right. I don't want just anybody walking into a gun show to purchase an M249 unchecked. Hell, I'd like to own one myself but I fully expect to throughly vetted to meet some sort of minimum standard other than simply existing before walking out the door with one. Likewise, I don't believe bump fire stocks designed to circumvent laws preventing just anyone from owning a firearm with an absurdly high rate of fire should be plucked off the rack at any retail store.

From a negotiating position, I understand the "all or nothing" and "slippery slope" and tactics of debate. Because if I get you to admit that a line must be drawn somewhere in an attempt to find a better balance between safety from violent citizens today and safety from tyranny tomorrow, then the debate becomes much more complex and difficult over exactly where to draw it. That's why few will attempt a sincere answer to my first question. A "no compromises, no concessions" position is an intellectually lazy bullshit approach to governing a civilized society. I support and defend the Constitution not because I have an unquestioning quasi-religious zealotry unto it as if it were a holy manuscript written and mandated by God, but because it was created by a room full of citizens who endlessly debated and quarreled over it until they reached middle-ground, and then realizing that it was not perfect or beyond reproach until the end of time, gave provisions for it to be improved upon. 

No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law? But it is the position of many here that laws don't impede law breakers and this guy could have whittled one out of table leg, it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all, right? Absurd.

So what are some reasonable compromises the right might take? Close the gunshow loophole? Outlaw makeshift devices that increase fire rate? I'm just trying to take the temperature here, not saying anyone is right or wrong.

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. Of course, you're firing from the hip and you have virtually zero control. Just a thought.

Edited by GDAL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tac and Moose,

You get my point exactly. Truth is, I haven't yet decided what I think should happen as a result of this, and other shootings. But that's not the point I'm making.

Something is going to happen. I know the stats. I know the reality. I own many of the same guns decried by the uninformed, and I enjoy them greatly. I know how easily they can be changed, regardless of the law. But the same people here (and in most conservative circles) who decry the lunacy of the masses are acting as though they are not beholden to their will. We all are. And if we don't start acting like it, we're going to lose the battle over the 2nd Amendment. 

They can take our guns. They can, and with enough support, they will. You guys keep throwing the constitution in my face as though the people who actually want to take your guns give one flying fuck about it. And the simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of you are not going to die for the right to own an AR-15, or a 30 round magazine, or collapsible stocks. You're not going to go to prison over it. You might write a sternly worded email to your congressman, but the ones who want to take our guns will just use your email and the constitution as a piece of two-ply while they do the real work of convincing the voters with lies and scare tactics. 

Do you think they're going to just pass a law banning guns? They aren't going to make it that easy on you. They'll pass some watered down piece of garbage legislation that doesn't solve anything and only affects a minority of gun owners. Unenforceable, but it will get people used to the idea that some guns are bad guns. Then, after a few more shootings, the laws will be "fixed" to give them some teeth. Over the years, and I'm talking 20-30 years, more barriers to entry will be constructed, until there's a generational gap in gun ownership and use. Your kids will think you're the crazy old guy who can't get with the times. Then, it's gone, with no battle, no righteous victory. Slow, patient change. Don't believe me? This is exactly the strategy with socialized healthcare. Conservatives are playing fiddlesticks while the progressives are playing 4D chess. They don't care if you hide your guns in the backyard, they'll just convince your heirs to not want them when you die.

Gun owners, NRA included, do a terrible job of fighting the battle. They want to believe they'll all take up arms if the suits come knocking, but if it doesn't come to that, they're happy to sit smugly and wait. Nonsense. Income taxes, healthcare, property rights, welfare benefits, there are plenty of examples where these changes took decades, but they happened. If we (yes, we) want to protect the 2nd Amendment, it's going to take more dedication than they have to ending it. 

And most importantly, it's going to take a better message than "price of freedom" when someone loses their loved ones in a mass shooting. 59 people died, yet somehow I have at least a dozen people on my Facebook feed talking about how they knew someone 1st or 2nd hand who was a victim. I bet many of you do too. These people are looking for answers, and the gun-control side has them. Wrong answers, sure, but I would have thought by now, after the Republican primaries of 2016, that conservatives have learned a bad or incomplete answer always Trumps no answer at all. 

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, gearpig said:

A "no compromises, no concessions" position is an intellectually lazy bullshit approach to governing a civilized society. I support and defend the Constitution not because I have an unquestioning quasi-religious zealotry unto it as if it were a holy manuscript written and mandated by God, but because it was created by a room full of citizens who endlessly debated and quarreled over it until they reached middle-ground, and then realizing that it was not perfect or beyond reproach until the end of time, gave provisions for it to be improved upon

No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law? But it is the position of many here that laws don't impede law breakers and this guy could have whittled one out of table leg, it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all, right? Absurd.

This. Someone is going to "improve" upon it. It can be the gun owners, or it can be the gun haters. If we refuse to engage in the debate, we concede our control in whatever "improvements" follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So what are some reasonable compromises the right might take? Close the gunshow loophole? Outlaw makeshift devices that increase fire rate? I'm just trying to take the temperature here, not saying anyone is right or wrong.

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. Of course, you're firing from the hip and you have virtually zero control. Just a thought.

I don't know yet. I've been a bit too distracted with admin stuff to sit down and really think about it. But my first thought was, why do we allow removable magazines? Lets say we didn't even change capacity. Why can't I take the time to load 30 rounds into my fixed-magazine AR-15 at the range? What enjoyment do I lose? Does it make the AR-15 less fun? Yeah, a bit. How much? Does it make it less lethal? You bet. How much?

I would vote to make bump stocks and any other loophole modifications illegal. I agree with auto being (mostly) outlawed. I'm also a big fan of cooling off periods. I have never met someone who needed a gun in the next hour. Wanted, preferred, desired, sure. But needed?  

Look, like I said, I don't know yet. But if I can't explain it to a non-gun-owner, then why do I believe it myself?

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So what are some reasonable compromises the right might take? Close the gunshow loophole? Outlaw makeshift devices that increase fire rate? I'm just trying to take the temperature here, not saying anyone is right or wrong.

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. Of course, you're firing from the hip and you have virtually zero control. Just a thought.

What is this gunshow loophole? Private face to face transactions were not included under Brady. Characterize it as a loophole if you like, but in reality it's perfectly legal under the law as written. 

The real issue that laws are written by politicians who have no clue about "the shoulder thingy that goes up."  How is someone with that level of expertise going to write a law banning bumpfire stocks that doesn't also outlaw belt loops? (No, i'm not being sarcastic).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warrior said:

What is this gunshow loophole? Private face to face transactions were not included under Brady. Characterize it as a loophole if you like, but in reality it's perfectly legal under the law as written. 

The real issue that laws are written by politicians who have no clue about "the shoulder thingy that goes up."  How is someone with that level of expertise going to write a law banning bumpfire stocks that doesn't also outlaw belt loops? (No, i'm not being sarcastic).

Well, that's part of the point I was trying to make. Do any compromises make sense? What legislation will produce any measurable effect beyond the feeling that someone did something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't know yet. I've been a bit too distracted with admin stuff to sit down and really think about it. But my first thought was, why do we allow removable magazines? Lets say we didn't even change capacity. Why can't I take the time to load 30 rounds into my fixed-magazine AR-15 at the range? What enjoyment do I lose? Does it make the AR-15 less fun? Yeah, a bit. How much? Does it make it less lethal? You bet. How much?

I would vote to make bump stocks and any other loophole modifications illegal. I agree with auto being (mostly) outlawed. I'm also a big fan of cooling off periods. I have never met someone who needed a gun in the next hour. Wanted, preferred, desired, sure. But needed?  

Look, like I said, I don't know yet. But if I can't explain it to a non-gun-owner, then why do I believe it myself?

I'll respond to your second paragraph.  Newt Gingrich wants to add bumpfire stocks to the NFA. I'd go for that if they repeal the Hughes amendment or open the registry to allow new registration of post 1986 full auto. 

 

Talking to a Fed LE buddy, I like his idea - get rid of the NFA altogether and add sentence enhancement for using SBR/silencer/full auto/whatever you want to toss in here during the commission of a crime.  It would also be nice if the ATF enforced some of the gun laws already on the books (e.g. charge people when they attempt to illegally buy a gun)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ChkHandleDn said:

Had to be multiple shooters. I just watched this video over and over. There is clearly a second muzzle flash above the automatic fire at the :31 mark.  Maybe it's the conspiracy theory in me but I don't know what else it could  be  

https://mobile.twitter.com/TIME/status/914847463424507904/video/1

Another hotel guest hiding out in their room (lights off) taking a photo of the madness maybe? The iPhone camera has a light sensor and the automatic mode will enable the flash if it's dark enough -- maybe the person didn't realize they hadn't disabled the flash/auto mode (since that would make for useless photo with the flash reflecting off the window). That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mb1685 said:

Another hotel guest hiding out in their room (lights off) taking a photo of the madness maybe? The iPhone camera has a light sensor and the automatic mode will enable the flash if it's dark enough -- maybe the person didn't realize they hadn't disabled the flash/auto mode (since that would make for useless photo with the flash reflecting off the window). That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Yes, but the flash in the video looks strikingly similar to the muzzle flash below and orangeish. Not white like cameras. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gearpig said:

No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law? But it is the position of many here that laws don't impede law breakers and this guy could have whittled one out of table leg, it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all, right? Absurd.

Good discussion gents.  Too much for me to unpack on a normal work day, so here's just a few responses over lunch.  Gearpig I wouldn't bother fighting a law to restrict or ban bump fire stocks.  However, would such a law have prevented this event?  As mentioned below, bump fire is not a difficult effect to replicate even without a specialized stock.  The shooter doesn't have to "whittle one out of a table leg" and even if he did, apparently he was fastidious enough in planning that he might have done so.  So ok, we ban bump fire stocks.  Since this was the first high profile shooting to utilize one, do you expect said law to diminish the chances of another mass shooting? 

I just don't see banning stuff as a way to prevent a determined mass killer.  But I don't care enough about bump-fire to object their banning.  Let's just all acknowledge that we're doing it just to do it.  But I do award you 1 fake internet point as promised, for your well thought out reply!

35 minutes ago, GDAL said:

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. 

Concur.  And a psycho who wants to make their own facsimile of a bump fire stock could do so without much effort.  A big problem gun owners face in these discussions is how many folks have opinions without knowledge.

35 minutes ago, FighterHopeful12345 said:

Sport shooters who enjoy the act of shooting guns. They utilize weapons for the enjoyment of the act of shooting them. They likely own a variety of types weapons.

What benefit does a bump-fire/high capacity magazine give this user? Enjoyment from the physical act of firing a fully automatic weapon. A feeling of power from the knowledge that they have that capability.

Hunters/Sportsmen: They utilize weapons as a means to harvest game. 

Survivalists: I would argue that a reliable semi-auto shotgun is far more effective and practically lethal in a home invasion scenario.....

my suggestion is to restrict the sale of bump-fires and limit magazine capacity to 10. Make future production and sale illegal but do not implement a confiscation. Allow all previously produced products to be “grandfathered” in. The previously manufactured magazines will continue to be in the market for a time but it will make it harder for those who wish to do harm to get their hands on them. 

"propose a law change that could prevent a wealthy and thoughtful person from committing a mass casualty event."

There will never be an all-encompassing law that would forever prevent something like this. What makes America great is that a determined, thoughtful person has the capability to do anything: good or, unfortunately, evil. This man was clearly intelligent, had resources, and had the determination to do what he set out to do. Unfortunately, for the 59 that were killed and the thousands directly and indirectly affected by this, he set out to do something truly evil.

Interesting reply, thanks.  I have more spears to throw than time to throw them, but a couple things stand out: 

First, I reject your 4 categories.  Not only are there more than 4 types of people who own guns, but many folks fit more than one profile yet want one gun that works for multiple scenarios.  Here's another category you entirely forgot- good guys who require weapons proficiency for their job and buy a gun to practice on their own.  There's a lot of mil & LE folks who fit that description.  I've shot many times with small town SWAT who don't have an official budget for the quantity of ammo required to actually be good.  Lot's of LE are optioned to purchase their own weapons, and funny enough many of them were directly affected by the AWB we previously discussed.  Wrap your mind around the reality that many firearm restrictions affect police.  And a lot of military folks buy ARs because shooting for qual every other year just isn't enough to make them comfortable walking around with one on a FOB.  No gun laws that I know of make accommodations for these people; it's not a trivial point.

Second, your idea that "a reliable semi-auto shotgun is far more effective and practically lethal in a home invasion scenario" I have to ask, no disrespect intended, what exactly is your background?  Are you making this argument because it seems logical, or are you an actual firearms expert?  Because that is the opposite advice I would give, and the opposite I've received from any class (I've attended several) or any expert.  Do you think my wife is comfortable using an 18" barrel shotgun inside a home?  What about old people, think they'll stay on target after more than 1 shot?  Think they'll hit the target with the first shot?  Think it's easy to maneuver in a house with a giant ass shotgun?  I frankly think a short barreled pistol caliber carbine is the best tool for most users in that scenario, but prior to this new brace fad a short barreled anything was NFA.

Third, it's noteworthy you admit there is no law to prevent a diabolical, committed and well funded dude from perpetrating a mass casualty attack.... right after you call for restricting magazine capacity to 10.  So, to be clear, mag restrictions wouldn't stop this but we should do it anyway?  Did those restrictions (in place at the time) prevent the Columbine massacre?   Are those restrictions (in place currently) preventing regular mass shootings in Chicago?  So if that proposed law hasn't worked in the past, isn't working currently, and wouldn't stop a similar psycho in the future..... why should we do it?  Where did you get the number 10?  Where's your proof it'll make a difference?

I care because mil/LE all do not accept those magazine restrictions.  No one I know who has been in a gunfight ever wanted smaller mags.  Your arbitrary numerical restriction without any evidence of achieving desired effects is exactly the kind of knee-jerk nonsense that erodes freedom without increasing security.  Finally, as for your comment about Robert O'Niell not using FA..... think through that one a bit.  Those guys definitely use FA if the situation warrants: break contact, cover, etc.  Sneaking into someones house, with all your heavily armed friends, with a massive support package overhead, and targeting a small number of enemy.... yea, I get it, he didn't use FA.  I'm not sure his niche experience is directly relevant to this discussion except for one part: he used "high" capacity mags on every mission.  

24 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And most importantly, it's going to take a better message than "price of freedom" when someone loses their loved ones in a mass shooting..... These people are looking for answers, and the gun-control side has them. 

I agree we need better answers (I don't have them), and I agree that seemingly quick-fix bans by the gun control crowd are enticing to the uninformed. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't know yet. I've been a bit too distracted with admin stuff to sit down and really think about it. But my first thought was, why do we allow removable magazines? Lets say we didn't even change capacity. Why can't I take the time to load 30 rounds into my fixed-magazine AR-15 at the range? What enjoyment do I lose? Does it make the AR-15 less fun? Yeah, a bit. How much? Does it make it less lethal? You bet. How much?

I would vote to make bump stocks and any other loophole modifications illegal. I agree with auto being (mostly) outlawed. I'm also a big fan of cooling off periods. I have never met someone who needed a gun in the next hour. Wanted, preferred, desired, sure. But needed?  

Look, like I said, I don't know yet. But if I can't explain it to a non-gun-owner, then why do I believe it myself?

Einstein said "if you can't explain it to a 6 year old you don't understand it yourself."  So I applaud your questioning mind and your self-awareness.  However, other than bump-fire, which of your suggested law changes would have prevented this massacre?  Fixed magazines?  The guys had 40 guns in his room, and was rotating them for cooling.   Pre-purchase cooling off periods?  Reports are that he began purchasing weapons months in advance.   As I said earlier, looking for the right thing to ban is not, in my opinion, the right approach to prevent a future recurrence of something so anomalous.  What would?  Well I can't say until the investigation ascertains his motive.  But I'm comfortable saying we should seek legislative mechanisms to address mental health problems.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the discussion about "answers", remember to play chess and not checkers.

The RKBA is a philosophical argument, not a policy argument.  Gun control folks want to argue policy, and want to do it with absolutely no proof of efficacy of any of it.

So, first, make sure you understand the philosophical foundation of why the right to keep and bear arms exists, and why it is protected in the Bill of Rights.  Understand that it is rooted in the right to life, and the logical derivation of the right to self defense to protect life and property under assault.

Understand further what the philosophical purpose of government is.  Philosophy determines the purpose of government, and in a free liberal democracy the purpose of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property.  Remember that people have rights and governments have powers that are granted to them by the people.  It isn't the government's purpose to take care of people like a parent.

Remember that living in a free society means that individuals are free to think, do, say, and possess whatever they please so long as it does not infringe on the natural, constitutional, or derived civil rights of other humans.  Again, it isn't the purpose of government to tell us what we can and cannot do outside their basic charter.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gearpig said:

Is there any circumstance in which our society, through it's elected representatives and their laws, should deny the right of anyone to purchase or possess any type of firearm?

There's a large body of clear philosophy and federal caselaw that covers this, if you care to study it.

The discussion on the RKBA in the Federalist Papers (and SCOTUS case law in Miller, Heller, and McDonald) does limit the scope of its protection to essentially arms that can be borne and used by a single individual (vs a team or crew).  US v Miller states that the 2A only protects arms that have reasonable relation to use in a militia.  DC v Heller stipulates that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are within the scope of government power.

That being said, can you show me that part in the Constitution where it says the conditions under which the government is allowed to deny people their natural, enumerated, and civil rights?

Maybe you can show me that part in any of the Federalist Papers where the founders discuss that?  Or any of the philosophical works that the Founders were influenced by?

So, I don't personally see the philosophical or legal backstop to the restrictions that are given a pass in Heller.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gearpig said:

 No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law?

Absurd, to use your words.

A completely arbitrary restriction on a core Constitutionally-protected right because you *think* it should be...not because of any philosophical or legal underpinning of why, and proposed without a shred of evidence as to efficacy or specific purpose.

The entire point of Constitutional protection is to put the burden of proof on the proposer of new restrictions to show specifically why those restrictions should be allowed, including proving that philosophical and legal validation and  as well as efficacy of the proposal...because you don't just curb rights "to see if it works".  The status quo doesn't have to defend itself.

So, for anyone making these proposals, start off your discussion by making these points, rather than making the statement and demanding that others prove "why not".

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, gearpig said:

I'll ask again.

Is there any circumstance in which our society, through it's elected representatives and their laws, should deny the right of anyone to purchase or possess any type of firearm?

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

There's a big movement to restore felons' constitutional rights, at least as far as it relates to voting. And both voting and firearms are guaranteed by an amendment, but the voting one is a lot more strictly limited. The Second just says that the right "shall not be infringed."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

One of the philosophical underpinnings of the justice system is that convicted criminals serve their debt to society by “doing time”.

Thus, they should be entitled to all the rights of a citizen once they have completed that debt to society.

We only have one class of citizens in the United States: there are no “super citizens” who are entitled to special rights, nor are there “sub citizens” who aren’t entitled to all of the rights of a citizen.

Let’s remember that the Constitution affirms that rights aren’t granted by the government, they exist outside the existence of government.  Protections in the Bill of Rights don’t grant anything to citizens, the Amendments are restrictions on government violation of existing individual rights.

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GDAL said:

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

Close - I'd substitute the word restored for retained. If they're too dangerous to own guns then they're too dangerous to be on the street.  Conversely, if they've paid their debt to society/been rehabilitated then their rights should be restored. 

 

edit: Hacker said pretty much the same thing.  So I'll also add that there should be enhanced sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with firearms if "we have to do something!" That serves the purpose of keeping those convicted off the streets.  It shouldn't be a crime to merely possess a gun with a barrel shorter than an arbitrary 16" *rifle* or 18" *shotgun*. 

 

Edited by Warrior
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hacker said:

 

We only have one class of citizens in the United States: there are no “super citizens” who are entitled to special rights, nor are there “sub citizens” who aren’t entitled to all of the rights of a citizen.

 

I agree with everything but this, if you or I stored classified information on a server in the basement, we would be in jail.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...