Should EVERYONE have the right to keep and bear arms?

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by 10MM-N-ODGREEN, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. 10MM-N-ODGREEN

    10MM-N-ODGREEN New Member

    11
    0
    Since the 2nd amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed why do we as Americans allow our federal government to influence our state governments into passing such ludicrous and useless laws further taxing us in the interest of "make work programs" such as CCW permits. Can anyone here honestly say that CCW permit makes you a more responsible gun owner? That's like saying a dog permit makes your dog safer. It is my belief that all persons should have access to firearms including felons not that they don't already have access to them that is of course how many of them became felons to begin with but sadly I still trust a felon more than my own government. At least I know where he stands and usually is not a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am a bit of a hypocrite as I do own a CCW and carry concealed every day but I do hate paying the tax every 5 years.
     
  2. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Sponsor Lifetime Supporting Member


  3. bhale187

    bhale187 New Member Supporter

    'Should EVERYONE have the right to keep and bear arms?'

    If you are not incarcerated, and you are a citizen of the USA....yes
     
  4. mike_honcho87

    mike_honcho87 New Member

    314
    0
    There are so many types of felonies. Some violent...some not. If someone committed a violent crime, why should let em have a gun?

    But what about a non violent felon?

    When the economy fell out, a cousin of mine couldn't stand the thought of losing everything he had. He wouldn't tell the bank where he kept his camper and got in trouble (felony charges). Am I saying that it wasn't wrong? Not at all, but why should he be punished by not being able to own a firearm the rest of his life.
     
  5. absolutely..... look at my signature! lol :D
     
  6. mike_honcho87

    mike_honcho87 New Member

    314
    0
    Amen!!!!!!
     
  7. cmiddleton

    cmiddleton New Member

    83
    0
    I agree that it depends on the felony. Law tends to be black and white. If some of us accidentally cross a state line, we are the newest felons.

    The bigger problem is those with mental defects. The VA tech guy is one. The idiot who shot The AZ congresswoman. Both had history of mental defects. I don't want these types having guns.

    How do we stop it?

    In the days of our forefathers, we didn't have all these mental ailments. There was not time to let people malinger with made up BS conditions like depression, bipolar, fibromyalgia.

    They tended crops or they starved along with their families. They chopped wood or they froze. It didn't matter if their " inner child" was melancholy that day.

    Now that our species has been politically correct enough to potentate the problem we have to deal with it.

    I recently underwent a Permit process for my concealed license. Part of the process is a check of medical records from the county hospitals.

    I had to pay a combined 22 bucks to two hospitals I have never been to, so they can tell as much to the sheriff.

    You know what, if this keeps guns out of some depressed, schizophrenia sufferers hands, so be it.

    In the days of our forefathers, men had honor. Other than you good people who support our rights, honor is in slim supply. If you transported Thomas Jefferson to present day he would be shocked and saddened and probably fully support background checks too in spite of being appalled that our society has reached a point where we need them in the first place.
     
  8. Happysniper1

    Happysniper1 New Member

    13,460
    6
    I find myself on the fence on this issue....while I agree wholeheartedly with (and in fact endorse and support) the spirit of 2A, I do wish to add "within limits". There should be a disqualifying threshold for the mentally infirm, the substance abusers, and those with a criminal background.

    I agree with the requirements for issuance of CCW permits, but only because it guarantees that the permitee has undergone training not just in shooting but more importantly, on the laws affecting and regulating the possession of firearms and the use of deadly force. As a FA instructor and CCW instructor, I see people in our classes that under normal circumstances would be dangerous physically (because they do not know how to use and handle a handgun safely) and dangerous mentally (because they do not know the legal limits on the use of deadly force).

    I do not agree with the excessively complex process that some states impose (where are you from, CMiddleton?) to get a CCW permit, and part of me wants to say I wish constitutional carry states had some way of ensuring that citizens packing heat also packed the measurable physical capability to deliver a properly aimed shot, the measurable mental agility to know how to handle firearms properly and safely and how to carry concealed in a manner that is not a hazard to themselves or to others (somehow the image of some homy stuffing a gun into his waistband comes to mind) as well as the mental awareness of the responsibility they carry to be in compliance with the law.

    I do not agree at all with mandatory cool-down periods in gun purchases. Thankfully, there is none of this nonsense in Nevada.

    I do not agree with the NICS check fee (which is a disguised and illegal gun tax if there ever was one, see my note below).

    I do not agree with bans on so-called assault weapons, or the requirement of so-and-so many US-made parts in foreign made rifles.

    I do not agree with the so-called "California Drop-Test" which started out as a really helpful way to gauge the inherent safety of any given handgun but has evolved into just another way for the state to collect astronomical fees from gun manufacturers.

    In NV, here is how the NICS check system (Aka the "Brady Check") works: when someone wants to buy a gun from a license dealer (FFL), buyer fills out a form. The dealer calls the NV DPS (Dept of Public Safely, Aka the State Police), and the DPS charges the dealer $25 for each call made into them. The DPS then checks the national database (the actual NICS database) thru a secure network, and it costs the DPS absolutely nothing to do this. While the dealer is on the phone, records are checked: if the buyer's info is flagged, no sale; if the record is clean, proceed with sale; if there is a question or ambiguity, sale is put on hold (sometimes by as much as 24 hours...then dealer calls it in again and is charged another $25 fee). When dealer hangs up the phone, buyer is told if it is a go and proceeds with paying and walks out with the gun. If no-go, buyer is informed of the reason and is encouraged to contact LE to clear it up, but will need to pay the fee again if he tries to buy another gun. Some no-go's are "hold on premises" in which case the dealer stalls the buyer until police arrive to perform (usually) an arrest.

    The DPS accepted responsibility for conducting the NICS checks, as part of their charter as the statewide law enforcement body (hence, no jurisdictional issues within the state). It then decided, in a closed-door session not open to the public nor subject to public debate, scrutiny, or comment, that the fee should be $25, for the DPS to do what is essentially part of their job! This, my friends, fits the definition of illegal taxation. In fact, the DPS (again in memos not open to the public) fought the Nevada Chief's and Sheriff's Association and argued AGAINST waiving the payment for the background check fee for CCW permitees, in order to guarantee an uninterrupted flow of income from each and every potential gun buyer, in spite of the fact that issuing Sheriff's Offices had already conducted a comprehensive background check with the FBI as part of the CCW application process! Thankfully, and largely in part of the NVCSA lobbying with the ATF, the ATF recommended to the DPS to waive the fee for CCW permitees and the DPS compromised by saying the fee waiver should not be retroactive. So NV CCW permitees whose permits were issued after 1 July 2011 are excempted from paying the fee, but are still required to accomplish the background check form, although no call is made to the DPS. When the NV DMV was considering changes to the driver's licensing fee structures, it was thru public debate. When the NV DOT was looking into raising the "road tax" that is part of a movie ticket, it was thru public debate. When the NV Games and Amusements Board was considering changes to the licensing fee structure for casinos versus standalone slot routes (i.e., slot machines in gas stations and groceries, etc), it was thru public debate. The DPS did their thing without public debate, and as such, should not have had the right to charge a fee to do their job, hence it falls under the catergory of an unlawful gun tax.

    Anyway, better stop now before I pop a blood vessel...
     
  9. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    I was part of the "no guns for felons" crowd, but I've recently converted. Anyone who is not currently under state supervision - incarceration or probation/parole in lieu of incarceration - and not adjudicated mentally defective by a proper court should be allowed to carry a firearm. The law of no guns for felons ignores that today's "felonies" are often administrative charges for crimes committed on a computer or with paper and pen.

    With that said, I've got no problem with violent criminals being sentenced to a lifetime of state supervision for any assault or battery that would rise to the level of a felony today.
     
  10. Hamster

    Hamster New Member

    147
    0
    I'm gonna have to go with that answer as well.
     
  11. Everyone should be allowed to own a gun, period. The ONLY exception being mental illness where there is a HISTORY of violence leading to injury.

    Nuff said.
     
  12. teksid

    teksid Well-Known Member

    I feel if they're not in prison they should be allowed to own a gun.The only exceptions are the mentally unstable.
     
  13. mike_honcho87

    mike_honcho87 New Member

    314
    0
    There's many ways to look at this. Example: A man robs a store and shoots the clerk. Let's say he gets out after 30 years (I don't how long this sentence would be. Just putting it out there). Did he learn his lesson? Who knows? How do you know that he won't guy right out, buy a gun and do it again? You don't.

    IMO persons who were convicted of violent crimes shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I also believe the word "felon" shouldn't be the deciding factor in who does and doesn't own a gun.

    Will the way I see things be the same as everyone else sees it? Doubtful. That's just how I look at it.
     
  14. bhale187

    bhale187 New Member Supporter

    There's nothing civilized or humane about punishing people for what they might do. If you've commited a crime and served your time, regardless of the crime, you should have EVERY right granted to everyother citizen.

    If the person is still a threat to the public they are going to be that same threat with or without a legally purchased firearm. Regardless, taking away someone's civil rights because they might do something in the future is begining to take the steps towards a terrible slippery slope.

    We (the USA) have taken many of these small steps unto that slope, all are 'common sense' gun laws.....licenses to carry a firearm, 1934 FFA, 1938 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1972 forming BATF, 1994 AWB, 1998 Brady......common sense gun laws are not based on common sense, they are based on passing as much restriction as the public will currently accept. All of these common sense gun laws are supposed to offer some type of protection for the public based on the idea that someone might do something wrong in the future.
     
  15. mike_honcho87

    mike_honcho87 New Member

    314
    0
    I can see where you're coming from.

    Would a rapist be considered as having a mental instability? What about someone starts hurting people out of rage? Both can be considered a mental instability. No they haven't been committed to a mental institution, but it's still a problem in their head.
     
  16. mike_honcho87

    mike_honcho87 New Member

    314
    0
    I'm not meaning to sound like an a**
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
  17. c1328chase

    c1328chase Member

    165
    0
    Fibromyalgia is a common syndrome in which a person has long-term, body-wide pain and tenderness in the joints, muscles, tendons, and other soft tissues. Fibromyalgia has also been linked to fatigue, sleep problems, headaches,... What part of that is a mental ailment? Manic depressive/bipolar is made up? That's like saying PTSD is not real. Just because it's not just called shell shock anymore doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    By hearing your account of honor and lack of crime and criminals it sounds like you learned your American history from a 4th grade history book.

    Mental retardation is not someone deciding to let free their inner child one day based on how they feel. That post is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard especially from a member of a community I expect to be intelligent, articulate, and understand the world in the way it really is.
     
  18. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    Bull****. A criminal with his bare hands is an immediate threat to anyone within the range of his fists, about 5 feet from his center of mass at any given time. A criminal with a baseball bat is an immediate threat to anyone within the range of that bat, maybe 8 feet from his center of mass at any given time. A criminal with a gun is an immediate threat to anyone within a 1 to >5 mile bubble, depending on how far that bullet can travel and still injure someone. The threat to the public isn't even close to the same with and without a gun.

    Agreed, but irrelevant. We're talking about suspending civil rights as punishment for things they've done in the past, not something they might do in the future.

    You have insisted on operating under the principle that the only place that civil rights can be suspended is inside jail or prison. You've stated (in other threads) that you reject the concepts of parole and probation. Do you reject work release or house arrest? Do you reject prisoner work gangs cleaning up the highway or performing janitorial work in the county courthouse? Do you reject halfway houses?

    It would be pretty hard to take your opinions seriously if you would dismantle nearly all rehabilitative measures outside prison walls. I reject the idea that a person walking out of prison should be presumed to be capable of immediately re-entering society with no strings attached. I believe that idea ignores all sorts of data on recidivism and the effectiveness of the programs in question compared to simple incarceration.

    You seem to look at parole and probation as a suspension of civil rights. They aren't. They are offered in lieu of incarceration, and are thus a revocable privilege.
     
  19. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    Agreed. People suffering from these conditions in the 18th century would have been referred to as feeble minded, crippled, or lame at best, criminals or witches at worst. These conditions existed back then. The fact that we have a better understanding of these conditions today doesn't mean they were non-existent yesterday.
     
  20. bhale187

    bhale187 New Member Supporter

    All of which are your opinion, and you are welcome to them.

    My opinion remains that the second amendment, and the entire bill of rights for that matter cannot be suspended for any reason aside from imprisonment.

    It is also still my opinion that a firearm does not make a man dangerous to the public, only his mind can do that. Being killed by a knife doesn't make a victim any less dead than the victim killed by a bullet. If a man has proven unable to live in society without threatening the rest of society he should not be released from prison. Releasing someone who is a threat to society, but taking away their right to own a gun is akin to putting a bandaid on severed arm.