Man Kills Officer During No Knock Search Warrant-Charged With Murder

[shortz]

I actually don't believe that restricting a felons access to a firearm is constitutional.

After your debt is paid its paid. The government shouldn't be able to restrict your access to defense because you made a mistake that you paid for.

I want to know where the second amendment says "unless you committed a crime at any point in your life"

Or at least those involved in non-violent crime situations. For instance, a man beats the shit out of his wife for years doesn't deserve the ability to own a firearm. Someone busted for weed or aas etc should be allowdd

 

[69nites]

Or at least those involved in non-violent crime situations. For instance, a man beats the shit out of his wife for years doesn't deserve the ability to own a firearm. Someone busted for weed or aas etc should be allowdd

I don't really like that either.

There are crimes that are classified as violent that I'm not down with restricting someone's rights over. Destruction of property is a good example.

You say it's okay for violent crimes and they classify yelling at someone as a violent crime.

Even in the case of the man beating his wife. Let's say he had firearms in the residence this entire time but never used them. Let's say his wife had been cheating on him and whenever he confronted her she decided to hit him and he reciprocated. She calls the cops and he's arrested.

This man deserves to lose his gun rights for life?

You can't draw that line. Put proper punishments in place for the crimes. After your punishment is complete you're a citizen with full rights again.

 

[shortz]

I don't really like that either.

There are crimes that are classified as violent that I'm not down with restricting someone's rights over. Destruction of property is a good example.

You say it's okay for violent crimes and they classify yelling at someone as a violent crime.

Even in the case of the man beating his wife. Let's say he had firearms in the residence this entire time but never used them. Let's say his wife had been cheating on him and whenever he confronted her she decided to hit him and he reciprocated. She calls the cops and he's arrested.

This man deserves to lose his gun rights for life?

You can't draw that line. Put proper punishments in place for the crimes. After your punishment is complete you're a citizen with full rights again.

Thats why I specified a circumstance, so that something as ridiculous as simply yelling wouldn't be applied here. THere are many, many circumstances where someone with repeated violent actions should NOT be able to own a gun though. Remember the guy that shot up the military base? He had quite a record. He pulled a gun and shot someone tires out, and threatened others with it etc. I am sorry, but even as conservative and as much of a constitutionalist that I am, I could not agree that a person like that should be in possession of a firearm.

 

[69nites]

Thats why I specified a circumstance, so that something as ridiculous as simply yelling wouldn't be applied here. THere are many, many circumstances where someone with repeated violent actions should NOT be able to own a gun though. Remember the guy that shot up the military base? He had quite a record. He pulled a gun and shot someone tires out, and threatened others with it etc. I am sorry, but even as conservative and as much of a constitutionalist that I am, I could not agree that a person like that should be in possession of a firearm.

The problem is you don't define these things specifically in the laws. Sort of like terrorist activity. Now just about anything you do is a terrorist act.

I don't like open loopholes. I don't like giving the government any more power than absolutely necessary.

What you described is unlawful use of a firearm. You know what happens when you make that something that can remove your gun rights?

Close to me a man in his 70s was being attacked by a racoon in his back yard, he shoots at it with his .22 it runs off.

He is stripped of his rights for unlawful discharge of a firearm.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[N.O.V.]

Well said. The punishment should fit the crime.. it's hard to enforce laws without knowing the circumstance under which it occurred. So they basically said "**** it, we'll take the easy way out and put everyone in the same boat," instead of breaking the laws apart individually and classifying specific crimes and situations as grounds to revoke someone's right to possess firearms.

 

[NavyChief]

I actually don't believe that restricting a felons access to a firearm is constitutional.

After your debt is paid its paid. The government shouldn't be able to restrict your access to defense because you made a mistake that you paid for.

I want to know where the second amendment says "unless you committed a crime at any point in your life"

I am discussing and debating this very issue this past week in my law class. The constitution says to "keep AND to bear arms". We are discussing if that and also keeping a felon from voting are both unconstitutional. Your right, it amounts to double jeopardy to be punished again after you have served your term or paid your dues.