"Felons, mentally ill, etc. should not have guns"

[JadeRaven]

He can kill more people with his car than he can with guns.

Exactly. As much as I don't think the severely mentally ill should have firearms, if they are free citizens you can't disarm them for that. If they aren't a menace to society without a gun, adding a gun into the mix should not change matters. The mentally ill don't need guns to kill people.

And the fact is, most of our mentally ill are in prison already. Sure there are many living in the world among us, but the same can be said for criminals on a much larger scale.

 

[mcinfantry]

I have a friend that is not really mentally ill and has been declared so. So don't say it does not happen. I would not consider him to be unfit to have a firearm.

If you are unable to have a firearm, you should not be allowed to drive a car or even wonder the streets. If you are not locked up, you should not be considered a threat to others or yourself. If you are a threat, you should be locked up somewhere.

He can kill more people with his car than he can with guns.

this is an idiotic discussion. mentally ill do not need to be in prison. plenty of homeless people are not in prison and dont need to own guns.

owen, you are qualified to determine his mental capacity? john wayne gacy appeared normal to those he met (at least the ones he didnt kill)

 

[dantheman]

I see people every day that I know have no business owning a gun . How do you prevent that ? I really have no idea . I guess that's why most of pack . We know
" they " are out there .

 

[Kraut]

If you get convicted of enough DWI's, the state can revoke your license and seize your vehicle even if you don't do the time. What about the same thing pertaining to guns? Violent offenses could result in loss of gun rights, but the shoplifter who happens to break the $300 felony limit doesn't have theirs infringed. Misuse of the right to harm others should result in the loss of the right.

I have an uncle who did time in Angola for his involvement in a homicide. Once out he stayed clean and out of trouble, never arrested again, worked and paid his way, raised his family. I'm OK with his no longer being able to own a gun, that's the price. But should he regain his right to vote? I think so. If he had been convicted of something regarding public corruption and election rigging, upon parole he should be able to own a gun but not vote. I'll admit that I do have some misgivings though, because knowing my uncle turned himself around, should some home-invader break into his house or some whacko try to carjack him, I would want him to be able to properly defend himself. I don't have any misgivings over the vote issue, I know for damn sure he'd never vote for Obama.

We've all heard "the punishment should fit the crime", I happen to think that's the right way to lean when considering these issues.

As for mental deficiency, that's way tougher, especially now when so many people are willing to be mental patients by going on this anti-depressant or that mood-leveler. My niece is autistic, she's not violent or aggressive, goes to school, may one day be able to live away from home in a group or assisted-living setting. Would I ever put a gun in her hand? No way. She can't handle the thought and reasoning to the necessary depth. My step-son has ADHD, is in his 20s now, doesn't medicate. Given the level of judgement he's shown in the past, I never involved him with firearms, yet he does now own one. I have no fear that he'd take it and go out seeking to do harm or wrong with it, but I do think he might be too quick to use it out of a fear reaction or in the midst of the daily "drama" that he can't seem to live his life without, and he finds the worst kind of loser friends/roommates. You know how Hank Hill says "The boy ain't right"? My step-son's not evil or malicious, but the judgement, the decision and reasoning skills, they're just not there.

Those may seem cut-and-dried to some, "Well, no, I'd never give a gun to someone who's autistic" or "Why should ADHD be a problem?" Can you really stick to only those "adjudicated" as incompetent? As far as legal process goes, yes, you have to under the system. I know a manic-depressive who I wouldn't give a gun to, but no court has ever declared her incompetent. To some degree we have to live with the risk in our society that someone who shouldn't have a gun for good reason may be able to get one anyway and will end up misusing it. Some things just can't be foreseen or prohibitted by proactive measures.

Morality? I wouldn't feel morally right if I gave a gun to the above mentioned manic-depressive knowing that about her and she shot a boyfriend or killed herself. I wouldn't feel morally right if she were being stalked and I didn't give her a gun and she ended up being killed. She actually had an ex force his way into her house swinging a hammer and her boyfriend at that time shot at the guy. No easy answer on the moral question.

 

[SimonJester308]

I will not judge whether another person has any business owning a firearm. I can only make that decision for myself, and I need not another mans opinion, permission, or law to have them. I only choose to play by the rules because currently it is the path of least resistance.

 

[owen502]

If you get convicted of enough DWI's, the state can revoke your license and seize your vehicle even if you don't do the time. What about the same thing pertaining to guns?

Driving is a privilege not a inalienable right.

Violent offenses could result in loss of gun rights, but the shoplifter who happens to break the $300 felony limit doesn't have theirs infringed. Misuse of the right to harm others should result in the loss of the right.

Who decides what is violent? Some would say the fact you own a gun makes you a violent person and that any law you break is violent.

I have an uncle who did time in Angola for his involvement in a homicide. Once out he stayed clean and out of trouble, never arrested again, worked and paid his way, raised his family. I'm OK with his no longer being able to own a gun, that's the price. But should he regain his right to vote? I think so. If he had been convicted of something regarding public corruption and election rigging, upon parole he should be able to own a gun but not vote. I'll admit that I do have some misgivings though, because knowing my uncle turned himself around, should some home-invader break into his house or some whacko try to carjack him, I would want him to be able to properly defend himself. I don't have any misgivings over the vote issue, I know for damn sure he'd never vote for Obama.



We've all heard "the punishment should fit the crime", I happen to think that's the right way to lean when considering these issues.

Exactly what I was saying. He did his time, why should he suffer more? If he did not suffer enough, put him back in jail till he has.

As for mental deficiency, that's way tougher, especially now when so many people are willing to be mental patients by going on this anti-depressant or that mood-leveler. My niece is autistic, she's not violent or aggressive, goes to school, may one day be able to live away from home in a group or assisted-living setting. Would I ever put a gun in her hand? No way. She can't handle the thought and reasoning to the necessary depth. My step-son has ADHD, is in his 20s now, doesn't medicate. Given the level of judgement he's shown in the past, I never involved him with firearms, yet he does now own one. I have no fear that he'd take it and go out seeking to do harm or wrong with it, but I do think he might be too quick to use it out of a fear reaction or in the midst of the daily "drama" that he can't seem to live his life without, and he finds the worst kind of loser friends/roommates. You know how Hank Hill says "The boy ain't right"? My step-son's not evil or malicious, but the judgement, the decision and reasoning skills, they're just not there.

The gun is only a tool. He could just as easily flip out and kill someone with a kitchen knife.

Those may seem cut-and-dried to some, "Well, no, I'd never give a gun to someone who's autistic" or "Why should ADHD be a problem?" Can you really stick to only those "adjudicated" as incompetent? As far as legal process goes, yes, you have to under the system. I know a manic-depressive who I wouldn't give a gun to, but no court has ever declared her incompetent. To some degree we have to live with the risk in our society that someone who shouldn't have a gun for good reason may be able to get one anyway and will end up misusing it. Some things just can't be foreseen or prohibitted by proactive measures.

So lets take away those peoples right to illegal search and seizure as well.

Morality? I wouldn't feel morally right if I gave a gun to the above mentioned manic-depressive knowing that about her and she shot a boyfriend or killed herself. I wouldn't feel morally right if she were being stalked and I didn't give her a gun and she ended up being killed. She actually had an ex force his way into her house swinging a hammer and her boyfriend at that time shot at the guy. No easy answer on the moral question.

You don't have to give them a gun, but that should not stop them from getting one on their own.

Don't think I am picking on you. Just throwing out the other side.

 

[owen502]

this is an idiotic discussion. mentally ill do not need to be in prison. plenty of homeless people are not in prison and dont need to own guns.

owen, you are qualified to determine his mental capacity? john wayne gacy appeared normal to those he met (at least the ones he didnt kill)

Mentally ill should be in Mental hospitals.

I am not qualified, but I do not think his doctors are qualified either. Thats a long story.

Once again, the gun is a tool, not what causes the killing. Does anyone here disagree with that?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Driving is a privilege not a inalienable right.

Off topic, but I must disagree with you there.

 

[Swampy]

I think this is all Moot... As soon as the Prophet O gets elected .. NOONE will be allowed to own anything more dangerous than a sling shot..




Dont even start with the " O isnt going to ban guns..." I absolutly think he will try.. I pray that he wont succeed ....





For those that think we are not headed toward socialism.
Do some searching ... 7 churches have lost their tax exempt status for mearly mentioning a candidates name ....

What has happened to our free speech???
Dont we have more to worry about than whether a Psyco or an Excon can get a gun.. If they want one they can get one.. We all know that...

I think there should be some sort of attention paid to what they where convicted for .. (Like was stated earlier.. If they are convicted of something non violent IE embezzling or what have you .. It makes no sense )

However .. I understand that part of the punishment for the crime is loosing the ability to own guns FOREVER... I am a firm believer in the moto..
"If you cant do the time .....Dont do the crime.." Its all about decisions.. We have all been one decision away from prison several times in our lives..

The fact that we have made the right decision is what makes us who we are..

On that same line.. the reason the mentally ill are not allowed to own guns is the same ... There is a concern about their ability to make the right decision.. I am not the one who is the judge of that.. But when I see some dirtbag wandering down the road with **** smeared on the back of his pants , mumbling to himself (or his invisible space alien friend) I am very glad that he cannot walk into a store and buy a gun...





Thanks to all who took time out of your day to read my long post..

 

[owen502]

Quote:
Originally Posted by owen502 View Post
Driving is a privilege not a inalienable right.

Off topic, but I must disagree with you there.

Ok, what I meant by that is driving is not specifically protected from government restriction. i.e. it is not in the bill of rights.

 

[dantheman]

Which churches lost their tax exempt status ?

 

[SimonJester308]

However .. I understand that part of the punishment for the crime is loosing the ability to own guns FOREVER... I am a firm believer in the moto..
"If you cant do the time .....Dont do the crime.." Its all about decisions.. We have all been one decision away from prison several times in our lives..

The fact that we have made the right decision is what makes us who we are..

I respectfully disagree. For some of us that made the wrong decision, and what we did with our lives after that is what makes us who we are.

 

[SimonJester308]

As for anyone else who might question the wisdom of second chances, what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

 

[Swampy]

I think when they wrote the constitution there where far less car jackings and banks being robbed.. but I could be wrong...







I cant find the copy of the Catholic news paper I get.. But it had the names..

Its actually becoming very common for the IRS to send out notices to the churches.. Its being discussed on alot of forums.. ...

Google is your friend...



Here is a news paper article that came up when I googled..

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20081002/NEWS/810010272/1012


I read the whole thing and I understand the whole seperation of church and state thing.. But It just bothers me that a priest , reverend, pastor, rabbi , whatever cannot give his opinion of a candidate without risking the churches tax exempt status..

You know what I would like to see... News papers and TV stations not being able one sidedly push their favorite candidates (read whatever liberal turd is running,Currently the Prophet O).. That would be awesome..



In other news.. It was told today that The Prophet O will end global warming and make gasoline free to everyone in the United states that can prove they have never held a job... A free cadillac on 22's will be delivered to each of them also by the end of his first week in office...

 

[Stonewall]

Good topic.....

There are cases where felons are allow to have guns.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul19/0,4670,GunsLegalChallenges,00.html

 

[JadeRaven]

Off topic, but I must disagree with you there.

In Louisiana it's a privilege. You have to go through the requirements to be licensed, you must register your vehicles for use and pay tax on them, you must ensure that your vehicle is legally road worthy and get it inspected annually, and you must have a minimum of 10/20 liability insurance in order to legally drive on the roads. And then you have to obey traffic signals, speed limits, et cetera once on the road.

Perhaps if you do all of those things it could then be considered a right and not a privilege.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Again, I was coming from a moral perspective, rather than a legal one.

Also people, don't forget 98% of our country's framers were felons.

 

[JadeRaven]

On one hand I believe I have the right to drive. On the other hand if we let any maniac drive down the road in a jalopy with no insurance, driving wouldn't be very possible. But yeah off topic

 

[Swampy]

Again, I was coming from a moral perspective, rather than a legal one.

Also people, don't forget 98% of our country's framers were felons.

Funny thing is .... Alot of the congressmen and senators now are Felons...

 

[dawg23]

This is an awesome thread - it contains a higher percentage of moronic opinions than anything posted here in recent memory.

Mentally ill citizens, many of whom are of such diminished capacity that they cannot separate right from wrong, have no business owning or carrying firearms. Nor should they be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Nor should they be allowed to vote.

Quit pretending that ownership and/or the carrying of firearms is an unrestricted right in this country. Class III firearms are regulated. Purchases of all modern firearms are regulated. Carrying is regulated ...... for instance carrying on airplanes and in federal buildings is prohibited .....along with schools and a lot of other places.

Some of the foregoing restrictions are debatable insofar as their being appropriate. But allowing the mentally ill to own or carry a firearm is way down at the bottom of my list of priorities concerning desired changes in firearm statutes and regulations.

I don't want some schizo walking around the mall carrying a firearm. I don't want any paranoid or delusional manic-depressives who "forget" to take their meds walking around the parking lot of Home Depot packing a firearm (concealed or openly carried).

I don't care how "normal" you think your uncle or cousin or fishing buddy or tattoo artist may be. If he's been lawfully judged as mentally ill or mentally incompetent, take it up with the physician or judge that issued the diagnosed/ ruling. If he's found to be competent,fine. Give him a gun. But the rest of the psychos don't need one.

The bleeding heart liberals around here need to grow up. You're so far out in left field, you're making the dimwits look smart.