Should ex-cons be allowed to own and carry Guns? - Page 5

On February 20 2012 03:00 llKenZyll wrote:

Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either....

On February 20 2012 02:49 Candadar wrote:


So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?

I'm lost.

On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote:
As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:

If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.

On February 20 2012 03:15 Alizee- wrote:


Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?

Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.

On February 20 2012 03:15 Alizee- wrote:


Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?

Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.

On February 20 2012 03:16 Yongwang wrote:

Thank you for bringing that up, this is a valid point, who are we to tell a rehabilitated man that has paid his debt to society, that he cannot defend himself.

On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote:
The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.

On February 20 2012 03:23 Elegy wrote:


Why does he require a gun to protect himself?

On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:


(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)

On February 20 2012 03:19 Candadar wrote:


A tank is simply a means to an end like a kitchen knife or a 9mm pistol. It doesn't act on it its own. If someone is too violent and unstable to properly use a tank, keep them locked up and let reasonable people use them. I mean, we shouldn't let the government have that kind of power while we can't, right?

Who are YOU to tell someone that they can't have one?

+ Show Spoiler +

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession **2817 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 *627 conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause *628 and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-28, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)

On February 20 2012 03:22 Yongwang wrote:

It's funny, it's like they live in an imaginary world where nothing bad ever happens. If you want to live in a free society, you have to accept the fact that sometimes things are going to happen. Also their logic is circular and inconsistent. If a man walks into a Wal-Mart and tries to kill me and others, I'm going to shoot him. They fail to understand that THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES. And that's just part of the argument for self-defense, they don't seem to understand how hunting would work without guns.

Then again these so-called "socialists / progressives" are probably all pot-smoking vegan hippies who think that anyone eats meat is evil and should be burned at a stake.

On February 20 2012 03:27 BluePanther wrote:



Easily refuted:

On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote:
The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.

On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote:
I guess in the end if people want to troll:

This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.

By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.

On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:



That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.

It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.