"Would you want no restrictions on gun purchases in South Chicago?" Definitely.
Originally Posted by Jeffrey
Originally Posted by martinstrummer
I think the whole damned form is unConstitutional!
š¤¬
I wouldnāt go that far. I donāt think wife beater or non-citizens should have guns. The constitution applies to American citizens who arenāt criminals. Iām happy with that construct.
You think 4473 forms are stopping criminals? Lol
It depends. It probably stops, or at least slows some. Felons arenāt always the brightest people out there. But that doesnāt change the fact that I donāt think felons should have guns. And if a felon lies on a form thatās another charge they can be convicted on. The same goes for a felon who attains a gun without a background check. Itās all illegal.
Do you think convicted felons should have guns?
Depends on the āfelonyā.
Do you know that it is a Felony to carry you personal protection firearm into a bar or a restaurant that earns more than 51% of it income from alcohol in the State of TX.
Do you think doing so should take away oneās Second Amendment rights forever?
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
I think that if a Convicted Felon is to lose his Second Amendment Rights forever, then the original crime must involve the use of a firearm.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
I think the whole damned form is unConstitutional!
š¤¬
I wouldnāt go that far. I donāt think wife beater or non-citizens should have guns. The constitution applies to American citizens who arenāt criminals. Iām happy with that construct.
What you think, and what the constitution says, are two different things. The Lautenberg Amendment which made firearms possession after a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction illegal should clearly be struck down as unconstitutional. A misdemeanor should not prevent someone from exercising their second amendment rights. If the crime is serious enough to deny someone's rights then it should be made a felony.
I agree 100%. If the crime rises to the level of removing the fundamental right to keep and bear arms it is a Felony. Semantics here is about the writer thinking for himself.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
The 4473 is just another backdoor gun control tool. It's another excuse to invade your privacy and take away your rights. Leftist states are allowing felons to vote so it must not mean much to them. If you get accused of a crime by anyone and get the wrong prosecutor you may end up being victimized by a corrupt system thanks to tin eared legislation. Thanks Crenshaw. We have too many laws. Most laws do not apply to some people. The ATF uses the 4473 to browbeat anyone that sells firearms. At one pawnshop they threatened to shut down the store because they allowed a customer to abbreviate the state name instead of spelling it out. Just how much freedom are you willing to give up in order to feel safe?
I think the whole damned form is unConstitutional!
š¤¬
I wouldnāt go that far. I donāt think wife beater or non-citizens should have guns. The constitution applies to American citizens who arenāt criminals. Iām happy with that construct.
So a legal resident of this country (non-citizen) who follows the law and pays his taxes shouldn't be able to own a firearm for recreation or self defense?
Interesting...........................
To anger a conservative, lie to him. To annoy a liberal, tell him the truth.
I think that if a Convicted Felon is to lose his Second Amendment Rights forever, then the original crime must involve the use of a firearm.
On several levels I agree, but I have seen too many examples of felons going without guns to do seriously bad things, including murder. I was on a shaken baby murder jury. I have zero issue with allowing that to remove 2A rights.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
I think that if a Convicted Felon is to lose his Second Amendment Rights forever, then the original crime must involve the use of a firearm.
On several levels I agree, but I have seen too many examples of felons going without guns to do seriously bad things, including murder. I was on a shaken baby murder jury. I have zero issue with allowing that to remove 2A rights.
Would be more appropriate to lose their Right to Freedom or life .
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
I think that if a Convicted Felon is to lose his Second Amendment Rights forever, then the original crime must involve the use of a firearm.
On several levels I agree, but I have seen too many examples of felons going without guns to do seriously bad things, including murder. I was on a shaken baby murder jury. I have zero issue with allowing that to remove 2A rights.
Would be more appropriate to lose their Right to Freedom or life .
So a shaken baby murder is somehow different in its level, degree, or type of torture? I agree there should be serious consequences, but brutality and violence is plenty to lose your 2A right. IMO.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
I think the whole damned form is unConstitutional!
š¤¬
I wouldnāt go that far. I donāt think wife beater or non-citizens should have guns. The constitution applies to American citizens who arenāt criminals. Iām happy with that construct.
So a legal resident of this country (non-citizen) who follows the law and pays his taxes shouldn't be able to own a firearm for recreation or self defense?
Interesting...........................
Resident aliens have rights under Fed law/Constitution.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
Once a person has served his full sentence, all rights should be restored. If there's a right they shouldn't be permitted to exercise once freed, then the sentence should have been longer, or the death penalty should have been imposed.
Good points made here and I concede that it isnāt a simple as I stated in earlier posts. I think the original point of this thread about needing a conviction and not just an indictment is as a step in the right direction.
Once a person has served his full sentence, all rights should be restored. If there's a right they shouldn't be permitted to exercise once freed, then the sentence should have been longer, or the death penalty should have been imposed.
I disagree. The idea of "paying your debt to society" at our great expense is a little weird. Expecting to be absolved simply because you were good under lock and key and further, that you will never repeat is patently ridiculous. The word recidivist is there for a reason.
Once one proves they got the lesson they can appeal to the Court to get their rights restored.
And I don't want them voting, either.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
Good points made here and I concede that it isnāt a simple as I stated in earlier posts. I think the original point of this thread about needing a conviction and not just an indictment is as a step in the right direction.
Agreed.
Another consideration is the fact the 4473 forces you to testify against yourself. That is why prosecutors do not go after them... just those making innocent mistakes.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
I think the whole damned form is unConstitutional!
š¤¬
I wouldnāt go that far. I donāt think wife beater or non-citizens should have guns. The constitution applies to American citizens who arenāt criminals. Iām happy with that construct.
So a legal resident of this country (non-citizen) who follows the law and pays his taxes shouldn't be able to own a firearm for recreation or self defense?
Interesting...........................
Resident aliens have rights under Fed law/Constitution.
Correct. I just found the thought process of some to be intriguing, given that there are many "non-citizen" legal residents who actually make for better citizens than many citizens do.
To anger a conservative, lie to him. To annoy a liberal, tell him the truth.
Once a person has served his full sentence, all rights should be restored. If there's a right they shouldn't be permitted to exercise once freed, then the sentence should have been longer, or the death penalty should have been imposed.
From a constitutional standpoint, I think this is the intent and I agree. If politicians want to change the Constitution there is a procedure for that. Merely passing a law does not nullify the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution comes first.
