• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

House passes concealed reciprocity bill!

Statistics show they can't be trusted with guns, they are freed, and are tolerated.

So, should we take the high road, or the pragmatic one ?

Depends on your definition of pragmatic...If our sensible and reasonable solutions are incarceration or death for violent criminals, then yes, pragmatic it is. They should not be tolerated. That's my version of being pragmatic in their cases.

Since they are being released I say they have a "V" tattooed on their foreheads, like the Nazis in Inglorious Bastards. If they have the V, no guns for them.

Clear out the potheads and child support inmates and we will have plenty of room for all violent maniacs. You know, the real criminals.

Violent criminals are the only people that should not be allowed to have guns, IMO. Of course they should not be free, anyway.
 
Depends on your definition of pragmatic...If our sensible and reasonable solutions are incarceration or death for violent criminals, then yes, pragmatic it is. They should not be tolerated. That's my version of being pragmatic in their cases.

Since they are being released I say they have a "V" tattooed on their foreheads, like the Nazis in Inglorious Bastards. If they have the V, no guns for them.

Clear out the potheads and child support inmates and we will have plenty of room for all violent maniacs. You know, the real criminals.

Violent criminals are the only people that should not be allowed to have guns, IMO. Of course they should not be free, anyway.

Seems reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRH
I would suggest they're not as 'free' as a person who doesn't have a criminal record following them around.

I'd be interested in how many people would agree that someone who has, say, tortured and murdered someone, (or possibly more than one), with no reasonable cause, should be entitled to walk out of prison and purchase a firearm.

Philosophically I see the point, practically, I doubt it would get majority support.

I think a lobby to allow true 2nd amendment freedom for someone to purchase quad 50's to put in their front yard should be pursued first.
I agree. I personally don't have an issue with VIOLENT felons, who have been released from prison, being prohibited from owning firearms, however it is not logical and is purely emotional. When it comes to legislation that affects everyone, I "try" and remove emotion from it. If a person is allowed to walk amongst us freely and has ill intent, is a 'law' going to stop them? Obviously proven wrong every single minute of every single day.
 
To my mind if they are too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in prison. When you have done your sentance, all your rights need to be restored, otherwise every crime is literally eternal punishment. I could *maybe* see a well defined probationary period, but even that would be stretching things a bit.
 
That assumes that a term in prison was the only punishment for their crime,
The current system imposes additional punishments, that continue after the prison sentence portion of the punishment is completed, for felonies. I think that's a good thing.
It wasn't a legal question, it was a fundamental philosophical question. You've given the correct legal answer of course. But think about the 'logic' of letting someone roam freely that society does NOT trust with a gun. About as effective as a "no guns allowed" sign or a paper 'restraining order'.
I say that knowing full way that many members here don't trust other law abiding citizens with a gun and are more than happy to infringe on the 2A and all all sorts of arbitrary requirements to make themselves "feel" better. Bubba with a Taurus and a bullet hole in the hood of his truck or Clarence with a HiPoint living in the hood... neither are "worthy" of the PRIVILEGE of bearing arms..... apparently.
 
“Constitutional carry” my @$$.

Dumbasses who aren’t willing to undergo a background check shouldn’t be carrying handguns daily, in public.
I was the dumbass who carried concealed for years, without any background checks, thanks to Consitutional carry in Alaska.
Felt great not having to pay for the permission slip to exercise my rights.
And cops were not allowed to use as a probable cause for search seeing a pistol laying on the passenger seat next to me. By law.
 
Seems reasonable.

LOL...I get what you were saying, and I agree with...

I agree. I personally don't have an issue with VIOLENT felons, who have been released from prison, being prohibited from owning firearms, however it is not logical and is purely emotional. When it comes to legislation that affects everyone, I "try" and remove emotion from it. If a person is allowed to walk amongst us freely and has ill intent, is a 'law' going to stop them? Obviously proven wrong every single minute of every single day.

This. I say they should not be free if they are proven to be a great threat to society. That's my solution. Will it ever happen? No.
This is well said, Geaux.
 
The bill also includes the amendment for the fix the NICS act. Which as I read it requires all federal agencies to report information to the NICS does that include the Veterans Administration for any soldiers that may or may not of been diagnosed with PTSD? Does that include Health and Human Services who's over Medicare and Medicaid to include individuals whose have somebody else as there a executor and therefore declaring them incompetent to own a weapon? Will include the agencies that will have to report from the states that would include medical marijuana usage which Hawaii is already requiring people to turn their guns and over? It just seems like this is going to get a lot more agencies involved in the nics
 
Back
Top Bottom