No Carry Permit

[MaconGuns]

I'm a supporter of the second amendment. I won't infringe on someone's rights by asking for "a peek at the weapons carry permit". I don't think it is my place to over police private citizens.

I always wonder what happened to the strong 2nd amendment supporters that used to be on this site when I see all the people who say they don't want a bill of sale, but require a look at someones carry permit.

Don't know how someone can rant about not infringing on the 2A rights, but then do that.

I believe everyone should have the right to bear arms. However that statement is a half truth. If you've been convicted of murder, rape, child molesting, armed robbery, drug trafficking, espionage against the united states and similar crimes I believe you have decided to give up your rights. Same as being convicted of multiple DUIs or vehicular man slaughter. You have decided drinking is more important than another persons life and your rights to drive.

As said by some people if you "feel" its wrong then they do not sell. What does a "feeling" have to do with a persons right to own a gun? Just cause you "feel" its a bad deal you can infringe on anothers rights? Some politicians feel its wrong for anyone to own a gun. I find it hard to believe that people feel its right for everyone to own a gun. There is the problem. Does a person with documented severe mental issues and a history of several violent convictions such as battery and assault deserve a gun? There has to be some point of moderation and common sense.

 

[gh1950]

. I find it hard to believe that people feel its right for everyone to own a gun. There is the problem. Does a person with documented severe mental issues and a history of several violent convictions such as battery and assault deserve a gun? There has to be some point of moderation and common sense.

So do the same rules of moderation and common sense apply to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the other rights granted by the Bill of Rights?

How do you order how much moderation and common sense to apply to the exercise of what rights?

 

[Psilloh1]

Who would sell a perfectly good gun anyway.?....

 

[MSCHRIS]

I believe everyone should have the right to bear arms. However that statement is a half truth. If you've been convicted of murder, rape, child molesting, armed robbery, drug trafficking, espionage against the united states and similar crimes I believe you have decided to give up your rights. Same as being convicted of multiple DUIs or vehicular man slaughter. You have decided drinking is more important than another persons life and your rights to drive.

As said by some people if you "feel" its wrong then they do not sell. What does a "feeling" have to do with a persons right to own a gun? Just cause you "feel" its a bad deal you can infringe on anothers rights? Some politicians feel its wrong for anyone to own a gun. I find it hard to believe that people feel its right for everyone to own a gun. There is the problem. Does a person with documented severe mental issues and a history of several violent convictions such as battery and assault deserve a gun? There has to be some point of moderation and common sense.

The onus of "common sense" resides with the system that makes the determination to send dangerous people back into society. If you don't want people with the issues you describe back into society, then don't allow them back into society. A society with a high percentage that have some kind of record locked out will ultimately have them voting to take away our Rights and make us second class citizens like them.

 

[MaconGuns]

So do the same rules of moderation and common sense apply to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the other rights granted by the Bill of Rights?

How do you order how much moderation and common sense to apply to the exercise of what rights?

What words do you want your child learning as a toddler? What words are radio safe? What religions advocate suicide bombing? Let me know just what you are ok with.

 

[MaconGuns]

The onus of "common sense" resides with the system that makes the determination to send dangerous people back into society. If you don't want people with the issues you describe back into society, then don't allow them back into society. A society with a high percentage that have some kind of record locked out will ultimately have them voting to take away our Rights and make us second class citizens like them.

There isnt enough room to house the criminals now so youre saying after DUI 2 its the death penalty. That would solve a lot of petty crimes as well. 3 misdemeanors and its the chair.

 

[summer44]

I believe everyone should have the right to bear arms. However that statement is a half truth. If you've been convicted of murder, rape, child molesting, armed robbery, drug trafficking, espionage against the united states and similar crimes I believe you have decided to give up your rights. Same as being convicted of multiple DUIs or vehicular man slaughter. You have decided drinking is more important than another persons life and your rights to drive.

As said by some people if you "feel" its wrong then they do not sell. What does a "feeling" have to do with a persons right to own a gun? Just cause you "feel" its a bad deal you can infringe on anothers rights? Some politicians feel its wrong for anyone to own a gun. I find it hard to believe that people feel its right for everyone to own a gun. There is the problem. Does a person with documented severe mental issues and a history of several violent convictions such as battery and assault deserve a gun? There has to be some point of moderation and common sense.

If you can't trust someone with a firearm they need to remain Incarcerated. You will never prevent someone who wants a firearm from obtaining it. If you can't trust them with a gun keep them locked up, they got no business out here with the rest of us.

 

[MaconGuns]

If you can't trust someone with a firearm they need to remain Incarcerated. You will never prevent someone who wants a firearm from obtaining it. If you can't trust them with a gun keep them locked up, they got no business out here with the rest of us.

Who determines trust? Politicians?
They dont trust us with 10 round mags.

You realize this forum takes away some of your "freedom of speech" by being moderated and you seem ok with that since you're still here.

 

[MSCHRIS]

There isnt enough room to house the criminals now so youre saying after DUI 2 its the death penalty. That would solve a lot of petty crimes as well. 3 misdemeanors and its the chair.

If someone has a record of DUIs, they remain in a rehab program; you don't give them a license to drive; you put them in a mental facility if that interferes with their ability to function in society. There is no correlation between DUI and the Right to exercise a Right that we are guaranteed cannot be infringed.

 

[MSCHRIS]

Who determines trust? Politicians?
They dont trust us with 10 round mags.

You realize this forum takes away some of your "freedom of speech" by being moderated and you seem ok with that since you're still here.

This board is privately owned. Politicians have the power to ban a high capacity magazine, but they do not have the authority.

If a person violates the law, it is the duty of society to punish the individual; to demand they pay restitution for their crimes and that they be REHABILITATED. It is the duty of the society that passes the sentence to also be charged with knowing when a person can be returned back to society. Once a person has paid for their crime, done their time and they have been rehabilitated, there is no constitutional provision that allows for making them a second class citizen, deprived of a Right that is guaranteed NOT to be infringed. The guy who had a drinking problem still has a Right and a duty to protect himself and the lives of his loved ones. Besides, one's punishment should fit the crime they're charged with. Most alcoholics don't commit crimes with firearms. And the Constitution says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Once their punishment is over, they should rejoin society as equals. Otherwise, the judge punished them once for the crime and determined the time period for incarceration. Today, society then says, let's give people a life sentence for even a youthful indiscretion - which creates two classes of citizens, which in turn, creates liberal Democrats.

Advocating that we allow people that we know, without any reservation, pose a threat to society (based upon quantifiable evidence) to run amok in a free society is the epitome of irresponsibility.