Do you think it's right that a person that has a non-violent felony charge... related to drugs... that has also NEVER shown to be a violent person what-so-ever, should not EVER be allowed to own a hand gun. For ex., I have a drug-related felony. I've also had an armed robber come into my house before. I'm told i can NEVER legally own a gun.... (im not even saying i want one), but do you think that is right? i personally think that it should be VIOLENT criminals that should not be allowed to own hand guns. what do you think?
if no1 was alowed a gun.. then the robber wouldn't have been armed and you probably wouldn't feel like your being victimised. but i see what you mean. it should be people with a violent history that get refuses guns.. and knifes and spoons and any thing heavy sharp or in some way potentially hazardous
If no one was allowed a gun, the robber would still get 1 anyways. It depends on what the drug chrage was though, possesion and only once then no, selling or possesion with intent to sell, yes.
So no criminals were caught in the days before guns? But I agree that we need to try and keep guns out of the hands of drug dealers. I think that possession with intent to distribute, although nonviolent, is resaon enough to keep a gun out of that persons hands, by legal means anyways. These guys don't usually use guns they purchase legally anyways... I think that if a person can maintain a record of non-violence after recieving a felony could be consideration for the legal ownership of guns. Not sure how long they would need to maintain the record. 7-10 years maybe? Ugh, guns are a curse on mankind. Too bad we don't have time-machines.
Dont drugs work as an inside violence to the body? Drugs are used to get a person fucked up. That's harming a person, is it not? Anyhow, if you really want to protect yourself against armed robbers buy yourself a high powered semi-auto bb gun. Aim for the face and eyes of the armed robber. Got get you some lethal powered fire crackers that you can light and throw at the armed robber.
While I'm not really fanatical about gun control in either direction, it seems to me that anyone who doesn't have a history of violence should be able to own a gun of some sort. If you just want to use it for hunting or protection, what's the problem? Gun control advocates claim that there is still the potential for an accident, even if the gun owner doesn't intend to harm anyone. This is true, but that argument could also be applied to automobiles, electronics, or swimming pools.
although, at some point i have to wonder if it's worth taking another human's life just to protect my stuff. i do own a shotgun, i shot trap all throught highschool. got pretty good at it, all my time spent practicing shooting at very small fast moving objects would come in handy. except it's just stuff.
Yeah, and so does McDonalds. And alcohol. And our polluted air. Now, if you are forcing drugs on someone, that is a different story.
I think anyone should be allowed to own a gun as long as they're not a deranged, violent ex-felon. I am totally anti-gun control because I believe in the 2nd amendment, even though I own no guns myself. Also, gun control doesn't work. Every time gun control legislation is passed, the black market becomes saturated with guns. Lastly, I don't think the government should be the only ones allowed to possess firearms. Frankly, I think the government as a whole is far more dangerous than some of the worst felons. All you staunch anti-gun people are buying right into the government's agenda, yet they will always have guns no matter what. So I guess that means you trust the government more than your average citizen. Sad.
i agree with you, rat... and to some of you, yes, i was arrested for selling drugs. i used to go to raves and sold a pretty small amount of esctasy to friends i had at that time. i was niave at the time- i would never sell drugs again and i wasnt involved in any, you know... .selling drugs on the cornor, drug wars, etc. this was 4 yrs. ago and since then, i had someone come into my home and put a gun to my head. so because of what i did, i can never own a gun? is that really fair? i think it is wrong. it's like saying that if someone sells pot when they are 19 and gets caught, they can never own a gun. come on...that is not dangerous (to society, not a threat in a violent way).
It's ironic, isn't it, that if drugs were legalized, the gun related crimes in this country would probably drop to about one fifth or less of what we see today in the U.S. - but I guess the powers that be would rather see more crime and violence in the country than let people be responsible for what they do with their own bodies. It's pitiful. Personally, I'd rather see drug sale and use legalized and then have mandatory harsh penalty sentencing for people who committed crimes while under the influence of drugs, which I think would be far more effective in keeping abusers from harming others than our current criminal code.
How many of those were created solely for the purpose of killing? That's like saying, "Sure bombs kill lots of people, but so do car accidents...".
I agree, and interestingly, so do some archconservatives like William F. Buckley, but this is a bit off topic.
I disagree. The question isn't why they were created...it's why the person owns them. Very few gun-owners own them for the purpose of killing other human beings. I disagree with your analogy because the nature of guns and bombs are quite different. It is extremely rare to have an "accident" with a bomb because the people handling them (whether or not you agree with them) are generally very professional. The difference is that most gun deaths are accidental, whereas most bomb deaths are intentional. I was simply discrediting the only reasonable argument I have seen for gun control: the notion that guns pose a threat to people who mean well, but have accidents with them. Any argument other than the accidental-death-argument is moot, since 99.9% of gun owners would never intentionally harm someone else.
Well said. Once someone pays his/her debt to society for a crime that s/he committed, s/he should have full restoration of his/her rights. This includes the right to keep and bear a firearm. If someone is convicted of a non-violent political offense or "victimless crime," s/he should be pardoned and have their records cleaned. I concur that eliminating drug laws will cause crime to plummet. Despite this, I feel there should be a few caveats: If the offense is a violent one, full restitution to the victim should occur before consideration of release from prison. Maybe we should turn many of our prisons into rehabilitation centers. At the same time, we should reduce the number of laws on the books so as to not crowd court dockets with irrelevant cases and to allow more resources to be directed to addressing relevant affairs.
You can't possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be on this forum. Please confirm this before I lose all faith in human intelligence.
I don't like guns myself, but I support one's right to own one. The idea of the second amendment is that the right to gun ownership makes it easier for the masses to rebell against an unjust government, albeit violently. I do believe there should be some safegaurds to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands, like background checks and mandatory child safety locks.
