I think majority of us are anti-gun control. That being said..we do live in the South. And we do love our guns. I for one think that everyone should have a right to a reasonable firearm. I don't believe Bob down the street needs an AK47 in his gun safe. I feel safer anyway I look at it. I know I feel safer knowing that in my neighborhood probably 90% of the houses own a gun. Weather there was a criminal, inward Goverment attacks, or an attack from a foreign country. I feel safer knowing that majority of the people around here own a firearm.
I started this thread and I am in favor of gun control. But you people have made some very good points. I rest my case.
You are exactly right. In college my law professor always told us if we shoot someone kill them. I feel the same way, they day you decide to break into my home and put my children at risk, is the day you choose to meet your maker.
You do know that Bob down the street can't legally own an AK-47, right? He can own a rifle that looks like an AK-47, but the fact that I have a car that looks like a Maserati doesn't mean my car will preform like a Maserati. An AK-47 is an automatic weapon (a real assault rifle), which have been illegal for private citizens to own since the 30s.
At least that much regulation is reasonable, don't you agree? What legitimate use would a private citizen have for a real AK-47? Other legitimate regulations, I think, include laws against persons owning firearms who have been convicted of violent felonies. A waiting period of a few days, to give the seller time to check the buyer's record also seems reasonable. A permit requirement to carry a concealed weapon is another. I would certainly not want to bar private citizens from owning weapons for hunting, or for protection of their homes and families. At the same time, I don't think the second amendment bars all forms of government regulation of firearms, any more than I think the first amendment right of free speech allows me to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre (unless of course there is a fire).
Not particularly. To protect hearth and home from a government gone bad. All little chips at our rights, and a way for the government to know who has the guns. And yet neither of these was the purpose of the second amendment. Apples and oranges. The first amendment prevents congress from enacting laws restricting speech. The second amendment restricts all governments (federal state and local) from infringing on the right. Don't you think it was curiously specific wording? Once again, the purpose of the second amendment wasn't to allow Joe Citizen to protect hearth and home from criminals, or to allow Jed to go hunting out in Bugtussle. It was for the sole purpose of making sure the government was hard pressed to oppress us. Giving the government the right to regulate our protection against them is ludacris.
As a CCW permit carrier, and owner of several (ok many) firearms (several of which would be considered assault weapons by Joe (uninformed) Public) I feel that certain gun control laws are good for several reasons. The fact that is illegal for a convicted felon to own one, and the fact that if caught it would mean more jail/prison time is one such law. However, laws (such as the Brady Bill) only affect the law abiding citizens, and puts us (those that would abide by the law) at a disadvantage should we be confronted by those that do not abide by such laws. Craig
Do you honestly believe there is a criminal out there that has said to himself, "You know, I got out of prison, and I was going to rob that mini mart, but if I do it with a gun they will add ten years to that twenty year sentence if I get caught, so I'm not going to do it."? Pul-ease. Criminals are going to break the law. That's why they are called criminals. Adding an extra law for them to break is not going to disuade them. Oh, and by the way, after I finished my parole, all my rights (including the right to own a gun) was reinstated.
I never said anywhere in my post that criminals were smart enough to think it through that if they robbed the mini-mart with a gun that they would think about the extra time. My point was that being caught with felony possession of a firearm while in the process of committing a crime carried extra time. And while I'm not going to dig into your past criminal record, there are certain times that a felon can be granted the right to own a firearm, however reading those circumstances I doubt it happens very often. Craig
It really depends on the state. In Arizona, where I committed my felony, it's automatic when you are released from custody ("released" includes completing any parole). As a matter of fact there was still a law on the books that allowed for a released convict to receive a horse, a gun, and a $20 gold piece. The law was rescinded (while I was there) when an inmate tried to cash in on his release and sued the state when they refused.
I agree. I got my CCW permit to protect my family and myself. Then got so dang mad in class when I was hearing when i could use it and when I couldn't. The Instructor did tell me that being a female alone in the house with two teenage daughters would give me a little more leeway. But I can tell you..someone walks into my home and threatens my family or myself.. all bets are off.
Per the following link: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/pdf/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_54A.pdf It is illegal for any felon to possess a firearm in this state, assuming their crime is punishable by more than 1 year of incarceration. Unless they are granted the rights via one of the special priviledges, such as a full pardon. No matter where their crime was commited nor what that state's laws are concerning felons and ownership of firearms. Craig
While the link you provided does state that I may not be able to legally own a weapon, the quote you provided was not part of the link. From the quote, there was mention of "Unless they are granted the rights via one of the special priviledges, such as a full pardon." Since the quote is not from the link, I cannot see what "special privilidges" are that may apply to me. How is McVeigh much different than any of the acts of terrorism committed by Americans against the British in the 1700's? History is written by the winners. The loser's terrorist is the winner's war hero.
