Posted on 03/26/2014 9:01:45 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Edited on 03/26/2014 12:01:11 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a West Tennessee man
(Excerpt) Read more at commercialappeal.com ...
“Enhanced” Lautenturd Amendment... coming to MN soon:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3137325/posts
Read the statute on what constitutes 5th degree domestic assault in MN-in most cases it’s far from anything close to “beating” anyone or hitting anyone, yet will be included in the bill proposed in current form.
This is like giving someone a DUI AND taking their car for being at .02 BAC ( only a driving is not a right )
personally, if you commit a crime wth a firearm, esp violent crime, you’ve shown you cant be trusted with guns, and in the old days the law would sentence you to death so you’d have no chance to ever have a gun again.
as we dont do this anymore those violent criminals who have used guns in their crimes should not be allowed to have guns again. until we execute criminals for violent crimes again, and quickly like the old days, if they are released they shouldn’t be able to get guns again.
if you do a crime that doesnt use a gun and isn’ t violent, you shouldn’ t lose your gun rights. if you get charged with domestic violence and it’s not violent, but was trumped up like yelling or shoving or pushing someone off/away from you, it has noting to do with gun rghts and that shouldn’ t ever come into play. loss of gun rights should only come into play when guns are germaine to the crime committed.
You’re splitting hairs and walking right into the lib argument. You’re a free man, or you’re not. I don’t believe in a caste system of natural rights.
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53 › Subchapter B › Part I › § 5845
26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Updates
prev | next For the purpose of this chapter—
(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device)
which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other
characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
no. what i am saying is unless we go back to the justice system that worked, because violent felons were executed within a week or to of sentencing,
there would be no discussion of whether someone who was a felon could have a gun or not.
not a violent felon == keep’guns.
violent felon == executed felon.
Define a violent felon worthy of execution and cite the period of time you are referring to when this condition was present. It occurs to me that you are broadening the class of those eligible for execution to those who commit any felony involving violence, which was not the case. Imprisonment for a lengthy period based upon the crime was intended to repay “the debt to society” and allow the reformed reprobate the opportunity to rejoin that society. It appears execution plays a larger than needed role in your concept of justice. Be careful what you wish for.
“...unless we go back to the justice system that worked, because violent felons were executed within a week or to of sentencing,...”
He plead to domestic violence. Just as felons lose the right to vote he lost the Rtkaba.This will come back to bite the left when they argue in Scotia that felons can not lose the right to vote.
I am talking about violent felons who use guns in the commission of the specific crimes they commit. Especially if they injure or murder someone during those crimes or attempting to flee.
They have proven by abusing the right, they cannot be trusted with it. Unless they are executed for those crimes, if they have a chance to be let out, they should not be allowed to have guns again.
Okay, no offense, but now define “violent”. It’s just too slippery. Look, if you don’t like the fact that we let people out who shouldn’t be out, don’t take that out on free citizens. Not trying to argue - I know what you’re trying to do - I just think we can’t do that if we want to remain free.
You haven’t cited the period you mentioned when those conditions were applied and additionally where they were applied.
By stating, “Be careful what you wish for.”, consider that when you codify the death penalty and its execution time to cover a broader range of offenders, the likelihood of violent resistance to apprehension by authorities will result along with the danger to the general populace suffering from the activity. “Top of the world Ma! Top of the world!” (Cagney- “White Heat”)
All of the criterion necessary to sentence offenders for the crimes they commit has been well thought out and recorded. Application of the appropriate sentencing guidelines often falls short of the recommendations due in large part to judicial mental meanderings. But after a man has not been executed for his crime because execution would be too extreme a punishment, and he is released into society after serving time in prison to repay his debt, his rights, all of them, should be fully restored. Doing so reinforces the notion that he has paid his debt, realized the error of his ways and is now free to live a life of benefit to himself, his family and the society he has rejoined, without the stigma of his prior conviction impairing his ability to persevere and succeed. People err. Sometimes grievously. Some so greatly that execution is warranted. But I would sooner deal with a possible repeat offender than sacrifice his right to self-defense and the defense of members of his family in the event he had reformed completely. But then I am a capable man and without fear.
The State cannot solve all of our problems and is far more involved in our affairs than our health as a society allows and calling for another law that will be arbitrarily interpreted and applied will prove more confounding than our present situation.
Restricting firearms possession restricts freedom and our ability to defend our lives and those of our loved ones. Never mind the defense of our country. We’ve already lost that.
well then putmup a sign and encourage all the violent, released folks to arm up and gun you down. that will really put the pin in your argument.
it is clear that folks who have demonstrated they will abuse their 2a rights, by doing so committing violent acts - armed burglary, armed robbery, felony assault, felony battery, attempted murder, murder,
ought not be allowed them again. as long as they could be let back out into society. i’m not talking about the guy who walks into a store and doesn’t see a sign, or even on school grounds, or has a bullet in his pocket somewhere,’or a guy travelling between states while armed, or any stupid little procedural thing where she’s not hurting anyone. or even for crimes that may be technically felonies but aren’t violent ones.
it has nothing to do with buying into anything liberal. it has everything to do with narrowing the scope to only people who commit violent crimes with guns. he ones who’ve proven they will abuse that right. i am against zero-tolerance logic and you position is more liberal zero-tolerance, non-thinking, than mine.
when these people’commit crimes again with guns and’murder’people the blood will be on your hands and you will have to answer their loved’ones asto why it wasn’t common sense not to allow guns back i to these criminals’ hands again. the blood will be on you. but you’ll have your precious zero-tolerance non-think re-arm the violent felons that get out of jail law.
we agree to disagree. move on.
no prob. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.