View Single Post
Old January 10, 2013, 04:21 PM   #74
Shane Tuttle
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 8,827
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As to felons with guns, you must remember that, in our attempt to legislate away all of our problems, we've turned a copious number of crimes into felonies and many of them have nothing to do with violence. A person convicted of income tax evasion is no less a felon than someone convicted of first degree murder, but the danger to society that those two people represent is worlds apart. In my estimation, once a person has served their sentence and paid their debt to society, their rights should be fully restored. By telling someone that, due to the crime they committed, they can never again be trusted with a firearm we are basically telling them that they are so dangerous as to be beyond rehabilitation. The way I see it, if someone is a dangerous criminal beyond rehabilitation, they should either be executed or remain locked up in prison as they have no business in society regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
Well, stated. Cannot agree more.

Originally Posted by coachteet
Once again, I am not making an argument that Full auto weapons should be legal/illegal. My personal feeling on the subject is that they should be legal, but regulated more heavily than semi-auto firearms. They are, in fact, inherently more destructive than semi-auto firearms, which is why our troops tend to use select-fire/ automatic weapons. They are an entirely different class of firearms. You are free to disagree with me all you like on this topic. But please do not mix your arguments with the next, completely separate issue.
"Heavy regulation" is, in no small part, basically ways and means for a government to deem it to be illegal. That's a fact.

How and what makes them an entirely different class? The current Acts and laws set in place for us not to be able to own them without giving our perverbial first child?

Just what factual premises are you using as your assertion a full auto is more "destructive"?

Were you in the military as a ground pounder? Most I've come in contact with that use their M16 or variants thereof disagree with your reasoning why you think it's more destructive to use the full auto function. Do you know why select fire is a popular choice and why it's used? They sure don't use full-auto because the notion of some thinks it's more destructive.

You really think a law abiding citizen should have obstacles just because of your opinion on full auto weapons are more destructive? Tell me where in the Constitution, BOR, or the writings of the Founding Fathers claim that. I, and hope you, know there isn't any. And this is the very thinking of what anti-gunners would love to hear from us. No hard core facts to back up why a law/regulation should be in place on a law abiding citizen is what they want. It's one of the many methods used to strip away our rights.

Originally Posted by coachteet
Every time a discussion begins like the OP started, people take it way too far, because they are sure that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is without any limitation whatsoever. This is incorrect, and it's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of your rights are unlimited. The freedom of speech is not unlimited. Libel is illegal. The freedom of the press is not unlimited: slander is illegal. The freedom of religion is not unlimited: human sacrifice is illegal.
Well, the Founding Fathers would certainly disagree with you since that's what is written. Plain and simple. If you can keep and BEAR a (fire)arm, then you're covered.

And, yes, your rights are long as you do no harm to another human being. Your very statement is doublespeak. You're using an illegal actions to justify unlimited legal actions. Talking about taking things too far.
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU:
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Page generated in 0.03406 seconds with 7 queries