CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

[Fair&Balanced]

Would you support a law that demanded a 20 year sentence for any person caught with an illegal weapon?

Yes or no?

No, I would not support imprisoning anyone for legitimately exercising a Constitutionally-affirmed right.

You don't have a right to own an illegal firearm dude.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Would you support a law that demanded a 20 year sentence for any person caught with an illegal weapon?

Yes or no?

No, I would not support imprisoning anyone for legitimately exercising a Constitutionally-affirmed right.

You don't have a right to own an illegal firearm dude.

Government doesn't have the authority to declare any firearm “illegal” and to deny any free citizen the right to possess it. It is government that is acting illegally by so doing. If you don't like it, try to get an amendment ratified to the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment. Until and unless that is successfully completed, the Second Amendment is the law, and government is forbidden from interfering with the exercise of the right which it affirms.

 

[320 Years of History]

Government doesn't have the authority to ... deny any free citizen the right to possess it.

To the best of my knowledge, felons who've served their time are free citizens. Most released but formerly convicted felons may not legally purchase a firearm. There are some folk who are excepted from that prohibition.

In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where one's civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until one's felony is expunged, one is not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

In light of the preceding, do you think felons who don't qualify for the exemption or who haven't had their felony record expunged should be permitted to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms?

 

[2aguy]

Frankly, I'm far more interested in dissuading people from committing acts of crime than I am in reacting to their having committed a crime.

Please do not insult my intelligent by continuing to repeat this transparent lie, that you care at all about reducing crime; as if to suggest that I am stupid enough to give it any credence.

If you cared about this, then you would agree with me that dangerous criminals should not be released back into the free population; and you would also not support any impairment of the people's right to possess arms with which to defend themselves against criminals.

You've made it clear enough whose side you are on. Be known by the company that you choose to keep.

but as to your answer to my previous question.

Let's suppose that a pedophile has served his sentence, do you think he should then be allowed to hang around schools? After all, he served his sentence.......

I think sex crimes should be a life sentence....they do not get better and have too high a rate of committing another crime.......we can discuss boyfriends having sex with girlfriends as a different category though.....

 

[2aguy]

Please do not insult my intelligent by continuing to repeat this transparent lie

Look, you can call me a liar if you want, but I haven't something different to say because you do.

And, BTW, unless you can prove that I've lied about something - -and I know you cannot for I have not lied about anything in a very long time, even when it would have been easier for me to have done -- please refrain from calling my remarks lies I've made, thus implying that I'm a liar.

Well then, make it clear.

Would you support a law that demanded a 20 year sentence for any person caught with an illegal weapon?

Yes or no?

Are they a criminal using a gun to commit a crime? Then yes. If felons are prohibited from buying, owning or carrying a gun then yes to that too..........

For failing to file paperwork as a law abiding citizen, then no.......a small fine......

 

[2aguy]

And further, the methods I suggest for "gun control" are merely gun owner control. Not gun control .

Did you really mean to admit that? It's not like it;'s any secret, but it's a rather uprising admission, that those of you on the left [n]wrong[/b] want to control the people. You want government to be the master over the people, and not the servant to the people. And, of course, the greatest threat and obstacle to the sort of tyrannical control that those on your side want is a populace that is capable of resisting, with deadly violence, if necessary. THAT is one of the primary reasons that your side supports “gun control”.

And further, I suspect that you agree that Voter ID laws are good and necessary, and the fact is that Voter ID laws are exactly no different than Background checks for purchasing firearms.

And it's also no secret why your side is opposed to protecting the integrity of the electoral process against vote fraud. Yours is the side that hopes to benefit from such fraud. Allowing illegal votes to be cast and counted violates the rights of every legitimate voter to have his vote carry the proper weight.

Wrong....a voter i.d. simply states that you are the person entitled to the ballot....a background check goes much deeper and looks at your criminal history....completely different level of scrutiny.

I am more than happy to just have a drivers license used to buy a gun.....you can put FELON on the license of felons.........or some other indicator that the individual can't own a gun.....that frees up the background check system, and leaves normal people alone......

You go in...show your drivers license.....get the gun.....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Government doesn't have the authority to ... deny any free citizen the right to possess it.

To the best of my knowledge, felons who've served their time are free citizens. Most released but formerly convicted felons may not legally purchase a firearm. There are some folk who are excepted from that prohibition.

In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where one's civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until one's felony is expunged, one is not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

In light of the preceding, do you think felons who don't qualify for the exemption or who haven't had their felony record expunged should be permitted to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms?

None of that is legal, under the Constitution as it currently stands.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear, with regard to the people's right to keep and bear arms. Government is forbidden from interfering with this right. Period. Your examples do not demonstrate the legitimacy of any of the policies that you defend; they only demonstrate how criminally-corrupt our government has become.

 

[320 Years of History]

Government doesn't have the authority to ... deny any free citizen the right to possess it.

To the best of my knowledge, felons who've served their time are free citizens. Most released but formerly convicted felons may not legally purchase a firearm. There are some folk who are excepted from that prohibition.

In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where one's civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until one's felony is expunged, one is not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

In light of the preceding, do you think felons who don't qualify for the exemption or who haven't had their felony record expunged should be permitted to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms?

None of that is legal, under the Constitution as it currently stands.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear, with regard to the people's right to keep and bear arms. Government is forbidden from interfering with this right. Period. Your examples do not demonstrate the legitimacy of any of the policies that you defend; they only demonstrate how criminally-corrupt our government has become.

I suggest reading:

• Henderson v. United States. In it, the SCOTUS ruled that felons may transfer their guns for sale to a third party vendor, such as a gun vendor and in some cases a particular person as long as they can’t continue to exert influence over the weapons.
• United States v. Rozier. "Statutory restrictions of firearm possession, such as § 922(g)(1), are a constitutional avenue to restrict the Second Amendment right of certain classes of people. Rozier, by virtue of his felony conviction, falls within such a class. Therefore, the fact that Rozier may have possessed the handgun for purposes of self-defense (in his home), is irrelevant."

 

[Jarlaxle]

For example, do you argue that released felons should be able to purchase firearms? Don't give me any babble about "they should be in prison" that is beyond the scope of the question. Simple yes or no question. Do you believe felons who have served their sentence should be allowed to legally purchase firearms?

We can argue about whether pigs would be able to fly, if they had wings, but that's beside the point.

Dangerous, convicted criminals, need to be kept out of the free population. They need to be kept in prison, or else put to death. Your side opposes this, because you are on the side of the criminals, and against that of law-abiding citizens. And you support “gun control” for the same reason.

No, I am not going to let you get away with using the consequences of one of your side's defective policy positions as an excuse for another defective policy position.

But to answer your question, yes, absolutely. A person with a criminal past, who has served his sentence, and “paid his debt to society”, does not owe society any more loss of his own rights. Yes, he absolutely ha as much right to keep and bear arms, as affirmed by the Second Amendment, as every other free citizen, and government has no authority to violate this right.

If allowing him this right is dangerous, then the error is not in allowing a free man this right; but rather in having giving him a sentence that was not appropriate for his established level of criminality. If he's that dangerous, then he never should have been set free.

Why won't you answer the fucking question? That's a sorry assed liberal technique. Be a man, and honestly defend your position. Do you believe felons who have served their sentence should be able to buy a firearm? Yes or no?

Did you not read the post you quoted?!?!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

None of that is legal, under the Constitution as it currently stands.[/COLOR][/B]

I suggest reading:…

Irrelevant.

It is the Constitution itself that is the highest law, and not anyone's opinion about what they wish it said.

To give legal weight to “interpretations” of the Constitution that directly contradict the actual words of the Constitution, is lawlessness and corruption.