Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Debates & Arguments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2010, 06:52 PM   #1
~kev~
pmagnvs
 
~kev~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: East Texas
Class/Position: Engineer - D
Gametype: Free for all CTF - no stupid clan rules
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Gun ownership is a right

Back around the last part of 2008, or early 2009 there was a thread about gun ownership, but it seems to have been removed, I think this is the link, but I'am not sure - http://forums.fortress-forever.com/s...ad.php?t=16338

It says that I do not have permission to access the thread. So I guess it was moved to a moderators section?

There were several statements about how gun ownership was not a right, and that the 2nd amendment did not apply to people. At the time the thread was going on, there were some legal challenges to the gun bans. I said that when the supreme court upholds the peoples right to own guns, I would come back here and post it.

Well, here ya go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_...a/10438332.stm

Quote:
The US Supreme Court has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.

The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional.

Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.
So there it is, gun ownership is a right.

Last edited by ~kev~; 06-28-2010 at 06:57 PM.
~kev~ is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-28-2010, 08:51 PM   #2
Innoc
Hitman 2 1 Actual
 
Innoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: "Oscar Mike"
Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO)
Affiliations: Your Mom
Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times
Send a message via ICQ to Innoc Send a message via AIM to Innoc Send a message via MSN to Innoc Send a message via Yahoo to Innoc
I think that was before the forum structure was regroomed and the old stuff was made inaccessible kev. The thread was, in part, about the DC vs Heller case. I think the issue is more about emotion than anything else. For those opposing the 2nd ammendment claiming that the wording does not incorporate individuals I think their emotion overrides their ability to be reasonable. Their fear/opposition to private weapons ownership and use causes them to try to make the wording seem as if its ambiguous. I don't believe that this new decision will hold at bay those determined to block the exercise of this right. Those are commonly the same people who want a larger Fed. Risking invoking Godwin's Law...I would submit to you that a weak Fed with a protected right to keep and bear arms could never have snuffed out millions of lives in the concentration camps of ww2 Germany.
__________________
Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few.

You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
Innoc is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-28-2010, 10:37 PM   #3
Iggy
Heartless Threadkiller
Beta Tester
Forum Moderator
 
Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Class/Position: D-Solly / O-Medic
Gametype: CTF
Affiliations: [AE] AssEaters
Posts Rated Helpful 42 Times
Banning guns, or the ownership thereof, does one thing, and one thing only: Takes weapons out of the hands of law abiding people.

Anyone who really wants a gun, CAN and WILL get one. There are far too many in the hands of both criminals and private owners for the government to remove them, without using the military to do so. Even though the military has more and better weapons, as well as training to work as a group, the government can't possibly try to use it to go door to door looking for weapons. Several reasons for this:

1) Those who have guns can and probably will fight back.
2) Those who see it coming, will prepare for the attack, and fight back.
3) Criminals will fight back, thinking they are being raided.
4) Despite orders, not everyone in the military will attack civilian homes.

In other words, the end result will be civil war.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
See kids? Only Iggy and FT are good enough to post when high.
Publishers Website My book on BN.com My book on Amazon.com

Friend me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter
Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-29-2010, 02:09 PM   #4
stray kitten
mjau
D&A Member
 
stray kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy
Gametype: Capture the mouse
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
The supreme court decision is one of those where I think... DUH. We had to take this to the supreme court? Most of the rhetoric comes under what terms meant, or "could" have meant in 1790s and what they mean now. Regardless of "regulation" or "bear arms" an outright ban was/is and always has been unconstitutional. So again one has to read the courts decision and think... duh.

And even though I perceive this as a just decision, the fact that is was 5 to 4 is really fucking scary. Would the desire to strip the people of a right to own a gun within the context of the constitution be a liberal idea or a fascist idea?

Both.
__________________
6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.
stray kitten is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-29-2010, 11:17 PM   #5
BinaryLife
Posts: 1 bajillion
D&A Member
Wiki Team
 
BinaryLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gametype: CTF
Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times
Send a message via AIM to BinaryLife
My opinions have changed a little bit. For the most part I still believe that if a private citizen wants a gun to protect his or her family they should be allowed. However, the wording in the constitution isn't ambiguous and does not grant the right to private citizens to carry weapons. It gives rights to a private militia to be formed, and its members carry weapons. However still, private militia's are a thing of the past and were they formed now they would likely be considered a gang by the police.


So, with the constitution needing some updating in this matter perhaps, I would venture to say that there should be some room for changes. The point of weapons and militia's in the past was to allow for the possibility of our people to revolt. That's not really the reason anymore. The reason now is to keep our loved ones safe as well as ourselves. Something that should be mentioned is location as well. For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive. That is not the case everywhere in the country. Some people live very far away from their police, some people also do want to depend on their police for their survival.

I do think we should all be allowed to carry firearms with a permit. The purpose of this permit however, should be to verify that we know what we're doing. Those of you on this forum to do carry are more than likely confident your ability to use your guns. Are you, however, confident if everyone else? Mine perhaps? I can fire an air-soft gun pretty damn well but I've never fired even a hand gun. I want to though. But anyway, I've made all the points I can think of however I cannot think of a closing and this is already way too long. So I will abruptly stop.
BinaryLife is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-29-2010, 11:54 PM   #6
stray kitten
mjau
D&A Member
 
stray kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy
Gametype: Capture the mouse
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
I disagree Binary. But then again that is the whole debate.

Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It is ambiguous, to me it deosn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms it states the right of the people. Private peeple make up militias, it wasn't the intent of the government to make people keep their guns at an armory. It was their intent to come from their farms and homes armed and ready to fight to protect a young nation from corruption and defense of both an individual, his or her property and the nation.

That does not mean the government does not have the right to regulate arms. And the supreme court was pretty clear on this I believe That is where "well regulated militia" comes in perhaps? But to totally Ban ownership is definitely unconstitutional. And the supreme court LIMITS the states ability to do this.

This is a good desision weighing in the constituation, state rights, and individual rights. IMO anyway. And I do not own a gun. Don't even want one.
__________________
6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.
stray kitten is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-30-2010, 12:22 AM   #7
Bridget
Banned
 
Bridget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Class/Position: Soldier
Gametype: AVD
Affiliations: TALOS
Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife View Post
For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive.
LOL
Bridget is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-30-2010, 12:52 AM   #8
GenghisTron
AKA LittleAndroidMan
D&A Member
Beta Tester
 
GenghisTron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dystopia
Class/Position: Demo/Medic
Gametype: CTF
Affiliations: [TALOS] [SR]
Posts Rated Helpful 11 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife View Post
My opinions have changed a little bit. For the most part I still believe that if a private citizen wants a gun to protect his or her family they should be allowed. However, the wording in the constitution isn't ambiguous and does not grant the right to private citizens to carry weapons. It gives rights to a private militia to be formed, and its members carry weapons. However still, private militia's are a thing of the past and were they formed now they would likely be considered a gang by the police.


So, with the constitution needing some updating in this matter perhaps, I would venture to say that there should be some room for changes. The point of weapons and militia's in the past was to allow for the possibility of our people to revolt. That's not really the reason anymore. The reason now is to keep our loved ones safe as well as ourselves. Something that should be mentioned is location as well. For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive. That is not the case everywhere in the country. Some people live very far away from their police, some people also do want to depend on their police for their survival.

I do think we should all be allowed to carry firearms with a permit. The purpose of this permit however, should be to verify that we know what we're doing. Those of you on this forum to do carry are more than likely confident your ability to use your guns. Are you, however, confident if everyone else? Mine perhaps? I can fire an air-soft gun pretty damn well but I've never fired even a hand gun. I want to though. But anyway, I've made all the points I can think of however I cannot think of a closing and this is already way too long. So I will abruptly stop.
__________________
GenghisTron is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-30-2010, 02:50 AM   #9
BinaryLife
Posts: 1 bajillion
D&A Member
Wiki Team
 
BinaryLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gametype: CTF
Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times
Send a message via AIM to BinaryLife
Quote:
Originally Posted by stray kitten View Post
I disagree Binary. But then again that is the whole debate.
Remembering the constitution as it is written often helps when making points. You are correct. However, the end result of my opinion doesn't change, which is that people should be allowed to carry hand guns with a permit. The only thing I really want is a process to make sure those people know how to use them. Even a short class on gun safety, like drivers' ed for firearms would be helpful.
BinaryLife is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-30-2010, 02:34 PM   #10
stray kitten
mjau
D&A Member
 
stray kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy
Gametype: Capture the mouse
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife View Post
Remembering the constitution as it is written often helps when making points. You are correct. However, the end result of my opinion doesn't change, which is that people should be allowed to carry hand guns with a permit. The only thing I really want is a process to make sure those people know how to use them. Even a short class on gun safety, like drivers' ed for firearms would be helpful.
The actual wording of the constitution was a tiny influence on the courts decision. It focused on wether or not those words apply to the states. Meaning the state government ban over the peoples right to bear arms and in particular "self defence". When the ammendement says "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" there isn't alot of leeway there. Text from the ruling:

Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.

People in this country are really fucking confused. Access to medical care is suddenly basic human right but a component of our coveted Bill of Rights and the right to defend our homes is not? More:

A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty.

We haven't even talked about the 14th Amendment wich relates back to the 2nd and was influenced by several events. More text from the new ruling:

By the 1850’s, the fear that the National Government would disarm the universal militia had largely faded, but the right to keep and bear arms was highly valued for self-defense. Abolitionist authors wrote in support of the right, and attempts to disarm “Free-Soilers” in “Bloody Kansas,” met with outrage that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms had been taken from the people. After the Civil War, the Southern States engaged in systematic efforts to disarm and injure African Americans, see Heller, supra, at ___. These injustices prompted the 39th Congress to pass the Freedmen’s
Bureau Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Congress, however, ultimately deemed these legislative remedies insufficient, and approved the Fourteenth Amendment. Today, it is generally accepted that that Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act.


HOLY FUCKING SHIT. Did I read that right.....? The right to bear arms was a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE? Because Southern "democrats" sought to disarm blacks? GODDDDDDDDAMMN. Nigga's be packing.

Anyway the ruling is very detailed and references 200 years of case law almost unaimously upholding the right and tradition of posessing firearms, except modern "liberals" including those on the supreme court decided otherwise. I often ask mysdelf, What are they scared off? Most of the Supreme court dissenters used the same tag line about militias not being that important anymore, a thing of the past. They agree that there is strong tradition and suport historically for the right of people to keep arms for self defense. They however do not think that right applies to the states, meaning states can deny the "right" they are not bound by it.

Also this decision doesn't mention the right to carry that I can find, it was not about carrying or even gun regulation, meanaing permit, classes etc. Guns have always been regulated and every state has requirements for carrying and licensing a gun. It was about outright bans on handgun ownership. Ownership and the right to carry or regulation are not the same in this case. I am no professor but that is my take.
__________________
6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.

Last edited by stray kitten; 06-30-2010 at 02:40 PM.
stray kitten is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-12-2010, 01:58 PM   #11
WiFiDi
Beta Tester
 
WiFiDi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Class/Position: Soldier
Gametype: Capture the Flag is there any other
Posts Rated Helpful 26 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife View Post
My opinions have changed a little bit. For the most part I still believe that if a private citizen wants a gun to protect his or her family they should be allowed. However, the wording in the constitution isn't ambiguous and does not grant the right to private citizens to carry weapons. It gives rights to a private militia to be formed, and its members carry weapons. However still, private militia's are a thing of the past and were they formed now they would likely be considered a gang by the police.


So, with the constitution needing some updating in this matter perhaps, I would venture to say that there should be some room for changes. The point of weapons and militia's in the past was to allow for the possibility of our people to revolt. That's not really the reason anymore. The reason now is to keep our loved ones safe as well as ourselves. Something that should be mentioned is location as well. For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive. That is not the case everywhere in the country. Some people live very far away from their police, some people also do want to depend on their police for their survival.

I do think we should all be allowed to carry firearms with a permit. The purpose of this permit however, should be to verify that we know what we're doing. Those of you on this forum to do carry are more than likely confident your ability to use your guns. Are you, however, confident if everyone else? Mine perhaps? I can fire an air-soft gun pretty damn well but I've never fired even a hand gun. I want to though. But anyway, I've made all the points I can think of however I cannot think of a closing and this is already way too long. So I will abruptly stop.
ah but militias groups have been formed and were shot down. so basically they violated that amendments, they took out a group of militias not that long ago up in Michigan, while they were training.

and also the police getting there in 2 minutes really (thats bullshit) and why put it in a safe put it under your pillow. (most people do this or under your bed. maybe even have it loaded in the safe.)
WiFiDi is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-12-2010, 08:45 PM   #12
Iggy
Heartless Threadkiller
Beta Tester
Forum Moderator
 
Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Class/Position: D-Solly / O-Medic
Gametype: CTF
Affiliations: [AE] AssEaters
Posts Rated Helpful 42 Times
Those "militias" were not authorized or supported by the government.... which is why they were taken out. When the constitution was written, we had no dedicated military. It was up to private citizens to organize local militias to protect the country.

Much of the terminology could be updated in the constitution, but it's meaning and intent should be kept. Therein lies the problem, because it's so open to interpretation.

I honestly think that any private citizen without a criminal record should be able to apply for a permit to carry a firearm. A full course in firearm safety, use and care of the weapon should be manditory in order to secure that permit. With the crime rates in this country out of control, arming private citizens may be the only way to stop it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
See kids? Only Iggy and FT are good enough to post when high.
Publishers Website My book on BN.com My book on Amazon.com

Friend me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter
Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-13-2010, 12:49 AM   #13
Innoc
Hitman 2 1 Actual
 
Innoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: "Oscar Mike"
Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO)
Affiliations: Your Mom
Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times
Send a message via ICQ to Innoc Send a message via AIM to Innoc Send a message via MSN to Innoc Send a message via Yahoo to Innoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Those "militias" were not authorized or supported by the government.... which is why they were taken out. When the constitution was written, we had no dedicated military. It was up to private citizens to organize local militias to protect the country.

Much of the terminology could be updated in the constitution, but it's meaning and intent should be kept. Therein lies the problem, because it's so open to interpretation.

I honestly think that any private citizen without a criminal record should be able to apply for a permit to carry a firearm. A full course in firearm safety, use and care of the weapon should be manditory in order to secure that permit. With the crime rates in this country out of control, arming private citizens may be the only way to stop it.
While we agree on the Right going to those people who've not been convicted of a crime and had their rights limited by due process...we disagree on restrictions you would place on the lawful exercise of that Right. The 2nd Amendment protects a Right not a privilege. The Government does not get to exercise "licensing" and "permitting" processes on a Right.
__________________
Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few.

You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
Innoc is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-13-2010, 04:48 AM   #14
Iggy
Heartless Threadkiller
Beta Tester
Forum Moderator
 
Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Class/Position: D-Solly / O-Medic
Gametype: CTF
Affiliations: [AE] AssEaters
Posts Rated Helpful 42 Times
So just anyone without a criminal background should just be allowed to run around armed, with no training?

Edit: Allow me to clarify; Anyone without a criminal record can OWN a gun(for in home defense, hunting, etc...), but carrying it around with you anywhere is a priviledge that can and should be regulated.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
See kids? Only Iggy and FT are good enough to post when high.
Publishers Website My book on BN.com My book on Amazon.com

Friend me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter

Last edited by Iggy; 08-13-2010 at 04:50 AM.
Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-14-2010, 01:45 AM   #15
WiFiDi
Beta Tester
 
WiFiDi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Class/Position: Soldier
Gametype: Capture the Flag is there any other
Posts Rated Helpful 26 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
So just anyone without a criminal background should just be allowed to run around armed, with no training?

Edit: Allow me to clarify; Anyone without a criminal record can OWN a gun(for in home defense, hunting, etc...), but carrying it around with you anywhere is a privilege that can and should be regulated.
agree with this.
WiFiDi is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-17-2010, 11:36 PM   #16
Innoc
Hitman 2 1 Actual
 
Innoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: "Oscar Mike"
Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO)
Affiliations: Your Mom
Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times
Send a message via ICQ to Innoc Send a message via AIM to Innoc Send a message via MSN to Innoc Send a message via Yahoo to Innoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
So just anyone without a criminal background should just be allowed to run around armed, with no training?

Edit: Allow me to clarify; Anyone without a criminal record can OWN a gun(for in home defense, hunting, etc...), but carrying it around with you anywhere is a priviledge that can and should be regulated.
Yes. The Right to self-defense is part of the drive behind the 2nd Ammendment. The exercise of self-defense doesn't stop when you leave your home.

I trust my fellow man until they give me good reason to believe otherwise. The Founding Father believed that as well. I believe that what you set forth places Govt in a pre-emptive role of determining whether you're trustworthy or not. The Gov't does not have the "right" to do that nor should they expect to do so.
__________________
Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few.

You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
Innoc is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-18-2010, 12:58 AM   #17
Iggy
Heartless Threadkiller
Beta Tester
Forum Moderator
 
Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Class/Position: D-Solly / O-Medic
Gametype: CTF
Affiliations: [AE] AssEaters
Posts Rated Helpful 42 Times
No? So anyone should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person? Even if they've previously been convicted of a violent crime? With no oversight whatsoever?

If that's what you mean, I disagree with you. The governments primary job is to protect the citizens, and their rights. I'll grant you, there can(and often is) a very fine line between the two. However, you wouldn't put a child molester in charge of a daycare center, why would you allow a murderer to carry a weapon?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
See kids? Only Iggy and FT are good enough to post when high.
Publishers Website My book on BN.com My book on Amazon.com

Friend me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter
Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-18-2010, 09:59 AM   #18
Bridget
Banned
 
Bridget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Class/Position: Soldier
Gametype: AVD
Affiliations: TALOS
Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times
  1. What's a 'murderer' doing out of prison? That suggests a small crime (not as bad as you wish to suggest) or successful rehabilitation. So, what's the big deal if they obtain a firearm for personal protection?
  2. Isn't he still entitled to the same right of self-defense as everyone else? Last time I checked, your rights as a human being don't diminish no matter what type of human being you may be.
  3. Criminals will obtain guns no matter the law. Therefore, isn't it better for them to obtain them legally as to provide information to law enforcement in the rare case that such a person were to commit another crime?
Bridget is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-18-2010, 11:02 AM   #19
Iggy
Heartless Threadkiller
Beta Tester
Forum Moderator
 
Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Class/Position: D-Solly / O-Medic
Gametype: CTF
Affiliations: [AE] AssEaters
Posts Rated Helpful 42 Times
If you believe in number 1, you should come to Baltimore.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox
See kids? Only Iggy and FT are good enough to post when high.
Publishers Website My book on BN.com My book on Amazon.com

Friend me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter
Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-18-2010, 02:03 PM   #20
Innoc
Hitman 2 1 Actual
 
Innoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: "Oscar Mike"
Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO)
Affiliations: Your Mom
Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times
Send a message via ICQ to Innoc Send a message via AIM to Innoc Send a message via MSN to Innoc Send a message via Yahoo to Innoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
No? So anyone should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person? Even if they've previously been convicted of a violent crime? With no oversight whatsoever?

If that's what you mean, I disagree with you. The governments primary job is to protect the citizens, and their rights. I'll grant you, there can(and often is) a very fine line between the two. However, you wouldn't put a child molester in charge of a daycare center, why would you allow a murderer to carry a weapon?
Iggy, the only way a person's Rights should ever be removed or limited is at the hand of a jury of their peers. It should never be by administrative or legislative action. I've stated my view of Rights for those who've been stripped of them via due process earlier ITT. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough?

Child Molesters? Really Iggy? Was that necessary? This seems clear enough without muddying it with parallels or analogies...
__________________
Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few.

You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
Innoc is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.