JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Is the friend going to get in trouble for an illegal transfer?
 
Well the old judged by 12 or carried by 6. He is alive, he got a very light sentence so I guess still a win for him. If it was me I would look at some of the less than stuff for the future.
#fakenews, it's illegal for him so he can't possibly get one later.
 
I don't feel sorry for felons losing their ability to legally possess firearms. One of the guy's convictions was for a burglary he committed and he wound up shooting a burglar now himself. I think he got off pretty easy with probation.
 
I don't feel sorry for felons losing their ability to legally possess firearms. One of the guy's convictions was for a burglary he committed and he wound up shooting a burglar now himself. I think he got off pretty easy with probation.
I would be fine with this if it was across the board. If people want to say once convicted you lose your rights? Great. It should be all rights. Not just one they want to pick from. If someone makes the choice to get high and drive, then kills? They should for life not be able to drive. Notice how few now support the idea? That tells you a LOT.
 
I would be fine with this if it was across the board. If people want to say once convicted you lose your rights? Great. It should be all rights. Not just one they want to pick from. If someone makes the choice to get high and drive, then kills? They should for life not be able to drive. Notice how few now support the idea? That tells you a LOT.
I support it. In fact, I'd support permanent loss of driving privileges with a single DUI. Call a cab, call a friend, take a walk but DON'T get behind the wheel. If you plan on drinking, don't drive yourself to the bar. Anyone that drives drunk made the choice that their convenience outweighs all other driver's safety, therefore I have no qualms about being extremely heavy handed about it.
 
I support it. In fact, I'd support permanent loss of driving privileges with a single DUI. Call a cab, call a friend, take a walk but DON'T get behind the wheel. If you plan on drinking, don't drive yourself to the bar. Anyone that drives drunk made the choice that their convenience outweighs all other driver's safety, therefore I have no qualms about being extremely heavy handed about it.
Yep. Actions need to have consequences. That deters irresponsible behavior.
 
Yep. Actions need to have consequences. That deters irresponsible behavior.
It certainly would if they were consistent. A LOT of the problem we are having with crime right now is so much of it goes unpunished. When scum no longer fear consequences we see what we have going on here now. The other real downside is law abiding sooner or later break and start to take over since they feel law enforcement is going to do nothing. Then the same law enforcement that would not protect them comes after them. :(
 
The problem I have with the current justice system is that they're punishing persons who did not use a gun or weapon in their prior criminal activity. Be it two years ago or twenty, by taking away their 2A rights.

If the individual did not use a weapon..gun, knife, etc..in their criminal act, their 2A rights should not be infringed.
 
The problem I have with the current justice system is that they're punishing persons who did not use a gun or weapon in their prior criminal activity. Be it two years ago or twenty, by taking away their 2A rights.

If the individual did not use a weapon..gun, knife, etc..in their criminal act, their 2A rights should not be infringed.
I agree with most of what you're saying there, but would argue that a crime involving physical violence regardless of whether a weapon is used should be the deciding factor.
 
I agree with most of what you're saying there, but would argue that a crime involving physical violence regardless of whether a weapon is used should be the deciding factor.
Well..I disagree with that..but that's ok. I think the escalation from using strength to defend oneself..or engaging in an equal fist to fist fight, ..is a number of levels below using a weapon.
 
Well..I disagree with that..but that's ok. I think the escalation from using strength to defend oneself..or engaging in an equal fist to fist fight, ..is a number of levels below using a weapon.
This assumes all people are of equal strength. That is not the case. I think it also misses the fact that bare hands can be lethal as well. Lethal force is lethal force. There may be levels of effectiveness, but I do not think that should matter when it comes to the law.
 
This assumes all people are of equal strength. That is not the case. I think it also misses the fact that bare hands can be lethal as well. Lethal force is lethal force. There may be levels of effectiveness, but I do not think that should matter when it comes to the law.
I'm coming at this more from the perspective of mindset of the felon. If they're the aggressor in an altercation and beat the living hell out of their victim, doesn't matter if it was barehanded or not - they've demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to control their anger and/or associate consequences with their actions. That's a person who shouldn't have a gun. There should always be a path for them to get their rights back, though - for example, if they can prove or demonstrate they are no longer a threat to others.
 
This assumes all people are of equal strength. That is not the case. I think it also misses the fact that bare hands can be lethal as well. Lethal force is lethal force. There may be levels of effectiveness, but I do not think that should matter when it comes to the law.
Certainly does not to me. If some idiot attacks me? I am not willing to see if I can "win" a fight. Attack me? I will shoot you. If you allow someone to attack you and do not use a gun you may well miss out on the chance and could well end up being killed. No thanks.
 
I'm coming at this more from the perspective of mindset of the felon. If they're the aggressor in an altercation and beat the living hell out of their victim, doesn't matter if it was barehanded or not - they've demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to control their anger and/or associate consequences with their actions. That's a person who shouldn't have a gun. There should always be a path for them to get their rights back, though - for example, if they can prove or demonstrate they are no longer a threat to others.
I have long said. If the person is not capable of living in society? They should be removed from it. Saying someone who refuses to control themselves or live in society can't legally own a gun, but are just fine roaming around looking for more victims? No thanks. Sadly though not may are willing to vote to keep said scum locked up or kill them. So those of use who choose to have to be able to defend ourselves from the scum.
 
The problem I have with the current justice system is that they're punishing persons who did not use a gun or weapon in their prior criminal activity. Be it two years ago or twenty, by taking away their 2A rights.

If the individual did not use a weapon..gun, knife, etc..in their criminal act, their 2A rights should not be infringed.
Well, I would not say that across the board. Child molesters and rapists that didn't use a gun or knife are still people that I don't want to see being able to own or possess firearms. A guy who embezzled 10 grand from his employer is not someone that I'd be worried about though.
 

Upcoming Events

Roseburg Rod and Gun Club Gun Show
  • Roseburg, OR
Redmond Gun Show
  • Redmond, OR

New Classified Ads

Back Top