Would you support limiting this guys 2A rights?

Absolutely he's an attempted murderer how could he not be prevented from buying or owning?

 

Is this a trick question?

 

I would not limit any of his 'rights'. I also would not hang out with him. If you want to do something to him then have at it but i dont know the guy and i really dont care to.

 

My guess is that his 2nd rights are already limited

 

+1 Is it?

 

No. This is why:

1) "Shall not be infringed". Especially not when there's nothing wrong. Keep in mind the "prior to".
2) "Odd" means nothing. Should 2A rights be infringed because someone has different religious/spiritual beliefs? Has no spiritual beliefs? Dresses differently than others? Listens to different music? "Normal" is very very relative.
3) Registries are in general used for their intended purposes roughly 0 seconds after they're even thought of. Look at the talks of the magical terror watch list and the no-fly list, that are filled without due process, but (might) get used for all sorts BoR-limiting actions.


The magical idea that all bad stuff can be prevented is nonsense. Our 2A-confirmed rights give us the possibility to stand up when crimes happen to us. In the place I'm from you are very likely to get punished for physically defending yourself from an assailant, let alone use a weapon. I'm happy to be somewhere where the ability to level the playing field is not taken away.

 

My Dad used to say, "It takes all kinds." Our society has been conditioned to shun certain people because of their sexual orientation, race, sex, because they are ODD, for a myriad of reasons. We are no longer a community. Folks are isolated and begin to feel that they are societal outcasts. Give the kid a hug, get off his back, have some meaningful conversation and help him out of his funk!

 

People who take away or attempt to take away other's peoples RIGHT TO LIFE, the number #1 fundamental right, don't deserve to have rights themselves. IMO.. Sorry I am anti-murder, don't know about others.

Once upon a time in America, we had this thing called Justice, but not many people know about it anymore.

 

Let me put it this way: this feller should not be able TODAY to "pass" a background check. The goat incident is unsettling but not disqualifying. But the assault is, at least until he gets his day in court and cleared of the "attempted murder charge" (and his right to a speedy trail shall not be infringed). If lucky, he'll state mandated therapy, probation, and a bunch of other restrictions. And until it is determined he is not a danger to himself and others, should not be legally able to "keep and bear arms".

And this is as far we as responsible gun owners should be able to yield, so that gun grabbers can see that we also agree that with the "rights" there are also "responsibilities".

 

From what I have seen about 90% of this stuff is drug related. I think the war on drugs is so badly corrupted it is meaningless. I don't think anyone should be barred the use of arms while there are drugs everywhere. Gun laws aren't going to work any better than the drug laws.

 

Absolutely not. Here is why:

1) It makes it all about the guns and not about the danger this guy might be to society EVEN WITHOUT A GUN.
2) What should be happening is one of four things:
A) He should be in jail awaiting trial on his attempted murder charges. (If a judge during bail hearing finds him to be a risk). His right to a gun will be temporarily denied (among many other rights of people in jail). NOTE: No specific banned-from-having-a-gun-list is necessary, he's in jail.
B) He should be in prison, after being convicted of some charge. (Again, rights denied based on being in prison)
C) He should be out on parole. A possible CONDITION OF PAROLE would be not to be in possession of a gun OR OTHER WEAPONS. There could be other conditions depending on the individual case. Don't like the conditions? Then don't get out on parole.
D) He should be free (not in jail, not in prison, not on parole), whether pre-trial, post trial (not guilty), or after completing his sentence. Once free, he should have all of his rights back.

This is what SHOULD happen. I know current law provides for denial of gun ownership to persons previously convicted of felony. I don't believe in that.

 

Ah, a school teacher. Now it's perfectly clear.

 

No, we don't charge people with pre-crimes (yet), that's why gun bans and every other piece of legislation won't ever prevent criminal violence... It only provides for the punishment of said actions.

Another thing to consider is, those who are in power get to make the rules for criteria of what qualifies for "the database". If you disagree with the current administration you are a "hate monger", a "racist", a "homophobe", a "constitutional extremist", a "domestic terrorist", or a "CONSERVATIVE".

As the rules are always subject to change, you might just find yourself on the wrong side of that some day.


I can't get any more conservative-libertarian than that!

 

This guy's rights are removed when he moves into the jail house to serve time for his crime. Please note: He attempted to kill his father with an axe, not a gun. If he is free, and cannot legally possess firearms, do you think he really cares?

I do not think anyone that is not serving time in a jail or a secure mental facility should be restricted from being a full citizen. If he is a danger to society, he should be executed. After that he will no long be a danger to anyone.

 

I'd probably put him on a registry so he couldn't buy any axes. Particularly those double-bit assault axes.


elsie

 

LMAO.... touche'

 

is goat ruslin a felony?if he had his own goat could he sacrifice it?my uncile use to work at smuckers with mexicans that used to kill goats in there back yards all the time made pretty good tacos.