Is there room for compromise in gun rights vs gun control?

So for you, one person is "So many" You found one example among many different pro-gun people.
I respond in the order that I read it, so I often ask the same question others do. I'm not going to change the way I read and respond to threads, so just ignore a question if you've already answered it.

 

I've already stated that Operation Exile should be implemented nation wide. Look it up.

Violent criminals should be in jail where they belong.

If someone is released from prison, it should be because they have been rehabilitated.

If they have been rehabilitated, there is no reason to limit their Constitutional rights.

Leftists don't care about violent criminals having guns, it's just a smoke screen excuse to make it palatable for freedom-minded people.

If they did, they wouldn't have such a desire to empty the prisons and to work hard NOT to charge people for illegal possession of firearms. Chicago alone dropped 13,000 felony firearm cases in the last 7 years.

 

It's the only restriction I agree with. Since felons forfeit their rights when they couldn't remain in society. Felons should not own guns.

 

I don't know about the other states but here in Arkansas our homicide rate is so high simply because of Little Rock and Pine Bluff and if you were to look at the populations of those two you would find a predominance of poor blacks.

 

How about the dangerously mentally ill, those adjudged so?

 

How would putting more restrictions on law abiding gun owners going to prevent criminals from taking human lives and how do their owning guns remove the civility from America?

 

What do you mean by that? Give the government access to everyone's medical records? Flag medical records? What privacy are you trying to breach?

 

The above is not even a quote made by myself. You are confusing sources.

 

Heller stated that the second amendment protected all firearms that are in common use, meaning anything that is currently available on the open market.

Except it does not have the authority to declare firearms as not being protected under the second amendment, even if they are in a configuration that could not have been imagined by the founding fathers. This was established in Caetano.

Irrelevant.

This is a blatantly false statement. If firearms cannot be purchased or otherwise acquired, it is obviously not possible for someone to either keep or bear them.

As is committing assault, murder, and a variety of other crimes. Yet they are still committed regardless.

Which has no actual relevance to what is being discussed. The claim made by yourself stated that, according to the precedent sent in Miller the ownership of firearm must have relevance to the preservation and maintaining of a well regulated militia in order to be legal. This would mean that ownership of a firearm for the purpose of hunting would not be legal, as hunting rifles have no relation to the militia or its duties.

The blatantly erroneous statement was made on the part of yourself. You demonstrate where Miller stated that firearms ownership was illegal unless said ownership was in some way connected to the preserving of the well regulated militia.

 

If they are known to be dangerous, and their mental illness has been well documented, there is quite literally no legitimate reason for them to ever be out in public where they can do the most harm. Do you disagree? Mental illness cannot be cured, it is permanent. Those who are mentally ill cannot be cured, cannot be fixed, cannot be adjusted, cannot be made safe to be around. They are no dangerous than a rabid animal, and should be treated no differently. Either keep them confined for the duration of their life, or otherwise kill them.

 

I said, "those adjudged so" meaning adjudged dangerously mentally ill.

So your privacy concerns trump public safety? You think those people who constantly scream at and fight with invisible foes should be able to arm themselves? Where I live we have a more than small concern with seriously disturbed people who inexplicably and unpredictably push others into traffic and/or off subway platforms, you're fine with them having pistols?

 

For almost 50 years, federal law has prohibited the purchase/possession of firearms by these people. No one wants to change this.

 

So now it's better to institutionalize and/or kill people rather than deny them the right to have a gun? Jesus Christ Almighty, I see why you're so adamant about gun control, you think owning one is the major thing that makes life worth living.

 

Why do we prohibit felons and those adjudicated mentally ill legal access to a firearm?

 

You didn't answer my question. Most gun grabbers don't. How are you going to determine who is "mentally fit"? Right now, your medical history is protected. Which rights are you saying we should breach to change this? Please don't deflect this time.

 

If judged to be a danger to self or others, with a committment hearing, per GCA of 1968. Not if that is just the decision of a psychiatrist, without due process.

 

And it is because of people like you that "violent offenders" are on the streets. All you care about is control and misrepresenting people. It's people like you that are the problem. It's not the people that end up in prison; it's people like you that are opposed to rehabilitation.

Not everybody that broke the law (even felons) deserve to have their unalienable Rights jeopardized. The punishment should fit the crime. A tax protester does not deserve to be denied their unalienable Rights when their crime had nothing to do with being a peaceable citizen. The 17 year old that got tossed in the slammer over smoking pot or mooning the grocery clerk should not be denied their Rights. Likewise, if people are not rehabilitated, they should not be allowed back into society.

You want our prisons to be factories for turning out career criminals so that you can bi+ch and wail for big government to reduce all our Rights into mere privileges.

 

You really should read my thread on an UNALIENABLE Right.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/an-unalienable-right.506079/

I have to respectfully disagree with you on unalienable Rights and hope that you would read that thread before committing to your position.

Having said that, there is no "right" to vote. It is a privilege of citizenship and revocable by the government that created it.

 

deleted

 

Wait, wut? So much fail in your post:

You'll have to tell me where I said I'm against rehabilitation. Don't bother looking, it's not there. I can want prisoners to be rehabilitated all day long. That doesn't make it true. Oh, I wish it were - I'd wish myself a million dollars every week. If and when we actually stop sending violent criminals to the streets, I'd agree they could have their rights back. Do you object to child molesters registering after they've paid their debt? You assume they've changed?

Ok - next, if your tax protester shot someone while protesting, yes, I'd call him violent. If not, he's not a violent criminal and I don't want his rights taken away. Same for the pot smoker. Did he steal the pot at gunpoint? Violent. Just got caught with some weed? Don't even ****ing send him to prison. We have the highest prison population in the world. I don't want pot smokers in prison. Nobody should be put into prison for something they did to their own body. Ever.

 

Per the GCA of 1968, after a commitment hearing

Now you answer mine, should privacy concerns trump public safety, like they do now?

 

That's the same question that led to the Patriot Act.

Privacy in my opinion is a civil liberty, unless you're a criminal convicted by a jury of your peers (felony) and can't adhere to society's rules.

 

You like talking out both sides of your mouth. In every case I cited, the crimes are felonies. IF you were for rehabilitation, you would put some effort into the cause. Where are the threads that you posted on that subject? No. You are in that group of people saying no guns for felons. You've never said violent felons... no sir. Even the gun owners that want to compromise with you would strip their fellow man of unalienable Rights. Too many of you are in love with a government / God.

And what is a "violent crime?" If you paid a $20 fine to the local Justice of the Peace back in the 1970s as a teen when you and your brother argued over Susie Rottencrotch, it is the legal basis to withhold your unalienable Rights. This stuff is pure B.S.

A man was driving through Georgia. He gets off at a rest stop close to my home. He needs to urinate, but the bathrooms are closed. The LEOs were trying to bust gays soliciting for sex, so they made everyone do their business outside. LEOs were planted in the woods doing surveillance on the rest stop. Well, this guy goes into the nearby woods and lets it rip. He is arrested for a sex crime! Today he is a registered sex offender (the only crime on his record.) And your laws say he is to be denied a firearm???

You want to play games, so let's be up front. I'd rehabilitate people. I've even drafted and submitted to my state senator a bill that does what I advocate on this board. He sits on his a** and don't move on it. But, I am doing my part and will ratchet it up a notch - even considering running against this career politician. But, if I were in charge:

Pedophiles, rapists, murderers, drug lords, seditionists and those convicted of treason would, most likely, never get out of prison if I wrote the laws. Those who think they are above rehabilitation would have to serve their full terms and, if they want to be in prison, a third conviction would give them their wish.... for life. The difference between you and I is that I act on my convictions and DO things to make a difference. What have you done, save of lobbying to toss people into a cage and call it a day?

76.6 percent of the people in Georgia that serve time are rearrested within five years. What have you done in your lifetime to cut that number? My response to you is not a fail. It's cold, hard reality that you are shielded from. You are living proof of why a democracy is the worst form of government known to God or man.

 

I never even said felons. I said VIOLENT CRIMINALS, every time. Now, prove I said all felons or shut up already. Quit responding to what you imagine I said. I'm in favor of rehab. I write to my congress critters all the time, on a variety of topics. Damn dude.... WTF did I do to you to cause such violent reaction to my posts?

 

It was yourself that introduced the concept of dangerously mentally ill individuals, suggesting that the danger they pose not only to themselves but also others is well documented and known about. Mental illness can never be cured, therefore this clear and present danger they pose remains for the duration of their lives. Allowing them out in society where they can do the most harm, is no more sound than knowingly putting a convicted pedophile in charge of a daycare center.

Since these individuals can never be made safe to be around, they must either be confined for the duration of their lives, or they must be killed, if the primary interest is public safety. They cannot coincide with society at large, so one option or the other is the only option available.

Such a claim has never been made by myself. Nor can it actually be proven to have been made, either by yourself, or anyone else involved in the current discussion.