Background checks don't infringe on 2nd amdt.

I have the right to bear arms. Okay, but if I am a criminal, why shouldn't I lose that right? Criminals lose a lot of constitutional rights. Plus, are we really safer with criminals able to easily buy guns?

Please explain. Convince me otherwise, don't just babble about liberty and 'murica.

 

Interesting that you bring this up with the current controversy occurring in Virginia.

The governor there is a Clinton crony, and he and the leftist attorney general determined, without the state legislature being consulted, that approximately 200,000 convicted felons would have their right to vote restored. While this is simply a flagrant attempt by Democrats to give Hillary a victory in VA this November, some have questioned if this executive action should include the ability to possess firearms.

In most states, including VA, felons do not have 2A rights. But since liberals/progressives/socialists are using these felons to advance their chances of Virginia going blue, shouldn't the 2A apply as well?

 

So you are saying you need a background check to speak your mind or practice your religion, or publish what you want in the press......OK fine but most of you would fail the check for your unintelligent posts....want to continue?

 

so you're comfortable with convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters, owning AR-15s?

 

We should first question why the criminals you describe are not still in prison.

If this scum was locked away for most of their lives, as any reasonable society would do to protect its citizens, the question of these dangerous people owning a firearm wouldn't be applicable, as they would still be incarcerated...

 

so you think all violent crimes should bring a life sentence?

that will cost a lot of money.

 

We either pay the price it costs to keep violent people segregated from peaceable society, or we accept the violence they perpetrate on us. Those are the choices.

 

how about treatment and rehabilitation so when they get out, they have a chance to succeed in society and wont go back to their criminal ways?

 

Under our current system, you are correct. Liberals/progressives/socialists have maintained for decades that incarceration should be rehabilitative, which, coupled with court decisions by leftist federal judges, have created a system that costs more to house a thug than to educate a college student.

My solution? Drop the phony War on Drugs, legalize all currently illegal drugs, and make prisons viable for the long-term incarceration for violent people.

Life sentences? Not quite. But decades long incarceration for those who commit violence against people. And no parole or probation. No exercise yards. A basic 1200 calorie a day feeding program. And provide an opportunity for someone facing a 50 year term to commit suicide; death with dignity, if you will.

Kill someone when you're 19? You'll be kept away from normal people until you are well into your sixties. Rape someone? You won't see the outside of a cell until you hit 70 or so.

Why our society allows thugs to victimize people again and again is beyond logical thinking...

 

If they are rehabilitated, then I have no problem at all with them regaining their liberty and rights. Why should I worry about a rehabilitated criminal having an AR-15?

 

Conservatives don't want to rehabilitate criminals.

they just wanna lock em up and give them $50 when they are released.

 

Liberals don't want to rehabilitate criminals either, and are just fine releasing known-violent people back onto peaceable society to perpetrate their violence over and again. I know this to be true, because, that is exactly what they do.

 

Actually, we don't wish to release them at all. Why should normal people continue to be victimized by the revolving prison door created by liberals/progressives/socialists. But I already made this point in an earlier post...

 

Nope, not what I said.....now am I speaking to Dagosa, Ron, or the FBI guy? Maybe the meter cop from NY? But beyond all that are you OK with the gubbermint telling you what you can and can't say, or the gubbermint telling you what religion you can practice? You have a weird sense of which rights you support, eh?

 

Whoops did you miss the last part of that post, I mean since you asked and all? Here I'll repost it "Why should I worry about a rehabilitated criminal having an AR-15?"

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops did you miss the last part of that post, I mean since you asked and all? Here I'll repost it "Why should I worry about a rehabilitated criminal having an AR-15?"

 

There is one more choice, Personal defense with a firearm.

 

No, we're comfortable with them being in prison, where they should remain until they're no longer a threat.

- - - Updated - - -

With the 70%+ recidivism rate, hows that workin out?

- - - Updated - - -

With the 70%+ recidivism rate, hows that workin out?

 

There is a 0% recidivism rate from the cemetery.... lol

 

Well, that is the logical response to the knowing release of violent people back into our society. For as long as the liberal criminal justice system persists in this practice, I will be compelled to keep and bear arms against it. I am thankful that our founders ensured that my right to do so, shall not be infringed.

 

You never really know if a criminal will commit another crime. Also, what good does it do to society for these people to have guns? Better safe than sorry

 

No, I am not saying that. You cannot walk into an elementary school and murder

- - - Updated - - -

No, I am not saying that. A convicted criminal cannot walk into an elementary school and murder 26 people in five minutes with a newspaper.

- - - Updated - - -

That's disgusting. That's truly disgusting of you.

 

They can just burn the school down or blow it up with a homemade bomb.

 

If you don't like the " gubberment" and the legal presidencies that courts are bound by, you have only to look in the mirror.
" The 11 U.S. presidents since World War II have appointed 28 Supreme Court members. Republicans 17, Democrats 11"

Since WW2 the more conservative supreme courts have deterrent these rulings that courts are bound by.
The hodge podge of rulings relative to gun laws and the judgements set forth as a result has been "codified" by the conservative balance in the rulings they make.

Conservatives in general rule in favor of corporate rights over personal rights which includes the rights of gun makers to include criminals in their markets for their wears. NOTHING has been done on the federal level that has prevented gun sales to criminals. Only on the federal can it be done and the rulings since "Citizen United " has reflected that more.

Federal Supreme Court judges Scalia and Thomas have taken federal law rulings in a new direction overall by engaging in fundraising events for the GOP to help sell their influence to the highest bidders. The highest bidders include the PAC of the NRA and the for profit prison systems.

There is no way to presently keep guns out of the hands of criminals thanks to the for profit motivated right.....who are always wrong on this issue. We can do credit card and loan qualification checks on every single adult in America but some how we can't do reliable background checks on those who want to buy a gun. Blame the GOP. They support this mess and conservative "gubberment" supporters are responsible.

 

Hahahaha! So you are saying there are no democrat gun owners and no democrats value freedom.

 

I am sorry for your inability to read the written word. It's typical though. When one does not have a literate resonse to one idea, they make one up they can understand. This whole statement was on corporate influence, specifically, as it applies to the NRA . But, because being well informed means to you knowing what each number of the Smith and Wesson serial number, it has to now be in terms of something Irrelevant.

Even conservative side blames corporate interest as a problem......then promote agendas that go against personal freedom.