Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Nra

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-30-2007, 01:58 AM   #21
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BrassMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SW Illinois
Posts: 325
Liked 9 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Quote:
Some assault weapons need to be restricted from certain people having them.
Careful Marmarc theres a ****storm comming. Don't worry guys I am all for "assault rifles" and think every american citizen should own one or two.
__________________

Last edited by BrassMonkey; 05-30-2007 at 11:08 AM.
BrassMonkey is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 10:38 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JoeLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 64
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

I'm in the NRA it's way to liberal orientated for me go GOA.

__________________
NEVER KICK A SKUNK
JoeLee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 03:59 AM   #23
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BLS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 607
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrassMonkey View Post
Don't worry guys I am all for "assault rifles" and think every american citizen should own one or two.
Does that include convicted felons and mental defectives?
__________________

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.
- Jack Handey

BLS33 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 10:08 AM   #24
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS33 View Post
Does that include convicted felons and mental defectives?
Banning guns isn't the answer. Dealing with criminals and nuts is. Do you really think that if the VT shooter wanted a gun he would not have been able to get one, whether or not he had been tagged "mentally defective"? Hell, we have laws in place now that would have flagged that guy if other laws (HIPAA) had not prevented the state from doing the proper background check.

As for felons, well, there are all kinds, aren't there? I don't have a problem with felons whose crimes were not violent owning firearms after they've done their time. If they're violent criminals (rape, murder, armed robbery, carjacking), why are they still breathing?
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 10:46 AM   #25
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BrassMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SW Illinois
Posts: 325
Liked 9 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrassMonkey
Don't worry guys I am all for "assault rifles" and think every american citizen should own one or two.

Does that include convicted felons and mental defectives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS33 View Post
Does that include convicted felons and mental defectives?
I believe you have taken my statment out of context, "mental defectives" and convicted felons should be handled on a case by case basis. If a person was convicted of a non-violent crime (check fraud, tax evasion, ect) that person should have all of their rights restored upon their release back into society, including the right to bear arms. If a person commits a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery, ect) they should not be released. The way I feel about it is if you do not feel a person can be trusted with firearms then they should probably stay in prison. We all know criminals can get guns if they desire to do so.

Mental illness is a whole other subject. If a person was treated for depression, or alcohol addiction in the past do you feel that they should lose their rights under the BOR? If a person is deemed to be a danger to society then they should be put away in an institution where they will recieve the treatment they need. If they are deemed fit to release back into society then they should have their rights fully restored upon their release. Once again if you would not trust them with guns then they should stay locked up.

The problem with most gun control measures is that they target the wrong people. If a fresh out of prison violent felon wants a gun they will just buy one from their local drug dealer, cousin, friend, ect. The only people who are bound by federal, state, and local gun laws are the law abiding. Do you really fear your fellow law abiding citizens owning firearms?

It does not matter if the weapon in question is an "assault rifle", pistol, shotgun, or hunting rifle (sniper rifle in anti speak). The antis want to ban them all, but know they cannot do it all at once. They are going after "assault weapons", and .50 calibers now. If they take those then they will came after your handguns next, then sniper er uh I mean hunting rifles, then shotguns. If you wont defend my right to own an "assault rifle" then I and many others will not be around to defend your right to own a pistol, or hunting rifle after we lost what is important to us.

"Stand together or fall apart"
__________________
BrassMonkey is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2007, 02:29 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BRSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23
Default nra

I belong to the NRA. Do I stand for everything they do? NO!! Do I think we need a voice in Washington? YES!! Join the NRA. Join your states version, if they have one, join GOA or RTKBA, we gunowners are going to need all the help we can get in the not to distant future. " A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington

__________________

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"] IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, CAN WE USE SWORDS?

BRSmith is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2007, 03:31 AM   #27
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BLS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 607
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Banning guns isn't the answer. Dealing with criminals and nuts is. Do you really think that if the VT shooter wanted a gun he would not have been able to get one, whether or not he had been tagged "mentally defective"? Hell, we have laws in place now that would have flagged that guy if other laws (HIPAA) had not prevented the state from doing the proper background check.

As for felons, well, there are all kinds, aren't there? I don't have a problem with felons whose crimes were not violent owning firearms after they've done their time. If they're violent criminals (rape, murder, armed robbery, carjacking), why are they still breathing?

There are plenty of people in the U.S. that aren't fit to to own firearms, whether it be they have mental defects or are just unsafe idiots. One thing you can infer from any class of felon is that they don't make wise decisions. So I actually support not allowing any class felon owning firearms, they are criminals. Is every felon more likley to use a gun in a violent or criminal act? No, but I think they are way more likley then someone who hasn't commited a felony. I think someone with mental illness that is deemed by a doctor to be completley cured should be allowed to bare arms. Also in regards to the VT shooter, who are we to speculate whether or not he was denied ownership determined if he did it or not. Chances are he would get his hands on a gun either way but you just don't know.


BrassMonkey, how did I take your quote out of context? The only thing I excluded was "Careful Marmarc theres a ****storm comming" I didn't exlude anything that would cause an alteration or distortion of your sentiment.
__________________

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.
- Jack Handey

BLS33 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2007, 12:03 PM   #28
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS33 View Post
There are plenty of people in the U.S. that aren't fit to to own firearms, whether it be they have mental defects or are just unsafe idiots. One thing you can infer from any class of felon is that they don't make wise decisions. So I actually support not allowing any class felon owning firearms, they are criminals. Is every felon more likley to use a gun in a violent or criminal act? No, but I think they are way more likley then someone who hasn't commited a felony. I think someone with mental illness that is deemed by a doctor to be completley cured should be allowed to bare arms. Also in regards to the VT shooter, who are we to speculate whether or not he was denied ownership determined if he did it or not. Chances are he would get his hands on a gun either way but you just don't know.
What defines a "mental defective"? Who decides the thresholds of "normal" and "wacko"? Who would certify a person "sane" so that they may buy a firearm? There are many people who believe having a desire to own a firearm is an indication of mental illness. Do you want these people holding public office and drafting gun-control laws? I sure don't.

Your argument is akin to legislators who want to ban some guns and types of ammo but not others. Their decisions are uninformed, arbitrary and adversely impact law-abiding citizens.

The Constitution is clear. Let's not screw around with exceptions to an absolute guarantee of a God-given right.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2007, 07:56 PM   #29
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BLS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 607
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
What defines a "mental defective"? Who decides the thresholds of "normal" and "wacko"? Who would certify a person "sane" so that they may buy a firearm? There are many people who believe having a desire to own a firearm is an indication of mental illness. Do you want these people holding public office and drafting gun-control laws? I sure don't.

Your argument is akin to legislators who want to ban some guns and types of ammo but not others. Their decisions are uninformed, arbitrary and adversely impact law-abiding citizens.

The Constitution is clear. Let's not screw around with exceptions to an absolute guarantee of a God-given right.
I'm not talking about banning any guns, I'm talking about restriciting the sale of all firearms to criminals and mental defectives as deemed by a doctor. If someone has dyslexia or other learning disorders no doctor is going to say they are unfit to own a weapon. I'm also not saying anyone needs a mental checkup before buying a gun. But if someone has been diagnosed with schizophrenia I would hope that they wouldn't be able to get their hands on a weapon. Also the right to bear arms is in no way a God given right.
__________________

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.
- Jack Handey

BLS33 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2007, 09:57 PM   #30
Administrator
FTF_ADMIN.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
notdku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hill Country,Texas
Posts: 5,563
Liked 698 Times on 387 Posts
Likes Given: 729

Default

What about some guy or girl growing pot for medical marijuana patients. Even though State law allows it, Federal law does not and it's a felony.

Should that guy be barred from owning firearms if the Feds decide to charge him and he is convicted? Doing a blanket law would mean yes.

__________________

Not Registered? Register now! - It's free and helps the community grow.

notdku is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes