I think criminals should be allowed to legally buy guns.

[BlancoNino]

I mean very well with my reasons.

A criminal goes to jail for assault with a deadly weapon for 10 years. He gets out..and he has nothing. He has to return to a part of town with high crime. He has a history, so he knows people are out to get him. He can't buy a weapon to protect himself, so he buys one on the black market. Next thing he knows, he's caught with the weapon (despite having done nothing) and goes back to jail...repeat cycle.

Either that or he uses the weapon he bought illegally to save his life...at which point he goes to jail again and repeats a similar cycle.

Or it's possible the criminal uses the gun he bought illegally for murder...in which case there is no record of him purchasing that gun, whereas if he had bought it at a store, there would be a record and it would make an investigation much easier.

Do you agree?

Discuss.

 

[Harvey]

What you smokin, Rufus? PUT DOWN THE PIPE! :thumbsdown: :roll: :thumbsdown:

 

[dmcowen674]

I believe everyone should have a gun at all times except those not able to properly discharge the weapon.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Harvey
PUT DOWN THE PIPE!

LOL well I guess I deserve that for having probably some of the most "crazy" view points here on ATOT and ATPN. But I honestly gaurantee you that my opinions are all good natured and I believe they will benefit society on the whole.

Edit: And I've heard this talked about before. It's a pretty legit argument, IMO.

 

[ProfJohn]

I hate to agree with Harvey, but come on man use your brain.

You are willing to put everyone at risk because we are worried about this one guy and what might happen to him when he returns home?

 

[babylon5]

How about he moves to New York or LA. No one knows him there.

 

[JD50]

How about you don't commit assault with a deadly weapon and then you (not you specifically) don't have to worry about this?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I hate to agree with Harvey, but come on man use your brain.

You are willing to put everyone at risk because we are worried about this one guy and what might happen to him when he returns home?

Did you read all of the examples?

And BTW, I like Harvey. He's one of my favorite members that I disagree with politically.

Guys, I HONESTLY think we would have less gun problems and killers on the lose if we let anyone purchase guns. I honestly think that. It's not too hard to see...IMO.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I mean very well with my reasons.

A criminal goes to jail for assault with a deadly weapon for 10 years. He gets out..and he has nothing. He has to return to a part of town with high crime (where he'll fit right in. No real need to go to a new place for a fresh start). He has a history, so he knows people are out to get him (Not wanting to make it hard for them to find him (that wouldn't be polite), he moves right back to the old hood) . He can't buy a weapon to protect himself, so he buys one on the black market (with his stolen money or drug sale profits). Next thing he knows, he's caught with the weapon (despite having done nothing) (Real loser here, he gets caught for doing nothing, just toting a gun to "job interviews" at the local bank etc :disgust: ) and goes back to jail...repeat cycle.

Either that or he uses the weapon he bought illegally to save his life...at which point he goes to jail again and repeats a similar cycle. (See the logic here?. If he uses the illegal gun to commit murder, they can't catch him cuz it's not registered, as is pointed out in the next sentance. OTOH, if you use an illegal/unregistered gun in self protection -they CAN catch you. D@mn, I hate how that works!

Or it's possible the criminal uses the gun he bought illegally for murder...in which case there is no record of him purchasing that gun, whereas if he had bought it at a store, there would be a record and it would make an investigation much easier. Why? Is he going to leave his gun with the serial numbers left behind at the crime scene?

Do you agree?

Discuss.

So sad, this whole unfortunate cycle of victimhood could be avoided if they just gave criminals free guns upon their release from prison.

Fern

 

[BlancoNino]

Fern, it would be easier to catch a criminal who purchased a gun from a store because the store owner will have records (dates, ammunition type, gun type, discription of person, etc).

 

[1EZduzit]

I'd say it depends on the crime. My brother has a friend who always carried a gun in his glovebox. He's a hard working American redneck. an electrician by trade.

Well, one night he got caught with a little weed. Then they found the gun in his glove box, but they had changed the law that year and the pistol in his glovebox was classified as a concealed weapon. He has a PICKUP truck for godsakes, where elese was he going to put it!!!

So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

That's awful. That's another good example of why I'd love to see a lot of these laws thrown out.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'd say it depends on the crime. My brother has a friend who always carried a gun in his glovebox. He's a hard working American redneck. an electrician by trade.

Well, one night he got caught with a little weed. Then they found the gun in his glove box, but they had changed the law that year and the pistol in his glovebox was classified as a concealed weapon. He has a PICKUP truck for godsakes, where elese was he going to put it!!!

So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

Yea thats crap, IMO the law should only pertain to violent felons.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Fern, it would be easier to catch a criminal who purchased a gun from a store because the store owner will have records (dates, ammunition type, gun type, discription of person, etc).

I seriously doubt a criminal would buy a gun legally, for those exact reasons.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

That's awful. That's another good example of why I'd love to see a lot of these laws thrown out.

I think that's a silly definition of 'concealed'. But what happened to personal responsibility?

He knew the law, and the consequences, and broke it anyway.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

That's awful. That's another good example of why I'd love to see a lot of these laws thrown out.

I think that's a silly definition of 'concealed'. But what happened to personal responsibility?

He knew the law, and the consequences, and broke it anyway.

You see that's just it, he didn't know the law. They changed the definition of a concealed weapon in July and I believe it was August when this happened. Previously his gun would have been legal, but when they passed the concealed weapons laws it was considered a concealed weapon. All he had to do was go to the sheriffs office, pay them $10 for a lifelong license and he would still be eliglble for gun ownership.

If the cops hadn't been busiting him for pot at the time I'm sure they would have just told him top get a concelaed weapons permit for the gun.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

That's awful. That's another good example of why I'd love to see a lot of these laws thrown out.

I think that's a silly definition of 'concealed'. But what happened to personal responsibility?

He knew the law, and the consequences, and broke it anyway.

You see that's just it, he didn't know the law. They changed the definition of a concealed weapon in July and I believe it was August when this happened. Previously his gun would have been legal, but when they passed the concealed weapons laws it was considered a concealed weapon. All he had to do was go to the sheriffs office, pay them $10 for a lifelong license and he would still be eliglble for gun ownership.

If the cops hadn't been busiting him for pot at the time I'm sure they would have just told him top get a concelaed weapons permit for the gun.

It's his job to know the law.

I think the consequence is overblown, but if this were about something other than guns, you would be less sympathetic than I'm being right now.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'd say it depends on the crime. My brother has a friend who always carried a gun in his glovebox. He's a hard working American redneck. an electrician by trade.

Well, one night he got caught with a little weed. Then they found the gun in his glove box, but they had changed the law that year and the pistol in his glovebox was classified as a concealed weapon. He has a PICKUP truck for godsakes, where elese was he going to put it!!!

So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

I think he needed a better lawyer. Especially if they changed the law that year and glove boxes had been specifically legal before.

 

[smack Down]

For those who think it is ok to take away a criminals right to bear arms do you think it is also ok to take away their right to free speech? Really there isn't much difference both are protected by the constitution?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: smack Down
For those who think it is ok to take away a criminals right to bear arms do you think it is also ok to take away their right to free speech? Really there isn't much difference both are protected by the constitution?

Outside of violent weapons crimes, it probably should not be okay.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

That's awful. That's another good example of why I'd love to see a lot of these laws thrown out.

I think that's a silly definition of 'concealed'. But what happened to personal responsibility?

He knew the law, and the consequences, and broke it anyway.

You see that's just it, he didn't know the law. They changed the definition of a concealed weapon in July and I believe it was August when this happened. Previously his gun would have been legal, but when they passed the concealed weapons laws it was considered a concealed weapon. All he had to do was go to the sheriffs office, pay them $10 for a lifelong license and he would still be eliglble for gun ownership.

If the cops hadn't been busiting him for pot at the time I'm sure they would have just told him top get a concelaed weapons permit for the gun.

It's his job to know the law.

I think the consequence is overblown, but if this were about something other than guns, you would be less sympathetic than I'm being right now.

Yeah, he should have know the law but he's only human. It seems the working stiffs are too busy to keep up on that kind of stuff and that's the way the elite like it. I used to think that criminals shouldn't have guns but know I have a reason to believe otherwise.

I still invite him down to hunt pheasants with my brothers and myself and he appreciates it. He even did a couple of wiring projects for us and refused to take any money for his labor, so you can see he's a good man. He just can't legally own a gun and/or hunt anymore, but the law is the law.

It seems the older I get the less respect I seem to have for both the law and the govement that is supposed to be enforcing those laws. I wonder why??

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So he got busted for less then a 1/4 oz and a concealed wepon and now he can't own a gun. That's BS IMO.

That's awful. That's another good example of why I'd love to see a lot of these laws thrown out.

I think that's a silly definition of 'concealed'. But what happened to personal responsibility?

He knew the law, and the consequences, and broke it anyway.

You see that's just it, he didn't know the law. They changed the definition of a concealed weapon in July and I believe it was August when this happened. Previously his gun would have been legal, but when they passed the concealed weapons laws it was considered a concealed weapon. All he had to do was go to the sheriffs office, pay them $10 for a lifelong license and he would still be eliglble for gun ownership.

If the cops hadn't been busiting him for pot at the time I'm sure they would have just told him top get a concelaed weapons permit for the gun.

It's his job to know the law.

I think the consequence is overblown, but if this were about something other than guns, you would be less sympathetic than I'm being right now.

Yeah, he should have know the law but he's only human. It seems the working stiffs are too busy to keep up on that kind of stuff and that's the way the elite like it. I used to think that criminals shouldn't have guns but know I have a reason to believe otherwise.

I still invite him down to hunt pheasants with my brothers and myself and he appreciates it. He even did a couple of wiring projects for us and refused to take any money for his labor, so you can see he's a good man. He just can't legally own a gun and/or hunt anymore, but the law is the law.

It seems the older I get the less respect I seem to have for both the law and the govement that is supposed to be enforcing those laws. I wonder why??

Because the longer you pay attention, the more you realize that most laws are either paid investments by business, or knee-jerk populist BS.

Laws spend as much time getting in the way of justice as they do serving it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Because the longer you pay attention, the more you realize that most laws are either paid investments by business, or knee-jerk populist BS.

Laws spend as much time getting in the way of justice as they do serving it.

😀 That says it pretty well :thumbsup:

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Fern, it would be easier to catch a criminal who purchased a gun from a store because the store owner will have records (dates, ammunition type, gun type, discription of person, etc).

Well then why not a new suit and a handgun for everyone upon parole?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Fern, it would be easier to catch a criminal who purchased a gun from a store because the store owner will have records (dates, ammunition type, gun type, discription of person, etc).

I seriously doubt a criminal would buy a gun legally, for those exact reasons.

exactly...a murderer would not go buy a gun legally to murder someone when he can go into black market and buy it for $50 untraceable.