CNN poll

[Dogman]

Was just watching CNN and they are taking a poll about what people think about the SC rulling, if the SC make the right ruling or not.
78% said they did make the right ruling

22% said they made the wrong ruling

[haldir]

Those kind of numbers certainly are encouraging. it also shows what a bunch of whack jobs we have on the SCOTUS that 44% of them got it so wrong.

[Dogman]

When the CNN poll ended it was,

82% for the right ruling

18% for the wrong ruling

[RonPaulSupporter]

It encourages me to see those numbers, but unfortunately it's the President and Congress that are going to be responsible for making gun-control legislation and unfortunately even if people want gun rights, if they don't vote for a strong pro-gun candidate, we'll be in trouble anyway. I guarantee there are pro-gun Americans that are Obama supporters because he always talks about "common sense gun regulation" and "reasonable restrictions". Well who wouldn't support "common sense" regulation? Well I think of "common sense regulation" as keeping guns out of the hands of felons, Obama thinks of it as registering all firearms, banning "military-style assault weapons", limiting the right to carrry, limiting magazine capacity, etc.

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by RonPaulSupporter

Well I think of "common sense regulation" as keeping guns out of the hands of felons

RPS, Explain, please, why you think that it's common sense to prevent someone with a certain prior conviction from being able to lawfully protect him/herself from criminals if he/she has decided to "live on the straight and narrow"? (I fully agree with increasing penalties against those who commit crimes with firearms, whether those people have been convicted of felonies in the past or not.) Keep in mind that they've also just said "felons", not "violent felons". I know a man who once plead to a misdemeanor crime (not keeping his fence in good repair) which his neighbor found an old law that would permit to be converted to a felony crime. I also know a young lady who walked out of a store with an empty bag of chips that she forgot to pay for (and had money in pocket TO pay for) who was charged (later dismissed by the judge) with felony theft. Let's not forget also that LtC. Oliver North was once and G. Gordon Liddy is still a "felon".

IMO, "felon" should be a term applied to those who commit violent crimes against specific people. Armed robbery. Assault. Rape. Arson. Homicide. "Didn't keep fence in good repair, allowing livestock to escape" hardly belongs in the same group, wouldn't you agree?

Blessings,
B

[RonPaulSupporter]

Well I agree with you in one way, I should have said violent felons. However, I don't think you can ever really determine when a violent felon decides to live on the "straight and narrow". When you commit a violent crime you give up the rights you were previously guaranteed as a law-abiding citizen. I'm very, very pro-gun, don't misunderstand. But I think it's only logical for someone who has a past history of domestic violence, armed robbery, assault, rape, etc. not to have the same gun rights as I do. I have done my part in abiding by the law, they have not.

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by RonPaulSupporter

Well I agree with you in one way, I should have said violent felons. However, I don't think you can ever really determine when a violent felon decides to live on the "straight and narrow". When you commit a violent crime you give up the rights you were previously guaranteed as a law-abiding citizen. I'm very, very pro-gun, don't misunderstand. But I think it's only logical for someone who has a past history of domestic violence, armed robbery, assault, rape, etc. not to have the same gun rights as I do. I have done my part in abiding by the law, they have not.

Can we ever truly lose rights? Privileges of citizenship, yes, i.e. voting, but not rights, IMHO. How do we know they've decided to live legally? How about, "when they're out of jail"? If they can't be trusted with ALL the rights anyone else has, what are they doing out?

Of note, I see you included "domestic violence". A man can be accused of this for raising his voice or even for defending himself, i.e. We can be disarmed solely on the basis of a lie, if the liar is able to convince a judge to issue a protective order.

I do not condone real domestic violence, but I also don't condone demonizing people who have done no more than react to undue provocation with real, righteous anger.

Blessings,
B

[RonPaulSupporter]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

How do we know they've decided to live legally? How about, "when they're out of jail"? If they can't be trusted with ALL the rights anyone else has, what are they doing out?

I wish that were as simple as that, but unfortunately if people decided to live legally after getting out of jail we'd never have repeat offenders. I understand your point about rights and how you shouldn't lose them, but I don't think it's extreme to say maybe a violent felon should have to wait a year after release from prison to purchase any kind of firearm. Also one statement I have to disagree with, "we never lose our rights". I think in some cases you can. For example, what about capital punishment? If someone commits murder do you not think they deserve to lose their own right to life because they committed such a crime? A lot of people do support capital punishment and yet the founders called the right to life "inalienable". I just don't believe in the whole notion of immediately allowing a felon to buy a firearm on the day of their release.

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by RonPaulSupporter

I wish that were as simple as that, but unfortunately if people decided to live legally after getting out of jail we'd never have repeat offenders. I understand your point about rights and how you shouldn't lose them, but I don't think it's extreme to say maybe a violent felon should have to wait a year after release from prison to purchase any kind of firearm. Also one statement I have to disagree with, "we never lose our rights". I think in some cases you can. For example, what about capital punishment? If someone commits murder do you not think they deserve to lose their own right to life because they committed such a crime? A lot of people do support capital punishment and yet the founders called the right to life "inalienable". I just don't believe in the whole notion of immediately allowing a felon to buy a firearm on the day of their release.

Perhaps my view is idealistic. We don't lose our right to life by committing heinous crimes, but our government and for that matter, many of our people agree that that is the appropriate response to some crimes; ditto the loss of liberty for other crimes, but in both cases, that is after due process of law, in theory. My point is that, as in the Hayes case, to be heard next Supreme Court term, once a person has paid the penalty for his crimes and has then returned to society, how can we say they've "paid their debt to society" but still justify sending them bills?
The Court will likely find that this action is lawful, with which I do not agree. Perhaps if the convict serves his prison term and then has a "probation" term following, that would satisfy your suggestion, but there is no reason why they or anyone should be prohibited from lawful behavior with firearms. It's not like the laws prevent them from committing unlawful acts with firearms, they just provide a way that that group can be further punished if they are caught. Even if the law did prevent any crimes, they're not prohibited from having weapons, just firearms. No one commits a crime with a knife? A candlestick? A lead pipe? (Miss Scarlett to the Conservatory, please.)

I think our biggest problem as a society is that we have too many laws because we have too much government. Dr. Paul would have promoted reductions of both, I think, and I'd love to have seen him in office, but that fact is precisely why he'll never be President. He makes too much sense to be allowed to have that much power and challenge the Washington elite's grip on our society.

That's my .

Blessings,
B

[RonPaulSupporter]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

I think our biggest problem as a society is that we have too many laws because we have too much government. Dr. Paul would have promoted reductions of both, I think, and I'd love to have seen him in office, but that fact is precisely why he'll never be President. He makes too much sense to be allowed to have that much power and challenge the Washington elite's grip on our society.

That's my .

Blessings,
B

Definitely agree with you about Ron Paul!
It's a shame people don't even understand the notion of a limited government. People in this generation have grown up with the idea that government is there to take care of you from cradle to grave and look how it's turned out. I think the best thing that could happen for this country is to experience a little of the effects of this type of liberal big government (ie universal healthcare) and then maybe people will wake up and completely clean house of all these liberals in Congress and return to the government our founding fathers had in mind.