Gun Control?

J

jollie

New member
It's simple.
ALL guns should be kept out of the hands of CRIMINALS. ALL Law-Abiding Citizens without serious criminal records (more than a minor infraction) should be ABLE to OWN a gun, as outlined by the 2nd Amendment, I believe. The "gun bans" of New York and Washington DC have given those cities WHAT, exactly? NO drop in gun crimes,(except when Rudy was Mayor, because of other Conservative policies) some years MORE gun crimes than before. WHY? Because robbers, rapists, murderers DO NOT APPLY for gun permits, THEY BUY THEM ON THE STREET. When will people realize this? I KNOW what's going to happen to some scum that breaks into MY house at night. In my mostly Liberal state of Connecticut, there's a town called Cheshire, where a few months back, a MOTHER, AND HER SIXTEEN, AND TWELVE YEAR-OLD DAUGHTERS WERE BRUTALLY RAPED, THEN MURDERED. Only the husband survived. What do you think HIS opinion is, whether he should have owned a gun?

Maybe if Liberals and Hollywood hadn't turned this World into a Sex-and-Violence Show for 8 year-olds, starting in the 60's, and getting worse every year, we wouldn't NEED so many guns.
 
You and I basically agree. However, and this is more a gadenken experiment than anything, what in the Consitution gives the states the power to remove the right from convicted felons? Why should someone convicted of statutory rape or writing a bad check be kept from owning a fire arm? I have the same argument for voting. There is NOTHING in the constitution that forbids a convicted felon of voting.
 
Well, there's nothing in the Constitution, either, from me finding you, and doing some retroactive Dental Work for you, because I don't like your disgusting and hypocritical (Supprters of Gay NAMBLA Little-Boy Rapers and Supporters of Muslim Terrorist's Rights)ridicule of Christians). Not everything is in the Constitution, idiot. But there ARE things in there, like Murdering Unborn Babies(depriving them of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness), but Liberals seem to enjoy Murdering Unborn Babies, also.
 
Socrtease said:
You and I basically agree. However, and this is more a gadenken experiment than anything, what in the Consitution gives the states the power to remove the right from convicted felons? Why should someone convicted of statutory rape or writing a bad check be kept from owning a fire arm? I have the same argument for voting. There is NOTHING in the constitution that forbids a convicted felon of voting.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the constitution that says states have to allow them to vote either. About half the states allow them, the other half don't. The constitution only says that suffrage may not be denied based on age, sex, race, and that a poll tax may not be issued. The state government can ban anyone from voting for any other reason it wants.
NO drop in gun crimes,(except when Rudy was Mayor, because of other Conservative policies)
Click to expand...

You see, this is typical conservative idiocy. What could Rudy do as mayor? Kick the homeless off the street. Woohoo, that's going to reduce crime a lot. Crime went down all throughout the nation because of the stable economy Clinton provided, Guliani just rode the wave of popularity, something he would continue a few years later with 9/11. Guliani has made a career out of riding other peoples coattails to fame, he's like an artist in the subject.

BTW, Rudy Guliani is not a conservative. He won in 1991 on the Republican/LIBERAL parties ticket.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
There's nothing in the constitution that says states have to allow them to vote either. About half the states allow them, the other half don't. The constitution only says that suffrage may not be denied based on age, sex, race, and that a poll tax may not be issued. The state government can ban anyone from voting for any other reason it wants.
Click to expand...

Constitutions LIMIT powers, they don't grant broad and expansive poweres. Consititutions enumerate SPECIFIC powers to governments and if it isn't PLAINLY WRITTEN, then the government does not have that power.

This is the problem our country faces today. Statists and freedom hating liberals like waterstain try to reinterpret constitutions as documents that grant rights instead of granting specific powers.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Constitutions LIMIT powers, they don't grant broad and expansive poweres. Consititutions enumerate SPECIFIC powers to governments and if it isn't PLAINLY WRITTEN, then the government does not have that power.

This is the problem our country faces today. Statists and freedom hating liberals like waterstain try to reinterpret constitutions as documents that grant rights instead of granting specific powers.
Click to expand...
Exactly and while states may limit voting in their state elections I see NOTHING in the Constitution that allows them to limit voting in National elections. You have to be 18 and a citizen of the US to vote and that is all.
 
Diuretic said:
I think murder and rape should be crimes and people shouldn't do them. Even in Connecticut.
Click to expand...

how does this relate? murder and rape violate the natural and civil rights of another person, therefore, it's perfectly constitutional to legislate punishments for these crimes against another.
 
Socrtease said:
Exactly and while states may limit voting in their state elections I see NOTHING in the Constitution that allows them to limit voting in National elections. You have to be 18 and a citizen of the US to vote and that is all.
Click to expand...

There are no real "national elections" in the US. All elections are taken care of by the state governments. For instance, women first voted in a "national election" in the US in 1789 in New Jersey. They voted for electors, and we still vote for electors today, although it's simplified into a party bloc slate. Felons can vote for electors in some states, in others they can't. Therefore, the states ultimately decide who votes, and there are only certain instances in which they are specifically banned from denying suffrage. Any state could put up a property requirement right now to vote in elections. Even though any state doing that would be ridiculous, they could do it. Our constitution doesn't say "Everyone over the age of 18 may vote". It says that every state should have a "Republican" form of government, and that state governments may not deny suffrage based on race, sex, age, and that they may not issue a poll tax.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
Constitutions LIMIT powers, they don't grant broad and expansive poweres. Consititutions enumerate SPECIFIC powers to governments and if it isn't PLAINLY WRITTEN, then the government does not have that power.

This is the problem our country faces today. Statists and freedom hating liberals like waterstain try to reinterpret constitutions as documents that grant rights instead of granting specific powers.
Click to expand...

State governments have general legislative power. They can do pretty much anything they want that doesn't violate the state or federal constitution. The constitution enumerates specific powers to the federal government. It generally doesn't limit the powers of state governments. In fact, just about the only things that limit the power of state governments are the AMMENDMENTS. States weren't even required to pay attention to the bill of rights until the 14th ammendment was passed AND incorporation became a valid legal doctirine - in the 60's, under that arch-evil liberal judge.

I'm not saying that government shouldn't be limited, Smarter, I am simply telling you what is.
 
Last edited:
You could argue that a property requirement or something like that would violate "equal protection", but it's never been done before, and it will probably never be put to the test in any case.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how does this relate? murder and rape violate the natural and civil rights of another person, therefore, it's perfectly constitutional to legislate punishments for these crimes against another.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that's the case. I'm particularly glad if it's the case in Connecticut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top