I do not support a ban on civilian ownership of machine guns. If you can buy it, feed it and have sufficient self control not to commit crimes then let 'er rip.
All three of these example should have been dealt with, and I'm not talking about a couple years in jail!
Again, that would be great. Id support every word you say.
agreed
Some states have a 3 strikes you’re out rule. The problem is if stealing a candy bar is your 3rd strike you’re spending the rest of your life in jail for it. There are cases you can look up where just that has happened and people are gone forever for stealing $5.
Are you suggesting that law-abiding citizens should have their rights infringed because because the government is failing to keep violent people locked up? If so, I strongly disagree. We should not be penalized because of their mistakes.
Not at all.
But it would be more like a financial victim right?
I can agree with that, but how do you enforce that on those guys without infringing on people like us?
I get that conflict and even agree with it, but sonce I dont have a plan to fix it i have to stand on the side of the good guys that shouldnt be infringed upon.The "ONLY" Amendment that was felt so strongly enough about, that the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" were included, and passed in its final form, unmolested!
Considering many of the framers were reluctant to even include a Bill of Rights, in fear of the Gov't interpreting that these were then the only ones recognized and that were reserved. It says a lot... I think they made their point, but they didn't have crystal balls either, to see how it would all be bastardized!
So yes, my ability to own firearms, of any kind, shape, or form, should not be Infringed!
The argument that there has been limits recognized by the SCOTUS dismisses the very point I have made, that it is noted (application or scrutiny) in the Amendment itself. Not sure how that then gets interpreted to allow for any "infringement".
The other side of my brain has issues with those who freely and willingly decide to not partake in the social compact that is our form of government, by breaking laws (Murder, Kidnapping, Rape) that seriously conflict with my belief that there should be no infringement. And yes, even once they've paid there debt and finish their prison term, that they should not have weapons. I know it's hypocritical of myself, it is a conflict in my mind that I'm always debating. See, I know from life experience, witnessed it again and again, that Leopards don't change their spots!
So back to Restrictions or Limits... I don't believe that the law abiding citizenry, should be encumbered or otherwise burdened due to the acts of those who would break the law. It's counterintuitive actually... Law abiding folk don't break the law, lol. So let's make laws that by default makes them law breakers by instituting limits upon their Right?... Never made sense to me.
Anyways, just thought I'd throw some of my thoughts out there
This won’t stand up to scrutiny. It will get overturned.
But, until they do that we have absolutely no way of knowing. If they are/were the violent criminal you described, I point you back to my original reply.
And it proven daily that gun laws will not control them either.
Vermont.
Step 1) All prosecution must start with a complainant victim. And that can't be the government. Must be the person it directly effected or a surviving complainant after death.
How about saying "no?"
No such thing as a "free" gun.
The insurance company forced to pay might dispute your "no victim here" assessment. Just because you get paid back doesn't mean there isn't a victim. Insurance just collectivizes the victim hood so that one entity doesn't have to bear the full burden.
My opinion of that is already pretty low.
