You have to live with the consequences of your actions, you did something irresponsible you have to live with it. Just to prove it I'm going to use something said earlier, what if someone was convicted of child molestation should they be allowed to adopt children "because past actions are not necessarily a reflection of the future"?
You have to live with the consequences of your actions, you did something irresponsible you have to live with it. Just to prove it I'm going to use something said earlier, what if someone was convicted of child molestation should they be allowed to adopt children "because past actions are not necessarily a reflection of the future"?
No it's just a different punishment you'll just have higher insurance later in life. You still have to live with the consequences of your actions.
That is not any kind of example. You are trying to compare something that is a known character flaw that cannot be treated with simple irresponsibility or bad judgement. No comparison at all.
No it's just a different punishment you'll just have higher insurance later in life. You still have to live with the consequences of your actions.
Fine how about the car crash example previously mentioned you have to live with higher insurance rates, if your convicted of a violent offense you cannot but a gun. You have to live with the consequences of it.
Fine how about the car crash example previously mentioned you have to live with higher insurance rates, if your convicted of a violent offense you cannot but a gun. You have to live with the consequences of it.
Already covered.
Good now say you killed or badly injured someone in that accident.
So what? We call them "accidents" for a reason. And someone was injured in the other accident. Again no change in my rates, nothing.
No one should be punished for life because of an "accident."
A car accident doesn't carry any legal action (sometimes it does though) and you can be convicted. Let's make it certain there will a criminal charge and punishment, say you drunk driving and got in an accident and killed someone. Does that person still get a gun? I also hope your pro-choice.
You know what? Stop moving the goal posts. You are wrong here, just except you have typical liberal totalitarian views on anything you disagree with and move on please.
Nice strawman at the end there. :roll:
Just accept that people need to live with their consequences, Conservatives seem to like, to use it a lot when discussing abortion.
So if I got convicted of battery when I was 18 because some guy got a little too fresh and I kicked him in the balls repeatedly until he vomited, I should never, ever, ever be allowed to have a gun?
Well that would be self-defense but you took it too far so yes you should not be allowed to have a gun.
That is absolutely ridiculous. The world is not black and white.
No, that is a valid charge that shows you are far too violent to be able to own a firearm.
That is a narrow and flawed world view. Extremism has absolutely no place in debate.
No it's perfectly valid anyone convicted of a violent offense should not be allowed to own a gun. It shows you are a violent person. Extremism would be forbidding anyone convicted of any charge to own a firearm.
Now you are trying to compare the right to own a gun to abortion?? ABORTION???
OK we are done here.
By your logic, anyone who is a victim of an attempted crime, and who resorts to violence in order to defend himself against that crime, can easily be deemed “…a violent person…far too violent to be able to own a firearm”.
In the conflict between criminals and victims, it is clear which side you are on.
I disagree with Tessa's statement that “Extremism has absolutely no place in debate.” Sometimes, the “extreme” position is correct. In your case, however, it is very clearly not.
if its say
Poaching a deer with a rifle
carrying without a license but with no intent to use the gun against someone criminally
refusal to register a weapon in states with socialist gun laws
smoking weed while possessing a gun
So living with ones consequences only appliers to women who get pregnant, I get it. Now that is done I admit the car example is horrible, but you wouldn't accept the other one. You have to live with consequences, I don't care if you were 18 and drunk and you stated that fight and now it permanently stains your record. You should have made a better choice.
Just accept that people need to live with their consequences, Conservatives seem to like, to use it a lot when discussing abortion.
As many here have stated, I say felonies, yes. Incidental stuff where there was no criminal intent involving the gun, no. I'd also be willing to allow exceptions for rifles wanted for home protection only (can't leave home with it) especially in high crime or isolated rural areas where more than the person in question resides in some cases.
After they have served the time for the crime, and met the states requirements for release. They should be allowed to have all the rights previously taken away reinstated. So I voted NO.
Just about everything in Florida in a felony.
How many on this forum committed a felony - specifically a drug felony - in the past? Yet I would not be surprised that most hypocritically answered this question "yes" - yet think THEY should still be able to own a firearm.
A car accident doesn't carry any legal action (sometimes it does though) and you can be convicted. Let's make it certain there will a criminal charge and punishment, say you drunk driving and got in an accident and killed someone. Does that person still get a gun? I also hope your pro-choice.
I think it should rather be the opposite. After all time is served, etc, all rights should be once again recognized. If the government wishes to further punish beyond that, it must make its case as to why. Felons can petition to have their rights observed again; but I think that for our system of limited government, it makes more sense that the government would need to justify its infinite force against the individual.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?