Posted on 09/18/2015 12:52:36 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Captain, I’m sure the resident TDS sufferers will somehow find fault with Donald even on this.
Go Trump (and Cruz)!!
I loved that sentence.
If it works for the homo marriage......
Props to Trump from a Cruz guy.
Trump/Cruz for the win!!!
As far as I can remember, Trump has never taken action to fight a new gun law. In one of his books I think he talks about supporting “assault weapon” bans and longer waiting periods.
And now he “supports 2A” AND national gun permits, which seems contradictory to me.
I cannot imagine the hoops you’d need to jump through to get a “national carry permit”, probably the worst elements of a CDL and pilot’s license.
“...I’m sure the resident TDS sufferers will somehow find fault with Donald even on this.”
Actually, it’s the other way around. When you’re dealing with Trumpsh*ts, they’ll find a way to excuse/explain away/deny/obfuscate/spin anything and everything the man says and does.
I think it’s horrible! I just read that! I never voted for Obama. He has to hurry up and get out of that White House!
He just made the deal sweeter folks.
A lot of those guys coming out of prison have a real axe to grind.
I’d be very careful about advocating for them. They’ve already proven their thought processes are askew.
If after a ten year period they have kept their nose clean, and have been a productive member of society, then perhaps so.
I used to be one of those hoplophobic morons.
People can change.
How is that beyond the Second Amendment?
What good is a Second Amendment right when you’re on the street late at night and you’re confronted with life threatening circumstances?
Isn’t that exactly what the Second Amendment was meant to address?
Good. Let’s get this phony issue our of the way once and for all.
My only concern is the use of mentally ill. That definition can and does change over time. Example: we’re not far away from declaring failure to enthusiastically embrace homosexuality a mental illness.
You are falling into the trap of believing that the law will prevent them from committing a crime with a gun. But I agree with the sunset, but ten years is too long. five years and eliminate the Lautenberg law which made it illegal for those charged withe domestic violence to possess a firearm.
Actually it was the GCA of 1968 that prohibited misdemeanor domestic violence convicts the right to bear arms.
It was later rescinded because too many cops had/or or were getting convicted of it.
IIRC, Lautenberg replaced it with some exceptions.
I belive if a mand can't be trusted on the street with a gun, he shouldn't be on the street.
DoughtyOne, most people are released from prison on parole, under the jurisdiction of the state with certain provisions.
I can see them being denied certain rights as a condition of their early release, but after that, I think their rights should be restored.
JMHO
“Isn’t that exactly what the Second Amendment was meant to address?”
Partially. The 2nd Amdt also intends that the People have the ability to wrest back control from an overbearing government.
Here, in little ol’ Pineville, Louisiana, last night sometime, as reported on the local radio station, SEVEN Negro men broke into an apartment, shot and killed the single man living there, and trashed the place.
That tells me that as much as i like knowing about ‘snubbies’, whether i own one or not, hypothetically, i would be at ‘minus one or two’ from the get go.
That also tells me that, also as much as i like knowing about ‘1911’s’, that is still too close for the numbers to match.
So, i have a little more to ‘know about’, and quick, if i can.
If we’re looking at lesser offenses, perhaps five would be fine. If we’re looking at more serious crime, I’d still like to stick to ten.
As the seriousness of the violation increases, the level of poor judgement does as well.
As for domestic violence, if it is proven, I have no problem with keeping gun restrictions in place for the five to ten, depending.
If a violation isn’t proven, then let the person have their gun rights.
I want to be very careful on this one, because some folks have no record, then kill their spouse or loved one. There are compelling arguments on both sides. Some folks are really rotten to the core. I don’t want to see people turned into victims through an error here.
That being said, I have a very hard time with a system that makes men criminals just because a vindictive wife decides to play the victim card, even if it’s a complete fraud.
I think there are reasoned arguments on both sides, so I’m not trying to give you a hard time. You’re comments made sense. Let me run this by you.
A guy gets furious with a business partner and shoots up his home. He breaks in, shoots this person, his wife, and then bolts.
He is convicted of attempted murder because nobody died. He tried to kill them both.
What that guy back on the street in five years, then two more for parole, and then to be armed again?
I don’t. Some things should pretty much end your rights. This would come very close to that for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.