United States justice statistics show Americans need firearms

2nd Amendment News ^ | 8/7/2006 | John Snyder

[I got the rope]

Guns are good....mmmmkay.

[Centurion2000]

“An analysis of crime figures released Sunday by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that law-abiding Americans should continue to enjoy legal access to the possession and use of firearms,” gun law expert John M. Snyder said here this morning.

He makes it sound like someone can take that away from me.

[Dark Skies]

I live in the South. I'm not sure it's true we need more firearms...but then they wouldn't be refused either. I personally am looking for a nice Ruger .243 rifle (I'll find my own scope).

Pls relay this to Santa if the opportunity arises.

[newfarm4000n]

What about the law abiding mentally ill ? or UNCONVICTED domestic violence suspects? When people say keep guns away from Felons they really mean thats just the start.

[Ladysmith]

* BANG! *

[rwgal]

Guns in the hands of a private citizen, non felon are a good thing. Remember that a RIGHT (ie 2nd Amendment) is not something that can be taken away unless "you" let them take it away.

Meadow Muffin

[piytar]

"Guns are good....mmmmkay."

Guns in the hands of the law-abiding are GOOD.

Guns in the hands of criminals, most of whom are repeat offenders, are BAD.

Not too complicated I hope...

[piytar]

Add "mentally ill and domestically violent" to "criminals." One caveat re: domestic violence: Spouses in bad divorces (i.e., most of them) often lodge false claims of domestic violence without proof strictly for strategic advantage in the divorce. Those should NOT count (but they do in many states).

[Darteaus94025]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[ThanhPhero]

I think there should be very minimal restrictions on the right to own guns. Criminal use of guns is already quite illegal and the laws against convicted felons(or misdemeanants in some states) does not keep anyone from possessing a gun. Why would someone who breaks laws stop at breaking that particular type of law? If he is arrested for possession of a gun, it is highly likely that the arrest is for some real crime and he had a gun when he got arrested. Having the gun just adds one more charge. Possession by the insane or incompetent makes some sense because they are not so likely to consciously break particular laws

[newfarm4000n]

Agree with your post. What i am getting at is that many law abiding non-Felons cannot own guns. That seems unconstitutional .

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

According to the justice report, 56 percent of the violent felons convicted in the nation’s 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction record, 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony.

So, if punishment for felonies was immediate capital punishment--say maybe stoning or firing squad--big-city crime would be plummet to less than half its present level? And us nonviolent gun buffs could still have CC and assault weapons? Surely I make too much sense here. It would put prison guards out of work, what with all those empty cells, too....not to mention the deterrant and budget-balancing effects.

[William Tell]

Here's an idea. Let's all go out and buy a new gun today. And buy one for a family member.

I'll go first.

[elkfersupper]

Whether we "need" them or not is irrelevant.

We want them, we are entitled to have them, no further discussion is necessary.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

One forfeits his/her rights when one commits a felony. De facto outlaws, they should be considered outside the protections and privileges conceded to Citizens by the U.S. Constitution--which does not guarantee continued 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' to spies and traitors, nor guarantee continued funding to courts not displaying good behavior.

The ACLU has quite another opinion, of course--one by which John Kerry and others prosper.

[Vic3O3]

Ping!

[sionnsar]

He makes it sound like someone can take that away from me.

I'm quite willing to bet you don't live in D.C.

[sionnsar]

One forfeits his/her rights when one commits suffers a felony conviction. Rightfully or otherwise.

Fixed.

[El Gato]

One forfeits his/her rights when one commits a felony

But only in so far as the court and jury which convicts them sets the punishement. They can't take away freedom of speech, except temporarily, and even then only on the basis of time, place and manner, not content. They can't take away your right to petition for redress. They can't take away most rights, except temporarily and as necessary to keep you confined and under control. Laws should not be able to take anyone's rights away by fiat. They can be taken away only as individually adjudicated.

Except for your right to keep and bear arms and your right to vote. You can petition for your right to vote to reinstated, and that will in general be granted, if you've served your time, including your probation time. By federal law, you can not petition to have your RKBA restored. Or more properly the agency (BATFE) charged with hearing that petition is forbidden to spend any funds to act on such petitions. And the courts say that they can only be appealed to if your petition is turned down, but not if it's merely not acted on. Think they'd rule that way with respect to any other right?