Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: The way that the Second Amendment should be

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    This is my understanding of the Second Amendment.

    All this backgound checks for buying guns and carrying them should only apply to the States Militia.

    As long as your not a felon you should be able to purchase and carry openly any gun you want, without being hassled by anyone. Simply tie felonies to something most everyone has like a driver license. Simple check of that and your good to go. No 'regestry', permit or other license required. For those that don't have a drivers license a birth certificate or some existing document, maybe something like a passport.

    Now as far as the first part of the Second Amendment. States militia-- sign up! Again, no felons! Show up for state paid training, get qualified on whatever small arms weapons that state deems nessesary and you are issued that gun. Must be on or about your person at all times. Yearly qualifications, ammo, guns all paid for by your states tax dollars. No federal involvement.

    Something like the National Guard but you won't have to worry about fighting on foreign soil. Called up in your state only to assist police in extreme emergency.



    That's the way I thnk things should be.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Sorry but you're way off base. The militia is not a state sponsored organization. Every single amendment in the bill of rights has been interpreted to be a restriction on federal, state and local governments. The militia is simply a gathering of like minded individuals interested in "the security of a free State".

    The second amendment is a threat to governments that Americans will not be tyrannized. There is nothing in the second amendment excluding felons from having the right to defend themselves from tyranny.

    By taking away 2nd amendment rights (and the right to vote, though that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution) you are simply adding another step the government must take before tyrannizing. Now all the government has to do is convict you of a felony, and blam the militia is disarmed and the government is no longer threatened.

    Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense from common criminals and everything to do with self-defense from the government.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    I'll take it one step further... as long as they're not in jail, I have no problem with felons owning or using firearms. None of their inalienable rights should be infringed upon after they have paid their dues.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    I'll take it one step further... as long as they're not in jail, I have no problem with felons owning or using firearms. None of their inalienable rights should be infringed upon after they have paid their dues.
    Can't agree with that at all and I get tired of the he has paid his dues to society BS. A good friend of mine was out in her front year playing with her 2 year-old son on a Spring Sunday afternoon. Along comes a driver and runs off the road hitting her and her son. The son is killed and she still walks with a limp and cannot defend herself now because of the damage done to her wrists make it impossible for her to fire a gun.

    The driver was charged with Drunk driving. His fourth offense. He did not have a drivers license or any insurance and was not even scratched in the wreck. He served three years in jail for felony DUI and now is out living a perfectly normal life with no worries except getting drunk again.One innocent victim cannot even protect herself and the other one doesn't because he has been in a grave for the past 25 years. But he paid his dues and should have all of his rights restored so he can get drunk and kill another child and cripple thier Mother.

    SOB should have to walk around as a bodyguard 24 hours a day to my friend since she can't shoot a gun and he can and as you say carry one.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    Sorry but you're way off base. The militia is not a state sponsored organization. Every single amendment in the bill of rights has been interpreted to be a restriction on federal, state and local governments. The militia is simply a gathering of like minded individuals interested in "the security of a free State".

    The second amendment is a threat to governments that Americans will not be tyrannized. There is nothing in the second amendment excluding felons from having the right to defend themselves from tyranny.

    By taking away 2nd amendment rights (and the right to vote, though that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution) you are simply adding another step the government must take before tyrannizing. Now all the government has to do is convict you of a felony, and blam the militia is disarmed and the government is no longer threatened.

    Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense from common criminals and everything to do with self-defense from the government.
    I was just looking at a way for the states insure that you were trained. All guns, ammo and training paid by the states dollars. No Federal invovement.

    I'm to old to be in the militia, but the states should set up what they deem nessesary. If they don't want to use state taxes for any of this then when the call goes out you bring what you got and your own ammo.

    I still would like my state to train me on a weapon. Then when qualified you get the gun and say 200 rounds of ammo. I'd still preferr if they required that these people keep it on or about them. Something like Switzerland.

    If I were younger I'd qualify on the M16, sniper rifle, handgun, shotgun. Whatever the state deems nesssesary. Issue the weapon , maybe even a safe for at home security, and it's yours for life or whatever the state thinks appropriate. While in the milita, keep at least one on you.

    Might help with all the crime going on. Seeing 10 to 20% of the people openly carrying rifles.

    Just my thoughts.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    I'll take it one step further... as long as they're not in jail, I have no problem with felons owning or using firearms. None of their inalienable rights should be infringed upon after they have paid their dues.
    Can't agree with that at all and I get tired of the he has paid his dues to society BS. A good friend of mine was out in her front year playing with her 2 year-old son on a Spring Sunday afternoon. Along comes a driver and runs off the road hitting her and her son. The son is killed and she still walks with a limp and cannot defend herself now because of the damage done to her wrists make it impossible for her to fire a gun.

    The driver was charged with Drunk driving. His fourth offense. He did not have a drivers license or any insurance and was not even scratched in the wreck. He served three years in jail for felony DUI and now is out living a perfectly normal life with no worries except getting drunk again.One innocent victim cannot even protect herself and the other one doesn't because he has been in a grave for the past 25 years. But he paid his dues and should have all of his rights restored so he can get drunk and kill another child and cripple thier Mother.

    SOB should have to walk around as a bodyguard 24 hours a day to my friend since she can't shoot a gun and he can and as you say carry one.
    There needs to be much tougher laws for crimes. We shouldn't allow animals like the ones in Philly loose. 17 felonies, guys only in his 30's. Out on the street!

    1 felony-20 years - no parole
    2nd felony- dead! no jail time.

    I'm really tired of DA's pleading down crimes. Commit 2 felonies in one incedent-trial- if found guilty..........

    I also think they are way to lienient with drunk driving as well. Should be a felony, see above.

    Just my thoughts.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    I still disagree.

    Will there be instances of felons committing more crimes after leaving jail? Sure. But that's part of the price you pay for living in a free society. For me, liberty is 1000X more important than safety. As Thomas Jefferson once quipped, "I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." I agree.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    stephpd wrote:
    I was just looking at a way for the states insure that you were trained. All guns, ammo and training paid by the states dollars. No Federal invovement.

    I'm to old to be in the militia, but the states should set up what they deem nessesary. If they don't want to use state taxes for any of this then when the call goes out you bring what you got and your own ammo.

    I still would like my state to train me on a weapon. Then when qualified you get the gun and say 200 rounds of ammo. I'd still preferr if they required that these people keep it on or about them. Something like Switzerland.

    If I were younger I'd qualify on the M16, sniper rifle, handgun, shotgun. Whatever the state deems nesssesary. Issue the weapon , maybe even a safe for at home security, and it's yours for life or whatever the state thinks appropriate. While in the milita, keep at least one on you.

    Might help with all the crime going on. Seeing 10 to 20% of the people openly carrying rifles.

    Just my thoughts.
    Why can't I just do it myself and skip the government middleman?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    stephpd wrote:
    I was just looking at a way for the states insure that you were trained. All guns, ammo and training paid by the states dollars. No Federal invovement.

    I'm to old to be in the militia, but the states should set up what they deem nessesary. If they don't want to use state taxes for any of this then when the call goes out you bring what you got and your own ammo.

    I still would like my state to train me on a weapon. Then when qualified you get the gun and say 200 rounds of ammo. I'd still preferr if they required that these people keep it on or about them. Something like Switzerland.

    If I were younger I'd qualify on the M16, sniper rifle, handgun, shotgun. Whatever the state deems nesssesary. Issue the weapon , maybe even a safe for at home security, and it's yours for life or whatever the state thinks appropriate. While in the milita, keep at least one on you.

    Might help with all the crime going on. Seeing 10 to 20% of the people openly carrying rifles.

    Just my thoughts.
    Why can't I just do it myself and skip the government middleman?
    You can! I was just looking for those less fortunate being able to help out. Leave it up to the states. If they allow older people like me to sign up. OK!

    If I want something different then what they offer through their states program fine. If you don't want to use the qualifications programs fine. If you want to pay for your own select fire M16, that's OK too!Maybe you want something that isn't part of the program offered by your state. That's OK! I'd still want, as part of the program that you meet some sort of minimal qualification to use that weapon in the use while seving as part of this voluntary program. Let each state decide what they want from anybody.

    And if you as a citizen don't want to sign up, don't. If the call goes out and you want to participate, sign up then and show that you passed some minimum qualification for that weapon and help out.

    If not you'd still be free to do what you want. Carry, don't carry. Any weapon you chose. See a violent crime, stop it from continuing.
    But just make sure that it's in the process of threat to life or grave bodliy harm.
    If not you then become the criminal.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    I still disagree.

    Will there be instances of felons committing more crimes after leaving jail? Sure. But that's part of the price you pay for living in a free society. For me, liberty is 1000X more important than safety. As Thomas Jefferson once quipped, "I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." I agree.
    +1

    Yes, that guy who hit that woman should be in jail, therefor not able to own a gun. He killed someone, but I'm about to say something that will probably really piss you off.

    Drunk driving should NOT be illegal at all! Hitting and killing someone should be illegal with potential for a death sentence if something excessively dangerous (like being drunk) was involved. But if you are over .1 bac and capable of obeying all traffic laws and staying in your lane, you should be allowed to drive home from the bar.

    Outlawing drunk driving is outlawing the potential to commit a crime.

    Laws should only exist to protect rights. Violations of these laws should carry very severe punishments. Any personal decision that does not directly violate someone else's rights (feeling safe is not a right), should not be illegal even if there is potential for a crime.


    Now, back to the original topic. If someone is dangerous enough that we cannot allow them to own a gun, how is it that they are safe enough to allow to own a baseball bat, a car or any other deadly implement. If someone is not safe enough to own a gun, they are not safe enough to be in the general population. Probation and limited civil rights for felons is just plain wrong.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    I still disagree.

    Will there be instances of felons committing more crimes after leaving jail? Sure. But that's part of the price you pay for living in a free society. For me, liberty is 1000X more important than safety. As Thomas Jefferson once quipped, "I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." I agree.
    +1

    Yes, that guy who hit that woman should be in jail, therefor not able to own a gun. He killed someone, but I'm about to say something that will probably really piss you off.

    Drunk driving should NOT be illegal at all! Hitting and killing someone should be illegal with potential for a death sentence if something excessively dangerous (like being drunk) was involved. But if you are over .1 bac and capable of obeying all traffic laws and staying in your lane, you should be allowed to drive home from the bar.

    Outlawing drunk driving is outlawing the potential to commit a crime.

    Laws should only exist to protect rights. Violations of these laws should carry very severe punishments. Any personal decision that does not directly violate someone else's rights (feeling safe is not a right), should not be illegal even if there is potential for a crime.


    Now, back to the original topic. If someone is dangerous enough that we cannot allow them to own a gun, how is it that they are safe enough to allow to own a baseball bat, a car or any other deadly implement. If someone is not safe enough to own a gun, they are not safe enough to be in the general population. Probation and limited civil rights for felons is just plain wrong.
    I agree, maybe we need to start a seperate thread for crime control. But we should make it very bad for those that commit crimes.

    Leave this thread just for ideas on just discussion about the Second Amendment and what is our ideal way of dealing with this RIGHT.

    I'll start one right now so that both are on the same page.

    Thanks.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Sorry, I'll address the original intent of the OP now. Guns provided by the state. Personally, though I have no problem with it Constitutionally, I wouldn't want such a program in my state.

    Lets think about it. What would it cost to fund a program to provide every household with a gun? It would cost the price of 1 gun for every household. Personally I would prefer to buy my own gun and keep my tax dollars.

    Now for the volunteer militia to keep peace, I do think that would be interesting. I've always had this idea to become Sheriff of a county and have voluntary deputies for anyone willing to pass a background check and training. Not for the purposes of enforcing everyday laws, but for emergencies and to give the residents of my county the right to CC nation wide anywhere a cop can.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    Sorry, I'll address the original intent of the OP now. Guns provided by the state. Personally, though I have no problem with it Constitutionally, I wouldn't want such a program in my state.

    Lets think about it. What would it cost to fund a program to provide every household with a gun? It would cost the price of 1 gun for every household. Personally I would prefer to buy my own gun and keep my tax dollars.

    Now for the volunteer militia to keep peace, I do think that would be interesting. I've always had this idea to become Sheriff of a county and have voluntary deputies for anyone willing to pass a background check and training. Not for the purposes of enforcing everyday laws, but for emergencies and to give the residents of my county the right to CC nation wide anywhere a cop can.
    Constitutionally it's in the first part of the BILL of RIGHTS. It's a states issue and up to each state as for what they determine to be nessesary for their state. All voluntary, if you have a weapon and are qualified by whatever your state deems nessesary. I really don't see this as a problem but an exercise of the Second Amendment.

    I don't think the cost would be that great compared to some of the things they waste our money on. First it's voluntary. Not everyone will volunteer. Say maybe 10 to 20 %. Also I'm not suggesting that they must provide everyone with a weapon. If you already have a weapon and pass some qualification standards with it and want to use that weapon fine. If you are well to do you could even donate money to just the militia and it couldn't be spent for anything else.

    We might even be able to get the federal government to donate workable weapons that they don't want anymore. Sounds much better then destroying them. Donate then to something like an Army /Navy store and if you are in the miltia just show whatever the state deems nessesary(drivers license) since it's a states issue and recieve a huge discount. Everyone else pays fair market value. Not taxed to death but part of that money goes to the cost of the militia. Lots less paperwork and regulations have got to save some money.

    I'm sure that those with the skills would be willing to donate there time to ensuring that the guns are safe. Use existing state and county ranges as well as old military basses for places to train. Have training in may different areas. Building clearing, force on force, think of the possibilities! Same for the training. We already have some of this in place, just need people willing to donate their time or skills. I'm sur that we would have some in the police willing to volunteer too. Use there skills to help other. maybe they could volunteer other resourses as well.

    The carrying of weapons to assist other states would be voluntary as well. And I agree that this should be only for emergencies both in state as well as helping other states. Take back from the Federal government the National Guard and call it the (insert states name here) Guard. Meet up some place, load up and go!

    The Federal government could even donate the heavy machinery to the states as well. Many folks are already trained on these thing just by their experience in the military.I'm sure people that volunteered for the military would volunteer for this as well.

    We wouldn't be there for general policing, but if you see a violent crime try to stop it. More a pease keeping type of thing and assisting the police in there tough job. That's why I'd like the militia to be required to have the weapon on or about there body at all times. Crime of all sorts would go way down.

    But as far as stuff like drugs and other non violent crime would slow way down with 10% of the people carrying openly their weapon of choice. See something like that just call 911 for police assistance on your cell phone and assist police in a backup means only. Again it would be up to each state as to handle these things. That's the well regulated part of it.

    I think I addressed every issue and given a workable solution that doesn't tax the people much. It's not THE solution for everyone but something that would be possible and many might actually enjoy doing for free.

    Thanks for your input!


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    Let's see... You want our state to do what? Run a civilian militia? More state sponsored gun control? They have a hard enough time managing their own affairs let alone trying to organize, train, and support something that would be so unpopular with the population in general. Have any of you written to your legislators to let them know that you support individual rights and not state and federal (collective) rights?

    The only organization capable of establishing and maintaining some sort of militia would be the NRA (all of you are a member, right?) supported by your own dollars and not that of more taxes. Give John Sigler a call. He's quite easy to get in touch with here in Delaware. See what he has to say about your ideas.

    Many of you refer to "weapons". Does that imply firearms only, or did you have something else in mind, too?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    Hawker wrote:
    Let's see... You want our state to do what? Run a civilian militia? More state sponsored gun control? They have a hard enough time managing their own affairs let alone trying to organize, train, and support something that would be so unpopular with the population in general. Have any of you written to your legislators to let them know that you support individual rights and not state and federal (collective) rights?

    The only organization capable of establishing and maintaining some sort of militia would be the NRA (all of you are a member, right?) supported by your own dollars and not that of more taxes. Give John Sigler a call. He's quite easy to get in touch with here in Delaware. See what he has to say about your ideas.

    Many of you refer to "weapons". Does that imply firearms only, or did you have something else in mind, too?
    As I see it the conrtols are already there. I know that everytime you purchase a gun that these background checks are being done. If you have a CCDW you have already pass what I would consider to be the minimum standards. But by signing up, either at the gun shop or at the states website, you would be eligible for a discount on your pruchases. Same at any range. Buy the ammo, at a discount, if the range master is a member they would be able to insure these minumum standards.

    I don't see how having a volunteer state militia is any different then something like the National Guard, call it the State Guard. I don't see people freaking out when they see them. So when you sign up you could buy a baseball cap or something else to raise pubic bussiness. Then just go about your normal awareness. Open carry, concealed carry, whatever you prefer.

    I also believe that once they see the positive benifits of community involvment, that they might want to sign up as well. Is there someway they can help. As far as something other then just the 'gun' thing that having people volunteering there skills in medical services or other disaster relief could be a good thing as well. Maybe an auxillary to the State Guard.

    But since this is a gun forum and this thread is just a question about the Second Amendment I'll leave that alone here.

    As to the organizing, and training there are people on these boards that are very good at these type of things. Most of them I think already have guns and training in the safe use of thier guns now. I know that many have knowledge in law, administration and training. they could put those skills to good use,voluntarily, in the service of the State Guard. There are activist right now doing just that. Many at no cost to anyone else. There might even be some polititians and lawyers on thes boards as well. They could help in implementing the regulation and writing up of thier own states charter. Again all voluntary and on their own time.

    But the State Guard is to be used in only an emergency. Now as a member of this militia you just go about you bussiness. Carrying as you see fit. If you are a witness to a crime you can do whatever action you seem fit within all the laws we already have. If you want to go about and do nothing then carry concealed. If your more of an activist, wear something like a baseball cap(with your state seal) and carry openly.If, as an activist and you see a crime call 911 and wait for the police. You get involved as you see fit. In whatever capacity that you are able.

    I just don't see how this can be a bad thing. It only take a few people to bring about change, positive or negative. Buit I think that someing like the State Guard, all voluntary, and as each individual is capable is a bad thing.

    Many people here, on this board, seem to know many of the people that are in a position to bring about something like this idea. Again each state would have to come up with what they think is best for their state.

    In stead of just complaining, use your time and skills in a more positive way. Each as they are able.

    Thanks for your input!

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    The only real personal advantage I see in this is that members of this "state guard" could be considered LEOs and able to carry nearly without restrictions. For that alone I would volunteer in a heartbeat.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    The only real personal advantage I see in this is that members of this "state guard" could be considered LEOs and able to carry nearly without restrictions. For that alone I would volunteer in a heartbeat.
    That's a scary thought. If you prefer to be an LEO then go for it. Gunshop Commandos without restriction is the wrong way and need not apply.

    State Guard? Nope... just expand the National Guard if that's what you want. Something likehow the CAP operates. You'll have structure and resources. Involving the state in "more collectivism" is a bad idea. If you want a civilian militia, interest the NRA. They have more stroke than anyone.





  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Hawker wrote:
    That's a scary thought. If you prefer to be an LEO then go for it. Gunshop Commandos without restriction is the wrong way and need not apply.

    State Guard? Nope... just expand the National Guard if that's what you want. Something likehow the CAP operates. You'll have structure and resources. Involving the state in "more collectivism" is a bad idea. If you want a civilian militia, interest the NRA. They have more stroke than anyone.
    I will not be an LEO because I absolutely refuse to arrest someone because they enjoy recreational drug use or paying for sex. Those seem to be the primary responsibilities of LEOs now and I will not be part of enforcing victimless crimes.

    I will not join the National Guard because I do not want to be part of the American government's attempts to create world-wide satellites.

    But I find nothing wrong with being part of a volunteer state sponsored peace keeping force, especially if that's the only way I can enjoy full usage of my 2nd Amendment rights.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    Hawker wrote:
    That's a scary thought. If you prefer to be an LEO then go for it. Gunshop Commandos without restriction is the wrong way and need not apply.

    State Guard? Nope... just expand the National Guard if that's what you want. Something likehow the CAP operates. You'll have structure and resources. Involving the state in "more collectivism" is a bad idea. If you want a civilian militia, interest the NRA. They have more stroke than anyone.
    I will not be an LEO because I absolutely refuse to arrest someone because they enjoy recreational drug use or paying for sex. Those seem to be the primary responsibilities of LEOs now and I will not be part of enforcing victimless crimes.

    I will not join the National Guard because I do not want to be part of the American government's attempts to create world-wide satellites.

    But I find nothing wrong with being part of a volunteer state sponsored peace keeping force, especially if that's the only way I can enjoy full usage of my 2nd Amendment rights.
    And possibly get a 10 -20 % discount for something you already enjoy doing!

    Imagine being able to go about your bussiness gun , or rifle, about your body, free to enjoy life whithout everybody getting scared that you might do something evil!

    Sounds like I got one, anybody else want to join?:celebrate

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    stephpd wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    I'll take it one step further... as long as they're not in jail, I have no problem with felons owning or using firearms. None of their inalienable rights should be infringed upon after they have paid their dues.
    Can't agree with that at all and I get tired of the he has paid his dues to society BS. A good friend of mine was out in her front year playing with her 2 year-old son on a Spring Sunday afternoon. Along comes a driver and runs off the road hitting her and her son. The son is killed and she still walks with a limp and cannot defend herself now because of the damage done to her wrists make it impossible for her to fire a gun.

    The driver was charged with Drunk driving. His fourth offense. He did not have a drivers license or any insurance and was not even scratched in the wreck. He served three years in jail for felony DUI and now is out living a perfectly normal life with no worries except getting drunk again.One innocent victim cannot even protect herself and the other one doesn't because he has been in a grave for the past 25 years. But he paid his dues and should have all of his rights restored so he can get drunk and kill another child and cripple thier Mother.

    SOB should have to walk around as a bodyguard 24 hours a day to my friend since she can't shoot a gun and he can and as you say carry one.
    There needs to be much tougher laws for crimes. We shouldn't allow animals like the ones in Philly loose. 17 felonies, guys only in his 30's. Out on the street!

    1 felony-20 years - no parole
    2nd felony- dead! no jail time.

    I'm really tired of DA's pleading down crimes. Commit 2 felonies in one incedent-trial- if found guilty..........

    I also think they are way to lienient with drunk driving as well. Should be a felony, see above.

    Just my thoughts.
    Even if he had been sentenced to you 20 years that you propose he would now be out and truly free to do whatever he wants to with no restrictions while that 2 year old is still in the grave and the mother still can't fire a gun and is till walking with a limp experiencing pain. But he paid his debt to society and has all the privledges now she can't have because of him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    Forth drunk driving- licence revoked with first offence.
    It's a privilege, not a right. Driving with license revoked 5 yrs. Second dui felony-20 yrs

    You can be trusted.

    I'd preferr that these crime control problems be posted on my other thread on this page.

    Let's leave this for just the Second Amendment.

    Thanks!

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    stephpd wrote:
    Forth drunk driving- licence revoked with first offence.
    It's a privilege, not a right. Driving with license revoked 5 yrs. Second dui felony-20 yrs
    Funny you should say that; before licensing, the ability to drive WAS considered a right. If you had the money to buy the car, off you went. It was considered a liberty; if you can't get from place to place you are being restricted. It's only now that there are other valid feasible ways to get from place to place that driving is considered a "privilege". Crimes like drunk driving were crimes, but you posted bail, got back in your car and drove home. No, there's no constitutional right to drive. There is a fundamental right to liberty. If the government tells you you cannot drive, they are reducing your liberty.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    stephpd wrote:
    Forth drunk driving- licence revoked with first offence.
    It's a privilege, not a right. Driving with license revoked 5 yrs. Second dui felony-20 yrs
    Funny you should say that; before licensing, the ability to drive WAS considered a right. If you had the money to buy the car, off you went. It was considered a liberty; if you can't get from place to place you are being restricted. It's only now that there are other valid feasible ways to get from place to place that driving is considered a "privilege". Crimes like drunk driving were crimes, but you posted bail, got back in your car and drove home. No, there's no constitutional right to drive. There is a fundamental right to liberty. If the government tells you you cannot drive, they are reducing your liberty.
    Please put all crime control posts on the other thread.
    Please!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •