Who should be prohibited from possessing a firearm?

Please note this is in response to Jack House's thread, here. His answers were phrased in such a way as to force mutual exclusivity, rather than being additive, which was, I believe, his intent. Because of the ambiguity, the results of his poll are ambiguous (mostly meaningless).

No offense to Jack, as it's a great idea to poll and he meant well.

With that in mind, I've reworked it to remove the problems and reposted. Choose all that apply.

Tsk, tsk. You forgot the most important group of criminals that should be disarmed--the government.

All weapons should be under the physical control of individual non-government citizens.

I'll take all the Apache helicopters east of the Mississipi. Who wants the F16's?

Citizen said:

Tsk, tsk. You forgot the most important group of criminals that should be disarmed--the government.

All weapons should be under the physical control of individual non-government citizens.

I'll take all the Apache helicopters east of the Mississipi. Who wants the F16's?

Click to expand...

I'll take an A-10.

since9 said:

Please note this is in response to Jack House's thread, here. His answers were phrased in such a way as to force mutual exclusivity, rather than being additive, which was, I believe, his intent. Because of the ambiguity, the results of his poll are ambiguous (mostly meaningless).

Click to expand...

The original intent was to create a poll for those that do not believe in background checks, but ultimately changed. Originally the options were intended to be exclusive, but I figured that would require too many options, so I attempted instead for them to be additive. But like I said in the OP, I'm not very good at making polls and the intent morphed so it made it rather difficult. In the end, I wasn't really too interested in the poll results, but more in the written responses.

When you say "In the custody of the state - under supervision" what exactly do you mean? For example, does it include people who are under supervision but haven't been convicted of a crime (such as when watching someone to try and build evidence), or do you mean someone who has been convicted and is on house arrest? Because for me it deals with being convicted and simply serving out that conviction in a place other than prison vs simply having one's rights infringed upon without due process and "under supervision" is ambiguous in regards to if one has had proper due process or not.

I'll vote after you answer what it is supposed to mean.

Jack House said:

The original intent was to create a poll for those that do not believe in background checks, but ultimately changed. Originally the options were intended to be exclusive, but I figured that would require too many options, so I attempted instead for them to be additive. But like I said in the OP, I'm not very good at making polls and the intent morphed so it made it rather difficult. In the end, I wasn't really too interested in the poll results, but more in the written responses.

Click to expand...

No worries, Jack. And I had no intentions of stealing your thunder. Between the great responses on your thread and the more accurate poll, here, we should be able to come up with something. Any chance you can put a plug in on your thread for people to review their answers, here?

- since9

Personally, I checked the first nine choices.

The Constitution says the first answer and last answer are the only correct answers.

Wow.......

That's a lot of anti-rights votes!

I do believe that access to firearms should be prohibited to current inmates and to non-persons like these two though:

Daylen said:

The Constitution says ...

Click to expand...

Citation!!

If you have been released from jail / prison / institution, and you can not still be trusted with a firearm, then WHY were they released in the first place?

You have either served your time, and are free, or you are not.

Herr Heckler Koch said:

Citation!!

Click to expand...

Wow. Some people want a citation for everything...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how one can interpret "shall not be infringed" as anything but an absolutely protected right.

To any who doubt this interpretation lets look at what the people who wrote it and fought for it think it says:

Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."-- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.

last but MOST certainly not least:

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

I have yet to see where there is any indication from the authors of the second amendment that the government should be able to restrict the bearing of arms to only some people. In fact such an idea goes counter to amending the constitution to specifically prevent such an act.

Walt_Kowalski said:

If you have been released from jail / prison / institution, and you can not still be trusted with a firearm, then WHY were they released in the first place?

You have either served your time, and are free, or you are not.

Click to expand...

There is another option: capital punishment.

MilProGuy said:

Personally, I checked the first nine choices.

Click to expand...

Really?

Daylen said:

The Constitution says the first answer and last answer are the only correct answers.

Click to expand...

Ha, I get the humor, as I'm sure you're aware they're mutually exclusive. By design.

Aknazer said:

When you say "In the custody of the state - under supervision" what exactly do you mean? For example, does it include people who are under supervision but haven't been convicted of a crime (such as when watching someone to try and build evidence), or do you mean someone who has been convicted and is on house arrest? Because for me it deals with being convicted and simply serving out that conviction in a place other than prison vs simply having one's rights infringed upon without due process and "under supervision" is ambiguous in regards to if one has had proper due process or not.

I'll vote after you answer what it is supposed to mean.

Click to expand...

There's four states of custody: incarceration, probation, supervision, and bail. Custody refers to a curtailment of your freedom of liberty. Incarceration occurs only after a conviction. We all know what bail is, but I'll clarify that it's a curtailment enforced by some serious risk of financial loss. Probation occurs as a result of conviction as well, but either after incarceration, in conjunction with it, or in lieu of it.

Therefore, simple deduction leads us to conclude supervision includes all other forms of custody. This would include detainment subsequent to a stop, house arrest, detention of a suspect, and internment.

Hope this helps clarify.

Daylen said:

There is another option: capital punishment.

Click to expand...

If one who has had the Capitol Punishment executed upon their person is able to pick up and handle a firearm, I will not object!

Some may go right to the "ZOMBIE DRILLS"

JoeSparky said:

If one who has had the Capitol Punishment executed upon their person is able to pick up and handle a firearm, I will not object!

Some may go right to the "ZOMBIE DRILLS"

Click to expand...

I have Capitol punishment visited on me regularly. Congress is constantly afflicting me with numerous laws (or delegating regulatory power to proxie thieves and thugs).

My toilet doesn't flush reliably. I'm gonna haveta drive to Amish country to learn how they light their homes at night because shortly incandescent bulbs will be illegal. (Amish don't have phones, so I can't call them.) The list goes on and on and on.

Sometimes those people in the Capitol don't even bother to read the bills they are going to punish me with.

Yep, Capitol punishment happens all the time in this country.

JoeSparky said:

If one who has had the Capitol Punishment executed upon their person is able to pick up and handle a firearm, I will not object!

Some may go right to the "ZOMBIE DRILLS"

Click to expand...

OK, I get the joke.. but I did spell the wrong word CORRECTLY!
please read "capitol" as "capital" in my preceding comment!

JoeSparky said:

OK, I get the joke.. but I did spell the wrong word CORRECTLY!
please read "capitol" as "capital" in my preceding comment!

Click to expand...

Yes. Which is what made the humor, and criticism of government possible. If you had spelled it any other way, it wouldn't have worked.

So, actually, we owe you a bit of thanks for setting up the joke for us.

"Heyyyyyyyy! Aaaaaaaaaaaabboooooooooott!"

Citizen said:

Yes. Which is what made the humor, and criticism of government possible. If you had spelled it any other way, it wouldn't have worked.

So, actually, we owe you a bit of thanks for setting up the joke for us.

"Heyyyyyyyy! Aaaaaaaaaaaabboooooooooott!"

Click to expand...

And we are CONTINUING to suffer the indignity of "CAPITOL" punishment!---- in a great UNCONSTITUTIONAL enlargement and usurpation of power by the Federal Government over the last 100 years that the Founding Fathers never intended or authorized in our Countries Founding Document!

That might make a good T-shirt for dissidents:

"End Capitol Punishment--vote against incumbents."