Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 14:05:50 GMT -5
Criminals are caught with illegal guns quite often during routine traffic stops. Because they have an illegal gun, the police are able to lock up the person before a crime is committed with said gun.
Without those laws in place, the best a cop can do is issue a traffic citation and send the person on his way ... to commit whatever crime he had intended to commit with the gun.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 13, 2011 14:09:59 GMT -5
Earlier this week, a House Ways and Means Subcommittee took up House Study bill 219, the “Alaska carry” bill which would do away with Iowa's gun permitting process. Such a law is similar to one in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming. www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=229813Wow, for a joke they're taking this seriously. Either it's not a joke (I'm 99 44/100% sure this is the case) or why are taxpayers' money being wasted over a joke that wouldn't even be funny. Oh, and like I've said before, let's bring up silly hot button legislation and where are the jobs! jobs! jobs!? "YouTube is a video-sharing website on which users can upload, share, and view videos, created by three former PayPal employees in February 2005." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YoutubeWow, even the first Bush was long out of office when YouTube was created. I'm not believeing your "left wing freak out" for a second. Got any more distractions of the non-truthful type? Before you post another message, might I suggest a bucket of water just in case your pants catch on fire. Ergo we shouldn't have any laws at all because well, "things happen." If you're that unhappy that the United States has gun laws, might I suggest Somalia? And if something may happen in your beloved semi-anarchy, don't whine because "things happen."
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 13, 2011 14:42:57 GMT -5
However, if we are to allow gun ownership, we have to do so in a responsible way, not hand them out like candy to any nutter, psychopath, convicted felon, or terrorist who can plop down a credit card.
Thank you, and karma for some common sense. The notion that licensing and regulation somehow infringe on a right just makes no sense at all. I have to have a license to drive. My car has to have a license plate. My ability to drive and my access to a vehicle are not infringed by licensing requirements.
I don't want a blind person to be able to drive and I don't want a mentally ill person to be able to buy a gun..
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 15:13:36 GMT -5
Are you liberals here still trying to pretend that there's some serious controversy, or discussion over giving guns to mentally ill people?
IT WAS A JOKE!
And I guess it was a good one, because the more the lefties freak out about it-- the funnier it is to me.
I guess it's like Rush has been saying for decades-- when liberals are in power, they're dangerous. But when they're out of power, they're hilarious.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 15:18:52 GMT -5
Criminals are caught with illegal guns quite often during routine traffic stops. Because they have an illegal gun, the police are able to lock up the person before a crime is committed with said gun. Without those laws in place, the best a cop can do is issue a traffic citation and send the person on his way ... to commit whatever crime he had intended to commit with the gun. Seems to me that if a cop catches a criminal the criminal should be arrested. I know this is a foreign concept to the lefties-- but if a person is too dangerous to be permitted to purchase a gun legally, then that person is too dangerous to leave prison. Period. If they're so dangerous that the public should be warned by some kind of list-- be it a gun ban list, or a "sex offender registry" then they're too dangerous to leave prison. Do your time, pay your debt, go back into society. Vote. Buy a gun. Take out a government backed student loan. All of it. If you're not able to be fully integrated back into society, WHAT, pray tell, are we doing letting you out of prison in the first place?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 15:31:32 GMT -5
Joke or not, what I find interesting is how no one doubted it. I don't know ... perhaps all of the gun rhetoric on the conservative side has tainted the left's perception of them.
Point being: There are conservatives, a rather vocal number of them, who really do want a free for all gun society. Now, if they were joking about something completely implausible or unbelievable, then their little conversation would've been a non-issue. However, the idea of lifting most, if not all, restrictions on gun ownership so mentally ill folks can own guns, well, that has just enough "ring of truth" to it to be taken seriously.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 15:48:39 GMT -5
Arrest him for what? A broken tail light? Failing to signal? In the scenario I've outlined, no crime has been committed. The person might be on his way to commit a crime, but there's no way the cop can know that. The sawed-off shotgun lying in his front seat is perfectly legal because there are no permits needed. Right? Unless the person is on parole and owning a firearm is prohibited, having an unregistered gun isn't a crime ... because registration and permits are an infringement upon our so-called rights.
In the same way that making sense is a foreign concept to righties? Case in point:
Should we start locking up people who might commit a gun crime?
Even good people can snap occasionally. Here's a scenario: A man with no criminal or mental illness record finds out his wife is cheating. He's furious, obtains a gun with no permit or registration, and drives like a maniac to the hotel where his wife and her lover are having their little tryst. He's pulled over by a cop for his reckless driving. The cop sees that the man is emotionally compromised and exhibits suspicious behavior, giving the cop grounds to search the vehicle. The gun is found.
Under our current system, the man will be arrested on the spot and taken to prison, and even if it's only for a few months, odds are good that the man will have since cooled off and calmed down. Under your system, it is perfectly legal for the man to have any gun since there are no permits or restrictions. Thus the man is simply cited for reckless driving and sent on his way, allowing him to arrive at the hotel with the gun where he murders both wife and lover.
People aren't born with criminal records. Even the most hardened criminal had a first time. You assume that everyone about to commit a gun crime already has a record. A person about to commit a crime with a gun would most likely try to obtain a gun that cannot be traced back to him, so if the person is caught with that gun, he is immediately arrested. This happens, as I've said, quite often during routine traffic stops. Illegal guns are found all the time, and aside from the very hardened career criminals, this often prevents those one-time criminal acts.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 13, 2011 16:12:18 GMT -5
No it doesn't. If you read the COTUS carefully, the words "well regulated" refer to the militia itself, not the rules regarding the ownership of guns. It is the militia that is well regulated. Do we have a well regulated militia? Yes, it's called the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment never granted the right for any old citizen to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment was designed for an 18th Century militia when members kept their equipment in their homes and no one had anything more deadly than a one-shot musket or, maybe, a repeating revolver. I have to question whether the Founders intended for people to have semi-automatic assault rifles in their homes - a weapon that could've destroyed an entire regiment in the 18th Century. Having said that, I do not oppose gun ownership. I wanted to make that very clear before some conservative comes back with an attack on me claiming I'm a "typical liberal" who wants to take everyone's guns away. However, if we are to allow gun ownership, we have to do so in a responsible way, not hand them out like candy to any nutter, psychopath, convicted felon, or terrorist who can plop down a credit card. I think the founders would have loved to have had access to a few semi-automatic assault rifles - it would have lowered casualties on their side during the revolutionary war. The founders believed in the right to bear arms so that the citizens would always be able to protect themselves from the government. As far as nutter, psychopath, convicted felon, or terrorist who can plop down a credit card - if they have cash and do not care if they are legal or not - they will be able to buy on the black market.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 16:31:25 GMT -5
Well, we could make that argument about any law, couldn't we? Some people do get away with murder, so why have laws against it, yes?
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 13, 2011 17:15:45 GMT -5
People aren't born with criminal records. Even the most hardened criminal had a first time. You assume that everyone about to commit a gun crime already has a record. A person about to commit a crime with a gun would most likely try to obtain a gun that cannot be traced back to him, so if the person is caught with that gun, he is immediately arrested. This happens, as I've said, quite often during routine traffic stops. Illegal guns are found all the time, and aside from the very hardened career criminals, this often prevents those one-time criminal acts. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=4674&page=2#ixzz1GWK7hMo8and a lot of people (probably most people) about to commit their first crime with a gun do not get caught in a traffic stop
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Mar 13, 2011 17:30:19 GMT -5
<<If you read the COTUS carefully, the words "well regulated" refer to the militia itself, not the rules regarding the ownership of guns.
It is the militia that is well regulated.
Do we have a well regulated militia? Yes, it's called the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment never granted the right for any old citizen to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment was designed for an 18th Century militia when members kept their equipment in their homes and no one had anything more deadly than a one-shot musket or, maybe, a repeating revolver.>>
Then why were the guns not taken away after the militas were disbanded after the war? Why was the issue so important that they felt the need to have an amendment that specifically addressed gun ownership? Because they recognized that at some point, the people might need to defend themselves from their own goverment.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 13, 2011 17:34:49 GMT -5
<<If you read the COTUS carefully, the words "well regulated" refer to the militia itself, not the rules regarding the ownership of guns. It is the militia that is well regulated. Do we have a well regulated militia? Yes, it's called the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment never granted the right for any old citizen to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment was designed for an 18th Century militia when members kept their equipment in their homes and no one had anything more deadly than a one-shot musket or, maybe, a repeating revolver.>> Then why were the guns not taken away after the militas were disbanded after the war? Why was the issue so important that they felt the need to have an amendment that specifically addressed gun ownership? Because they recognized that at some point, the people might need to defend themselves from their own goverment.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 13, 2011 17:37:26 GMT -5
Ah, when you have a bad argument and lack any proof, restate your argument in all caps. Let me save you some effort: IT WAS A JOKE!!!!!!!! is just as untrue. I know this is a foreign concept to the righties-- some mentally ill people have a criminal record and some do not. While there's overlap, the mentally ill are not a subset of criminals. I know, it's hard not to just lump them all into one category, but at least try. And what country do you base your "too dangerous to leave prison" argument on? In the United States when people do their sentence, they are released. There's no "well, you're too dangeous, so we're going to keep you locked up forever."
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Mar 13, 2011 17:49:26 GMT -5
<<In the United States when people do their sentence, they are released. There's no "well, you're too dangerous, so we're going to keep you locked up forever.">>
The courts have already ruled that it is permissible to keep an inmate incarcerated beyond their sentence if they are deemed too dangerous to be released back into the public.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 13, 2011 18:12:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 13, 2011 18:42:46 GMT -5
Yes, they keep letting them out!
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 19:24:57 GMT -5
By the time anyone even thought about taking away guns, we were past the point of no return. There were too many of them, too many people had them, and the idea of owning guns was too embedded in our culture and psyche. It still is.
And where in the COTUS does it specifically say that the right to own guns exists so we can lead armed insurrections against the government? That's an awfully big assumption.
It seems to me that the right to own guns exists so members of the militia will be armed in case of foreign invasion, which, at the time, wasn't so a remote a possibility as it is today. It is rather unlikely that the government was trying to arm the people against itself.
But some do, and I'm willing to bet there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people still drawing breath to this day because of the gun laws we currently have in place. The media rarely covers thwarted crimes, only those that actually occurred.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 13, 2011 19:29:02 GMT -5
Just saying, , , ,
The Constitution does neither restrict nor call for people to have guns. It says "the people" have a "right" to have guns.
The militia at the time of the writing of the Constitution was made up of "able bodied"males between certain ages. Within that age group only "non able bodied" males were excluded.
Today I am subject to be called to police duty by the local law enforcement agencies should a need arise that overwhelms their ability to effectively respond. I have never been called, and my body parts are not as responsive as they once were, but I did see it happen somewhere else. The governor was laggard in activating the National Guard and extra security people were necessary. It happens in floods, fires and other disasters. Owning an acceptable weapon is a requirement, and history of having been exposed to the use of weapons is a very rigid requirement, but recurrent training in their use is not.
In the case above, it was not anyone's "rights" that were violated. It was more like the system failed, and a loose cannon was allowed to obtain a weapon that should not have been so allowed. Does the failure make the marriage that the individyual would have obtained the, or a, weapon by some other means? Not any more than the idea of further restricting gun ownership because of it is realistic.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Mar 13, 2011 20:04:20 GMT -5
<<And where in the COTUS does it specifically say that the right to own guns exists so we can lead armed insurrections against the government? That's an awfully big assumption.>>
Not so big when you consider that we had just fought a war against a tyrannical government in which the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord where British Government troops were trying to disarm the populace.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 18:02:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 20:06:40 GMT -5
Is that the Lexington and Concord in New Hampshire? (Now THAT was funny! ... )
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 13, 2011 20:29:52 GMT -5
During the years leading up to the Revolution, , , and the primary cause of it, , , , was that the government, (it was in England), was an oppresive government. In the name of the King there was litle the colonialists could do but submit to the demands of his agents and soldiers. I found one article from a 1787 newspaper, , (the Constitution had not yet been adopted by all the states and would not be for several more years, and this article was apparently part of an effort to educate the people about it), that may lend itself to better explain why we have a Second Amendment. Yes, , , self defense is at the heart of it, but self defense from who, or what? From a tyrannical governent, no less.
"......... It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression......"
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 13, 2011 20:37:21 GMT -5
During the years leading up to the Revolution, , , and the primary cause of it, , , , was that the government, (it was in England), was an oppresive government. In the name of the King there was litle the colonialists could do but submit to the demands of his agents and soldiers. I found one article from a 1787 newspaper, , (the Constitution had not yet been adopted by all the states and would not be for several more years, and this article was apparently part of an effort to educate the people about it), that may lend itself to better explain why we have a Second Amendment. Yes, , , self defense is at the heart of it, but self defense from who, or what? From a tyrannical governent, no less. "......... It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression......" Exactly!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 23:10:10 GMT -5
Arrest him for what? A broken tail light? Failing to signal? In the scenario I've outlined, no crime has been committed. The person might be on his way to commit a crime, but there's no way the cop can know that. The sawed-off shotgun lying in his front seat is perfectly legal because there are no permits needed. Right? Unless the person is on parole and owning a firearm is prohibited, having an unregistered gun isn't a crime ... because registration and permits are an infringement upon our so-called rights. In the same way that making sense is a foreign concept to righties? Case in point: Should we start locking up people who might commit a gun crime? Even good people can snap occasionally. Here's a scenario: A man with no criminal or mental illness record finds out his wife is cheating. He's furious, obtains a gun with no permit or registration, and drives like a maniac to the hotel where his wife and her lover are having their little tryst. He's pulled over by a cop for his reckless driving. The cop sees that the man is emotionally compromised and exhibits suspicious behavior, giving the cop grounds to search the vehicle. The gun is found. Under our current system, the man will be arrested on the spot and taken to prison, and even if it's only for a few months, odds are good that the man will have since cooled off and calmed down. Under your system, it is perfectly legal for the man to have any gun since there are no permits or restrictions. Thus the man is simply cited for reckless driving and sent on his way, allowing him to arrive at the hotel with the gun where he murders both wife and lover. People aren't born with criminal records. Even the most hardened criminal had a first time. You assume that everyone about to commit a gun crime already has a record. A person about to commit a crime with a gun would most likely try to obtain a gun that cannot be traced back to him, so if the person is caught with that gun, he is immediately arrested. This happens, as I've said, quite often during routine traffic stops. Illegal guns are found all the time, and aside from the very hardened career criminals, this often prevents those one-time criminal acts. I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but the operative word is CRIMINAL. Jeeze. Long weekend for you?
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Mar 13, 2011 23:17:13 GMT -5
<<Is that the Lexington and Concord in New Hampshire? (Now THAT was funny! ... )>>
The "Shot heard 'round the world" happened when British troops marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the armories there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 18:02:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 23:23:00 GMT -5
I know... Bauchman seemed a little confused...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 23:25:38 GMT -5
A criminal, by definition, is guilty of a crime- or a suspect in a crime. So, if a police officer stops a CRIMINAL, he already has the tools he needs to make an arrest. A person that is not a criminal- not guilty of a crime, and not suspected of a crime, by definition shouldn't be MADE into a criminal during a traffic stop for simply possessing a means to defend themselves.
It's LIBERALS who are keen on making people criminals for something they MIGHT DO. That's the whole premise of gun control- so don't even try to make that charge stick over on our side of the aisle.
I am for a "free for all" gun society. I don't believe we should be registering, asking perimssion, filling out forms, or any of that stuff. I happen to think it's none of the government's business, and it's actually a threat to freedom that they know or even want to know.
We don't disarm free people.
If they commit a crime, we arrest them, charge them- and if it's a violent crime- we either imprison them for a LONG time-- long enough to be too feable to commit crimes when they get out, or we kill them back in the case of murder- they leave prison in a body bag no more than five years after being convicted and sentenced to death.
But we do not arrest people on "gun crimes" that consist of nothing more than being in possession of a firearm.
More people are killed by rope than guns. We don't have rope control...
You're 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a gun owner. Should we outlaw doctors?
Gun control is nothing more than a paranoid government (which is a dangerous government) trying to limit the means we have of keeping it in its box. And it's main sales pitch is raw, unadulterated, mindless emotionalism. The FACTS are that more guns = less crime. And it's not like it's theory anymore. It's been tested in the livin laboratory of 48 states that have some form of concealed carry. ONLY Wisconsin and Illinois do not have a clear cut way for a citizen to legall carry a firearm. 37 States have adopted some form of the "Castle Doctrine"-- not coincidentally, those are the lowest crime states.
Violent crime drops precipitously when there are strong pro-gun owner protections in place.
A criminals number one fear (survey of violent criminals in prison): an armed victim. More than the police, more than the death penalty.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 13, 2011 23:38:10 GMT -5
No law was broken so there is no reason for an arrest, , , , Is that what I read? Let me introduce you to reality. It is a no-law-was-broken-7-year-sentence worth of reality. "........On January 2, 2009, Brian was visiting his parents in Mount Laurel while taking a break from moving to nearby Hoboken. After Brian’s former wife canceled his scheduled visit with his son, he became distraught and said something to the effect of “life’s not worth living anymore” to his mother and drove away. His mother, a trained social worker, became worried about a possible suicide risk and called 9-1-1 but hung up after having second thoughts. Law enforcement traced the call and soon arrived at the scene. The police called Brian, who was on his way to his new residence in Hoboken, and asked him to return to his parents’ home because they were worried. When he returned, the cops searched his vehicle and found two handguns, both locked and unloaded as New Jersey law requires, inside the trunk, in a box stuffed into a duffel bag with clothes. Brian was arrested and, according to his attorney, the subsequent trial and conviction were the “perfect storm of injustice.” "The guns were lawfully purchased by Aitken when he was a Colorado resident. He had passed an FBI background check to buy the guns from a Bass Pro shop in Denver, and he had even contacted New Jersey State Police to discuss the proper way to transport them into New Jersey. In Colorado, all Brian needed was a background check to own the guns, but in New Jersey, which has some of the strictest laws in the nation, a purchaser’s permit is required to own the guns and another carry permit is required to transport them in his car. Aitken’s attorney, Evan Nappen, who specializes in gun laws, told the news that Brian had a legal exemption to have the handguns in his car because he was moving from his parents’ home to a residence in Hoboken. "New Jersey allows exemptions for gun owners to transport weapons if the move is for hunting purposes or if the person is relocating. Shockingly, the Superior Court judge who heard Brian’s case refused to allow this statute exemption to be read to the jury. The Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office and the Superior Court judge reasoned that Aitken and his legal team tried to raise the issue during closing arguments, but that it wasn’t presented during the trial and therefore couldn’t be considered by the jury. Nappen argued that the groundwork for the defense was laid earlier in the trial. During the trial, Aitken’s mother testified that her son was moving things out, and his friend in Hoboken testified he was moving things in. A Mount Laurel officer testified that he saw boxes of dishes and clothes in the Honda Civic on the day of the arrest. "The exemption statute, according to the prosecutor’s office, specifies that legal guns can be transported “while moving.” Despite the testimony about his moving to Hoboken, a spokesman for the prosecutor said the evidence suggested that Aitken had moved months earlier, from Colorado to Mount Laurel. After Nappen raised the moving-exemption issue, the jury even asked the judge for the exemption statute several times, and the judge refused to hand it over to them. After two and half days of deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict and Aitken was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison!............." www.northwestfirearms.com/legal-political/49347-man-arrested-sent-jail-lawfully-owning-firearms.htmlSomebody please tell me just what was it that Mr. Aiken did that was heinous as to net him 7 years in the big house?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 14, 2011 0:03:51 GMT -5
I'm sure Shirina will think of something...
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 14, 2011 9:07:10 GMT -5
Shirina, the individual right to bear arms has been confirmed by SCOTUS. Like I said before, if you are intent on killing someone, you will find a way. If a robber arms himself, he is intent on getting something even if he has to use his weapon. Lacking facts, it is amazing how the libs keep telling the same old lies to prove their points. My favorite is how many lives the "brady bill" saved. It didn't stop any gun sales, because the Instant Check system came in at the same time and was quicker and used in it's stead.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 14, 2011 9:11:01 GMT -5
I believe in our right to own arms.I also believe in the need for regulations and control in some cases.
|
|