VT Aftermath Thread

[Bacchus]

True, but only if you are an illegal alien who is found to be an enemy combatant, so it wouldn't apply in this case at all. And don't put this particular issue on Bush, the vote to pass the Act wasn't even close, meaning a bunch of Democrats voted in favor of it.

I understand the line of thinking, but how far can you go? Do you ban people convicted of sex crimes from buying condoms? Do you ban convicted hackers of owning a computer? Do you ban a convicted theif from going to stores or other people's homes? I think the bigger problem lies with the justice system, that is releasing people who are likely to commit more crimes.

I can't believe you are making this arguement. First, condoms don't kill. If anything, condoms protect. Secondly, some sex offenders must be chemically neutered. Also, they must go to therapy to deal with their predilection. The equivelant of denying criminals and crazies guns, would be killing sex offenders, because not everything is about their genetils. Rape and pedophilia isn't always about sex, often it is about powere.

Hackers are seriously monitored. They often have limits on what sort of computer they are allowed to own, what sort of network connection they are allowed to have etc.

Banning a thief from going to a store will not save anyones life. It may save someone from losing merchandise, but it will not save a life. Whereas, stopping criminals and crazies from owning guns would save lives.

A more accurate comparison would be, should we stop people convicted of drinking and driving from owning a vehicle? (since a vehicle can be a lethal weapon.) Well, I think this is a hot debate, and that a person who does drink and drive should have their driving rights altered to some degree. Personally, i think that if you drink and drive and end up killing someone, that you should never be allowed to drive again. Killing someone is no joke. Now, should you stop a crazy or a convicted fellon from driving? Well, the difference between a car and a gun is that a car CAN be used as a weapon, but is primary function is that of a vehicle; whereas a gun IS a weapon, and really has no secondary use.

Anyway, this is a gun debate, and for the life of me I can't understand why American's hold on to their rights to own hand-guns. Rifles, ok. Keep rifles ... but handguns. They should be banned IMO. I don't care to debate this, just stating my opinion.

[Pierre the Great]

That's what I keep telling my farming cousin. They are NRA people, and for whatever reason the NRA has them believing democrats would take a way there hunting guns.

[Fanpuck33]

I can't believe you are making this arguement.

I wasn't arguing one way or the other, I was simply making a point about rights. I just used examples that came to mind at the time.

[huzer]

In Missouri and in most states, you commit a crime and go to prison u don't lose your right to carry even though the logical person would think that's a bad idea. Not the NRA apparently

Dead wrong. Most, if not all states and territories have laws preventing anyone convicted of felonies and other various issues (drug addiction, mental illness, etc) from possessing, buying, etc a firearm. However, when said firearms are purchased illegally in the first place, there isn't much that can be done.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_l...hibited-persons

Are laws perfect? No...but someone that's walking out of prison can't just head over to Dave's Gun Shop and buy a gun legally.

[Fanpuck33]

Oh snap! Great stuff, Huzer.

[Pierre the Great]

That's about buying a gun. Where's the law about losing your guns you already own?

Remember that shooting in Seattle last year? Guy who did it came from Montana. He got arrested for a crime. Once he got out the state of Montana gave him his guns back.