dui and buying

[kevindsingleton]

Does God really want us to have guns?

Yes, he does. In fact, he wants us to have more guns than we currently have, and to enjoy them more than we currently do.

After all, God loves us, and wants us to be happy.

[kevindsingleton]

I wonder if God wants convicted felons to have guns.

Once they are released from confinement, God wants them to enjoy the same rights as all of his other children.

[TJBrando]

I'm sure glad Kevin Singleton speaks for God. I can sleep better at night now.

[reverserboy]

Not only do I believe that anyone convicted of a crime should have all of their rights restored upon completion of their sentence and release from custody, I also completely fail to see any connection, whatsoever, between DUI and the 2nd Amendment.

If a convict has truly paid his debt, why does the punishment continue for life? If a convict is too dangerous to exercise the rights God granted him, then keep him locked away. If he's to dangerous to keep and bear firearms, he's too dangerous to operate a motor vehicle, wield a machete, or date our daughters.

I agree with Kevin on this issue. I would however add parole to the equation. I do believe in extended parole or lifetime parole or to age 85 for SOME offenders. But once the whole debt has been paid the 2nd should be no different than the other nine in the Bill of Rights.

A person on parole is pretty much a convict who is not in prison so no free person is being debarred the use of arms.

I do oppose a lifetime ban on gun ownership for most crimes. If a person paid the price & does not go back to their old ways.....in most cases I can forgive them.

If the system worked a person that dangerous would be locked up.

[LDMF]

DUI's doesn't discount you from being a
Senator
-Alabama State Senate Majority Leader Zeb Little,
-South Carolina State Senator Randy Scott
-Massachusetts Senator Anthony Galluccio
Police Officer
-Pa Cop Thomas Walker
-Ga Cop Thomas "Ty" Carrell
-NH police Chief Randolph "Randy" DiFruscio
Judge
-Oklahoma District Judge Donald Thompson
-Ma Judge Lawrence R. Daniels
-Ct Judge Curtessa Cofield
.....
Most of these convicted offenders were allowed to remain in their positions. Some were reinstated afterward. These are people that have important jobs that directly influence lives. They make laws, enforce laws, and interpret laws. They are given the opportunity to keep their jobs. Not denied an opportunity. Get it? Opportunity not a right. Rights are precious and should be difficult if not impossible to lose.

But being convicted of multiple DUI’s will affect you being able to defend yourself? I don't like it. Taking away rights, any right(s) is a precarious and slippery slope. Once started down said slope it is difficult to stop or reverse direction.

As a general rule laws deny us from doing "things", rights allow us to do "things". Every time a law is passed, you are losing something. Seat Belts, Dog License, Federal Tax, Health Care (soon), are all examples of restrictions that have been placed on us. If we disregard them, (and get caught) we are a criminal. I understand that most laws are aimed at having a safe, orderly society. But the consequences of convictions denying our rights? It is a very difficult place to draw a line, denying rights. Someone mentioned Charles Mansion being allowed to own a gun if he ever gets out, I would have to say that the line of him not being allowed to own a gun is easily drawn, multiple convicted violent felon. DUI convictions are serious but I would not want to be the one who denies a citizen their rights permanently because of the conviction. I understand that “lines” have been drawn. I can agree that there is a need for such things, but it doesn’t mean that I have to like them or agree with them.

[Action Jackson]

In general, everyone should be assumed to have judgement and common sense until the prove otherwise, and this is apparently how PA laws view it. If you have a clean criminal record and aren't known as a local problem then you will have NO problem obtaining an LTCF in PA.

*Somebody that gets nailed for two DUI's in seven years is not a good judgement or common sense person.
*The person discussed on another thread that pulled his pistol on a Walmart receipt checker is not a good judgement or common sense person.
*The guy that posted on here about almost drawing on a van driving recklessly through his neighborhood - and thinking he would have been justified - is not a good judgement or common sense person.
*My f'd up neighbor that lets his pistols lay around unsecured with his own ten year old and other neighborhood kids in the house is not a good judgement or common sense person.
*The same f'd up neighbor that constantly physically confronts other drivers he doesn't approve of is not a good judgement or common sense person.

I view the people referenced above as a much bigger threat to my right to carry than any anti-gun advocate. Fools like these give the anti's great arguments and justifications to keep firearms out of common peoples' hands. This was my point in my earlier post: many of the people that post on here with their thoughtless opinions undermine PAFOA and the true agenda of PAFOA. They make us look like ignorant gun-crazed lunatics. I cringe when I think about anti's reading the crap on here that reinforces their opinions and beliefs. This isn't about everyone wanting to take your rights away: it is about people making judgements based on how gun owners present themselves. And quite frankly too many PAFOA members present themselves as lacking good judgement and common sense on here.

Siggy you are a lunitic who would prefer no one drink any alcohol. Frankly I don't trust anyone who doesn't drink and I would sooner trust someone who has one dui than a close minded bigot like Siggy.

[stainless]

Siggy you are a lunitic who would prefer no one drink any alcohol. Frankly I don't trust anyone who doesn't drink and I would sooner trust someone who has one dui than a close minded bigot like Siggy.

Perhaps if you try harder you can find a thread circa 1980 to respond to...

[rywolf]

I've had 2 dui's myself in life. One when I was 19 at .14 and one when I was 25, the breath test was .12, however, not understanding what the officer was instructing me to do, I refused the blood test and was charged at the highest rate. So, reading through these posts, and being someone who is damned for life, I have still managed to become a productive part of society. I would have some peace of mind though knowing I could defend my home should an intruder force their way in with something other than a kitchen knife or a bow. That being said, I realize that my actions had consequences, which I am paying for the rest of my life. However, go back 40 years ago, dui's were paperwork and not money makers. Kids were told to get their a$s home and not to be seen again that night. The system is also slightly unfair. For someone to get a dui on a bicycle in their own driveway just doesn't seem fair. They weren't in the street, yet officers were called to the house for loud music. I witnessed this trial. I felt bad for the guy. Heard the testimony on both sides. I also feel that offenders who offer a breath sample, but not a blood sample, shouldn't be considered for refusal and charged at the highest BAC. Just didn't seem fair, and in hindsight, I wish I'd given the blood, for all I know I could have been under the limit.

[HiredGoon]

Perhaps if you try harder you can find a thread circa 1980 to respond to...

Yeah, I think I recall seeing a similar thread on ARPANET back then

[bogey1]

Its all about the money. And disarmament.