dui and buying

[tmg19103]

as i see it i don't feel sorry for anyone losing any rights that have broken the law. they had no regards when they broke the law what will stop them again.

Ever gotten a speeding ticket? You broke the law. Ever gone over the speeding limit without getting a ticket? You still broke the law.

We are talking about a God given, inalienable right here. To me it is quite simple. As long as you are of sound mind mentally, no infraction that does not involve serving time in jail should cost you your RKBA. For those convicted of crimes that involve jail time, then they should lose their rights while in jail and while under supervised release (probation/parole), but as far as I'm concerned, once you serve all your time in and out of jail all your rights should restored - including the right to vote. If someone is too violent to be trusted with firearms, keep him in jail for life because if you release him he will just get a firearm illegally and murder a cop as we sadly witnessed recently.

That's where I have trouble with this. You commit a certain crime and lose your rights so you can't own a firearm to protect yourself and your family even though you are otherwise a law-abiding citizen who made a mistake and learned his lesson. Meanwhile gangbangers who also cannnot own a firearm legally are running around putting your family in danger because they don't obey the law and get firearms illegally.

Either keep those who can't be trusted with the lawful use of firearms in jail for life, or give those who commit crimes but serve their time the respect they deserve upon release to exercize their God given, inalienable rights. If that person screws up again and it involves firearms - put 'em away for life.

That guy who got an M1 DUI may well have learned his lesson and gotten treatment for his drinking and is no longer any danger whatsoever of getting behind a wheel drunk - at least no more than the next guy, yet this now law-abiding, upstanding citizen who learned from his mistake can never again exercise a God given right while thugs who have numerous felony convictions are running around with guns illegally. This makes no sense to me as the guy with the M1 DUI could just as easily get a firearm illegally to protect his family, and in doing so he becomes that much more of a criminal.

And none of this begging a judge to get your rights back. Either you have served all your time and should automatically get your rights back or if you can't be trusted with a firearm you should be locked up for life.

[MrUgly]

I'm coming from the point of someone who dosn't get shotty's pointed at them on a regular basis. So forgive me.

I'm coming from the point on someone who has to zip bags closed on children because worthless scum decided to cheap out on a cab. Lose you second amendment right? Brother, If I had my way, they would lose their freedoms, their livelihoods, and all they hold dear. They would be humiliated, disgraced and then finally executed. You think I am being harsh? HELL YES! It's not harsh enough. I DO NOT EVER want to hold a dead child in my arms again because some weak-willed pathetic excuse for a human thought, "Hey, I'm ok to drive." I do not ever again want to look into the eyes of a husband as I tell him, "I'm sorry sir, we did all we could, but it wasn't enough." Or know that when this child wakes up, their mommy or daddy will never kiss them goodnight again.

Second Amendment rights, my hairy white ass. Drop drunk drivers in a deep, dark, dank hole and shovel dirt over them. If there was any damned justice in the world, responders would be allowed to do an instant, mandatory BAC on any driver involved in an accident. If they are found to well exceed the legal limit, they should be arrested. If they are at fault in in an accident where someone dies, which by my mind counts as premeditation, they should be executed right the hell there on the side of road. Let the corpse draw stares and be a lesson for any other piece of garbage that thinks it's ok to get behind the wheel like that.

I won't apologize for offending. When a person drinks and drives, they take not only their life, but the lives of countless innocents into their hands and put them at risk. They aren't sick, they are selfish pricks that have no regard for human life.

[tmg19103]

I'm coming from the point on someone who has to zip bags closed on children because worthless scum decided to cheap out on a cab. Lose you second amendment right? Brother, If I had my way, they would lose their freedoms, their livelihoods, and all they hold dear. They would be humiliated, disgraced and then finally executed. You think I am being harsh? HELL YES! It's not harsh enough. I DO NOT EVER want to hold a dead child in my arms again because some weak-willed pathetic excuse for a human thought, "Hey, I'm ok to drive." I do not ever again want to look into the eyes of a husband as I tell him, "I'm sorry sir, we did all we could, but it wasn't enough." Or know that when this child wakes up, their mommy or daddy will never kiss them goodnight again.

Second Amendment rights, my hairy white ass. Drop drunk drivers in a deep, dark, dank hole and shovel dirt over them. If there was any damned justice in the world, responders would be allowed to do an instant, mandatory BAC on any driver involved in an accident. If they are found to well exceed the legal limit, they should be arrested. If they are at fault in in an accident where someone dies, which by my mind counts as premeditation, they should be executed right the hell there on the side of road. Let the corpse draw stares and be a lesson for any other piece of garbage that thinks it's ok to get behind the wheel like that.

I won't apologize for offending. When a person drinks and drives, they take not only their life, but the lives of countless innocents into their hands and put them at risk. They aren't sick, they are selfish pricks that have no regard for human life.

You're entitled to your opinon and I can respect that, but how far do you take it? Speeders kill more people than those who drive the speed limit. Maybe we should execute them?

[fingers80002]

You're entitled to your opinon and I can respect that, but how far do you take it? Speeders kill more people than those who drive the speed limit. Maybe we should execute them?

How is that any different?

[fingers80002]

I'm coming from the point on someone who has to zip bags closed on children because worthless scum decided to cheap out on a cab. Lose you second amendment right? Brother, If I had my way, they would lose their freedoms, their livelihoods, and all they hold dear. They would be humiliated, disgraced and then finally executed. You think I am being harsh? HELL YES! It's not harsh enough. I DO NOT EVER want to hold a dead child in my arms again because some weak-willed pathetic excuse for a human thought, "Hey, I'm ok to drive." I do not ever again want to look into the eyes of a husband as I tell him, "I'm sorry sir, we did all we could, but it wasn't enough." Or know that when this child wakes up, their mommy or daddy will never kiss them goodnight again.

Second Amendment rights, my hairy white ass. Drop drunk drivers in a deep, dark, dank hole and shovel dirt over them. If there was any damned justice in the world, responders would be allowed to do an instant, mandatory BAC on any driver involved in an accident. If they are found to well exceed the legal limit, they should be arrested. If they are at fault in in an accident where someone dies, which by my mind counts as premeditation, they should be executed right the hell there on the side of road. Let the corpse draw stares and be a lesson for any other piece of garbage that thinks it's ok to get behind the wheel like that.

I won't apologize for offending. When a person drinks and drives, they take not only their life, but the lives of countless innocents into their hands and put them at risk. They aren't sick, they are selfish pricks that have no regard for human life.

Tried to rep you, gotta spred it out some, SORRY

[tmg19103]

How is that any different?

It's not. My question is - should we execute every irresponsible person? Since I don't see that as truly reasonable, you go by the law of the land. If a guy drinks and drives and kills someone he deserves everything he gets, but I still believe that if gets out of jail after 10 years and then does 5 years probation, that after that his rights should be restored. Otherwise, society should decide to keep him locked-up forever and the penalties should be changed. It's just my belief that if you pay your debt to society you should be a free man on all accounts. Otherwise, just lock 'em up forever if they can't be trusted in society.

[Siggy]

As is the case with this thread, I am sometimes disturbed, disqusted and personally emabarassed to be a member of a forum that has other members that think the way they do. MrUgly and Pisnnapalm: You two are truly honorable people that understand the social problem that DUI is. People that post statements like "I guess you seem to be the victim of a judge who was actually sentencing people for these types of things" are the type of person I wish did not exist - this is the most ignorant statement imaginable.

The OP has two DUI's in less than 10 years. He has very poor judgement, a drinking problem, or both. whatever the case, he should not be possessing weapons of any sort or driving a car until he can prove himself to be smarter, not alcohol dependant, or both.

Not to deviate from the OP topic, but last week I saw the thread flaming chilly-something, partially for his view that many posters on here post ridiculous, ignorant, non-sense that don't advance PAFOA - they make us look like gun toting lunatics with little intelligence. While his post might have been written in an antagonistic way, I think he was dead-on with many of his thoughts. I also question why the OC dinners are conducted. Is it to bait police into altercations so they can be "schooled" (another pathetic choice of words that makes PAFOA look bad)? The police don't mean any harm - they are upholding the laws as they understand them - nothing more, nothing less. If PAFOA wants to make a real difference then they should focus efforts on changing the training that is given to police so that they know/understand PA's firearms laws. That's all great that one cop has been "schooled", but what about all the others out there now and more coming through the academy? Go for the root cause of the problem - training - it is the most effective to make a difference.

Lastly, I am dismayed by the posts by our "moderator" EmptyMag. He took a front seat flaming Chilly instead of truly moderating a thread. A more appropriate seat would have been for him to drive the discussion about how Chilly had some valid points that should be addressed while recognizing that Chilly was most likely offensive to some. EmptyMag acts more like a forum Nazi dictating that no one can post anything that might be controversial and all must bow to his incredible forum power or the thread will be locked. If someone wants to be a meaningful moderator they should get over themselves and try to giude discussions that move the PAFOA agenda forward: Chilly's thread was exactly the type of discussion that should be on here, whether it offends some people or not.

[dkostick]

It's not. My question is - should we execute every irresponsible person? Since I don't see that as truly reasonable, you go by the law of the land. If a guy drinks and drives and kills someone he deserves everything he gets, but I still believe that if gets out of jail after 10 years and then does 5 years probation, that after that his rights should be restored. Otherwise, society should decide to keep him locked-up forever and the penalties should be changed. It's just my belief that if you pay your debt to society you should be a free man on all accounts. Otherwise, just lock 'em up forever if they can't be trusted in society.

and people thinking like this is why there soo many ex-cons get out early on good behavior and after something bad happens or a cop dies every one wants to know how the guy got out a m1 is no speeding ticket and when i go out to the bar its always a cab never risk taking a car.

[jon'76]

He committed a crime, and completed his penalty satisfactorily. That means that ethically, and constitutionally, he should be allowed to have firearms.

Driving drunk is a complex issue, and some people (alcoholics) drive better drunk than they do sober. I'm not condoning drunk driving I'm merely stating that there is far more to the debate than meets the eye. If someone is mildly intoxicated and drives slower to compensate; a cop will pull them over on suspicion of DUI and they will be arrested. This encourages mildly intoxicated people to drive faster than they would otherwise. Also, 3 beers to a 250 pound man is light years different than 3 beers to a 90 pound high school girl, but their BAC will be similar.

[tmg19103]

I guess my point is about casting stones and where do you draw the line. I know I have exceeded the speed limit and talked on my cell phone while driving. I have read that talking on your cell phone while driving is the equivalent of driving with several beers in you. Can everyone on this forum swear they have never exceeded the speed limit or used a cell phone while driving? Both increase the odds of an accident and the chances of killing someone by "accident" with your automobile. Should a person lose his RKBA's over such an accident?

I do not drink and drive. Heck, I don't even drink. However, I'm not going to sit here and say in ten years I could not someohow have a few at a wedding and get a DUI. Does that mean I should loose my inalienable rights forever and how is it any different than speeding or using a cell phone behind the wheel?

I would suggest that anyone who casts stones had better have a squeaky clean life - and even if so, you can never guarantee that you won't make a mistake at some point in your life. I'm willing to bet that most, if not all of us, have made mistakes that under the disguise of a message board some rail against when they are by no means perfect. Nobody is.

I can understand the concern about two DUI's in 10 years. This argument of banning firearms ownership for such a person sounds like an Brady argument, however. It's backed by civic minded platitudes, but what really are the statisitics of someone with two DUI's using a firearm carelessly? I bet they are miniscule. Kind of like the AWB. Sounds like a sensible thing to many, but only 1.5% or so of firearms crimes are committed with so-called "assault weapons" and murders with so-called "assault weapons" amount to less than .05% of firearms crimes. But hey, let's ban so-called "assault weapons" when they are statistically insignificant and lets ban drunk drivers from firearms ownership when their misuse of firearms is no doubt statistically insignificant.

What is this - a gun grabber forum? A forum to placate the anti's so we don't "sound" too far out there? Sounds like some people are falling for the gun grabber mentalilty of making something insignificant into something scary in realtionship to firearms when there are no facts to show a relationship between DUI's and firearms misuse (and let me add I am in no way excusing drunk driving). And where do you draw the line again? I'd bet those taking anti-depressants have pretty much the same odds of using a firearm irresponsibly as someone who gets a DUI. Let's take firearms from them, even though it's statistically insignificant that those taking anti-depressants commit crimes with guns. How about a guy who yells at his employees? Heck, he's a time bomb. Let's take away his rights. Again, am I on a pro-gun forum or an anti-gun forum?

Yes, punish the drunk driver, but in my mind, unless he was waiving a firearm around while driving drunk, it should have nothing to do with your God-given, inalienable right to keep and bear arms.