dui and buying

[tmg19103]

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.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. The guy who killed the cop SHOULD have been in jail to 2052. In my mind and with his rap sheet, he SHOULD have been in jail for life.

Good for you for obeying the law and not drinking and driving. We all should obey the law, but my points regarding DUI are made in my previous post.

[bogey1]

a DUI conviction is just another way to rid civilians of firearms. just like the the bill (cant remember what its called) that states if you were ever on medication for ADD/ADHD when a child you lose all gun rights when you turn 18...

[TJBrando]

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.

Does God really want us to have guns?

[tmg19103]

Does God really want us to have guns?

The founders believed that the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights were "natural" or "God-given". Both terms have been quoted in various text by those involved in composing the Bill of Rights. The assumption is that these rights are not given to us to by government, but they are assumptive rights that we are born with, and in a Christian society these natural rights were also referred to as God-given rights.

I'm actually agnostic, but if God does exist, I would assume He would want us to have guns or they would not exist.

[TJBrando]

I'm actually agnostic, but if God does exist, I would assume He would want us to have guns or they would not exist.

I wonder if God wants convicted felons to have guns.

[Siggy]

I wonder if God wants convicted felons to have guns.

I'm sure that god (and our founding fathers) doesn't want felons, drunks, or people that lack good judgement and common sense to have guns. And I don't want them to have guns either. Guns in the hands of people like that leads to justifications for restrictions on anyone having guns.

[tmg19103]

I'm sure that god (and our founding fathers) doesn't want felons, drunks, or people that lack good judgement and common sense to have guns. And I don't want them to have guns either. Guns in the hands of people like that leads to justifications for restrictions on anyone having guns.

As for "people that lack judgement or common sense", how do you decide that? An anti would say anyone but supposedly highly trained police officers are the only ones with the judgment to own firearms.

This to me gets to a very slippery slope. Inalienable rights should only be prohibited in the most dire and necessary circumstances. I've seen many people at the range who have not used good judgment when handling a firearm. Generally I will make a polite comment to correct the behavior. I will not say to myself that such a person should not be allowed to own firearms for showing a lack of judgment that can easily be corrected. Same goes for non-violent crimes. A DUI shows a lack of judgment that in my mind has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Being a habitual drunkard is another story, but even then I hesitate if that person has never used his firearms in an inappropriate manner as I think our society and government is just looking for excuses to take away our rights, so they need to be vigorously defended.

[tmg19103]

As a matter fo fact, this whole story line reminds me of why I dropped the NRA for the GOA. The NRA has been slowly trading away our rights while the GOA draws the line in the sand and fights tooth and nail for the RKBA's.

[bogey1]

i dropped the nra for the same reason. joined the goa. im back with the nra but just for political reasons. which i guess thats the reason everybody joins..

[JP8]

Sorry...then you are a prohibited person who cannot possess firearms.

I don't want to tell you what to do if you do currently possess firearms. But if that is the case, then you could get yourself into even more serious trouble if you ever get caught with them.

Wait a sec. I know that the PICS challenge says you will be denied a transfer/purchase/LTCF if you have ever been charged with a crime that could result in more than a year of jail time. Where does it read that you'd have to get rid of previously acquired firearms if charged with a 1+ crime? Obviously, you'd have to have someone hold the weapons if you were on probation, but you could get them back after.

From what I can gather, PICS says they will deny a purchase based on a 1+ charge, yet the state UFA stautes make no mention of being a "prohibted person" based on a 1+ year charge.