Some people should not be allowed to own guns

[Kramer]

I completely disagree. Owning a firearm is indeed a right of all citizens (and those treated as such) of this great nation. There is also a great amount of responsibility that comes that comes with this Right. If a person lacks responsibility they should lose the right to bear arms. I would rephrase your statement as "All responsible people should be able to own firearms".

There we go...common sense speaking!

[Statkowski]

IMOP a convicted felon should be denied the right to bear arms because they have proven they can not uphold their civic duties. You will notice I did not say a person suspected of a crime or a person accused of a crime as there is a difference.

A person commits a crime, is caught, tried, and sentenced. At the end of the sentence all should be forgiven. If not, then the sentence isn't long enough. One act does not prove a person cannot uphold his/her civic duties (whatever they are). A history, however, of continued behavior might indicate such. To apply a blanket bill of attainder on all "felons" denies due process.

IMOP a person who is deemed by their peers (their peers have the responsibility to be impartial) to be incapable of telling right from wrong (mentally incapable) should be denied the right to bear arms.

If such is the case, then what are such people doing loose on the streets?

I agree that denying rights can not be taken lightly but some citizens are not responsible enough to enjoy all of the right afforded to them under the constitution.

Again, each case has to be tried on its individual merits. Whether they're responsible enough or not is not in and of itself an end-all, be-all. Are they a danger to others? Have they been held responsible for their actions? If not, then why not?

[PA Traveler]

Re: holster....Use which ever one you like to fit a holster. Just don't point the muzzle at anything you don't plan on shooting. Especially a human being.

[spagluvx]

A person commits a crime, is caught, tried, and sentenced. At the end of the sentence all should be forgiven. If not, then the sentence isn't long enough. One act does not prove a person cannot uphold his/her civic duties (whatever they are). A history, however, of continued behavior might indicate such. To apply a blanket bill of attainder on all "felons" denies due process.
If such is the case, then what are such people doing loose on the streets?
Again, each case has to be tried on its individual merits. Whether they're responsible enough or not is not in and of itself an end-all, be-all. Are they a danger to others? Have they been held responsible for their actions? If not, then why not?

Sorry , I forgot how do the quote within a quote but this is a good discussion and I wanted to respond.

"At the end of the sentence all should be forgiven." - I agree at the end of sentence a person should be forgiven, but the acts they committed should not be forgotten.

"One act does not prove a person cannot uphold his/her civic duties (whatever they are). A history, however, of continued behavior might indicate such." - Rights are earned, maybe there should be a process to to regain your rights as related to firearms. It also depends on the one act, a felon who steals a car (once) may be a much different person that a felon who beat his wife (once). I personally believe there may be a character flaw in both persons and I am undecided is I want either enjoying their right to bear arms. The next time it might be my family or property.

I believe due process (unless unduly prosecuted) was afforded before they became a felon.

"If such is the case, then what are such people doing loose on the streets?" - There are people who are not mentally capable of telling right from wrong who are not criminals. We should afford these people all of the rights they are capable of being responsible for.

[spagluvx]

Please define "responsible."

Civic Responsibility is defined as the "responsibility of a citizen" (Dictionary.com). It is comprised of actions and attitudes associated with democratic governance and social participation.

I was using the word in this sense. I would not classify the actions described in the OP as irresponsible. The actions described in the OP were careless.

[YosemiteSam]

Re: holster....Use which ever one you like to fit a holster. Just don't point the muzzle at anything you don't plan on shooting. Especially a human being.

Sorry! Wrong smilie. I was being sarcastic not confused about proper gun safety.

[PA Traveler]

No problem... your intent was clear.

I think from now on, I'll just be reading more and posting less.

[Corn Flake]

A person commits a crime, is caught, tried, and sentenced. At the end of the sentence all should be forgiven. If not, then the sentence isn't long enough. One act does not prove a person cannot uphold his/her civic duties (whatever they are). A history, however, of continued behavior might indicate such. To apply a blanket bill of attainder on all "felons" denies due process.

I think that the reason why people should lose their right to firearms shouldn't be whether the person committed a felony, but rather whether the person committed a violent crime or used a firearm in the commission of a crime.

[Wiley-X]

I did not open the cylinder and check the weapon, because I knew there were no bullets in it, as it was a new pistol and I hadnt bought any yet. Am I a douchebag?

Not a douchebag, you just didn't follow standard procedure. If you make it a habit to ALWAYS check, even when you KNOW that it is unloaded, you reduce your likelyhood of having an unintentional discharge.

[kcr121]

Not a douchebag, you just didn't follow standard procedure. If you make it a habit to ALWAYS check, even when you KNOW that it is unloaded, you reduce your likelyhood of having an unintentional discharge.

An unintentional discharge is when I'm trying to go 5 minutes in the sack with my girl and I only make it to 2. Call it what it is - negligent.