
Heffay wrote:
Are you saying that because I'm prior military I shouldn't need to take training?
THINK ABOUT IT. I WAS IN THE FREAKING NAVY!!
hammAR wrote:John S. wrote:But alas, there are a few on this forum who believe you should be allowed to carry a gun free and clear with no laws or permits whatsoever...............
Damn straight, it is a Right and I should not have to ask permission, and as such I should not be licensed or taxed by any governmental body to exercise my Right!
Heffay wrote:
Are you also implying that convicted felons should be able to vote as well? Polling station in Stillwater state pen? Felons having the right to bear arms? Is there a line for you, and if so, where is that line?
Heffay wrote:When they get out, should they be allowed to carry? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "except for convicted felons and wifebeaters."
goalie wrote:Heffay wrote:When they get out, should they be allowed to carry? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "except for convicted felons and wifebeaters."
What does "paid in full" mean to you?
Heffay wrote:When they get out, should they be allowed to carry? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "except for convicted felons, Navy officers, and wifebeaters."
hammAR wrote:but then again you seem to be OK with "reasonable restriction" clauses with everything............
I agree with Heffray to a point.hammAR wrote:Damn straight, it is a Right and I should not have to ask permission, and as such I should not be licensed or taxed by any governmental body to exercise my Right!
No crap. Once someone has served a sentence they've served they're sentence. Parole is part of that. Whenever that's done they've paid their debt. We could see this in MN, a rebuttal a federal BS, if only principled. Of course it shouldn't be presented as having to do with firearms. It could be presented as "restoring reformed citizens' rights act", under the auspices of voting rights, exempting certain convicted persons from federal restriction of rights in MN specifically. Guns would fall under that blanket. I know at least one long-ago DUI who's not a dangerous criminal and just wants to hunt ducks again. It sucks.Heffray wrote:When they get out, should they be allowed to carry?
Heffay wrote:hammAR wrote:but then again you seem to be OK with "reasonable restriction" clauses with everything............
I take it you are not? You have a line, right? Are you ok with felons who have served their sentence getting permits?
Heffay wrote:goalie wrote:Heffay wrote:When they get out, should they be allowed to carry? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "except for convicted felons and wifebeaters."
What does "paid in full" mean to you?
It means the judge handed out a sentence, including a probationary period at the end, and the convict has completed that sentence.
Sietch wrote:. That ancient Marine in my last class was moaning about the money. This was Hennepin so that means 100 bucks on top of the class fees. He brought a 1911 that he'd purchased for less than $40 dollars from a hardware store (how's that for the time value of money, and laws?). He's obviously retired. Shouldn't we cut him a break?
hammAR wrote:sure glad that goalie has to put-up with you, I sure wouldn't............
Word. My feeling about MOA, for example, in a nutshell. It applies across the board. However, I'm still a fan of licensing carry. Licensing, itself, is not an evil imposition and doesn't restrict anything.goalie wrote:You see, restricting me because it makes you FEEL better is a mamby-pamby whiny bitch thing to do, and it really isn't something I care to buy in to. YMMV
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests