What do you think is Constitutional?

[Mntnman]

What legal restrictions on firearms do YOU believe pass Constitutional muster?

Let's see where we stand, shall we?

[FarmerRick]

What legal restrictions on firearms do YOU believe pass Constitutional muster?

Let's see where we stand, shall we?

In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.

After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?

[SS_N_NE]

"Shall not be infringed"=no legal restrictions

[ILoveCats]

In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.

After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?

The big assumption there is that anyone actually serve their time anymore. Nebraska apparently cannot even calculate the time served correctly. Then factor in the rate of recidivism for certain crimes/criminals and I have never really lost any sleep over restrictions prohibiting felons from owning arms or voting.

[jFader]

In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.

After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?

Rick has it figured out!  A guy has a felony theft charge or a drug charge that happened when he was a teenager......& he is FOREVER FORBIDDEN to protect himself & his family in the same way that we all deem necessary?  Our zero tolerance one size fits all policy on that is B.S.....

Other than that....I think mag restrictions, bans on weapons based on appearance, city/state registrations, or 'may issue' permits are all infringements!

Based on my interpretation..... Omaha & Lincoln are For Sure violating not only the 2nd Amendment but the Nebraska Constitution with their registration schemes & other shenanigans!

No offense to anyone living In either town, but when we start looking to move in the next year or so....I would never consider moving from the outskirts of Omaha into the city limits in a million years...! & I was born & raised in Omaha....guess I'm just a city boy who became a libertarian & now I don't want to be able to see my neighbors house!

[Gary]

In the 30's, our grandfathers blew it, allowing the gov to limit our access to certain firearms. 

Why did the good citizens all across the USA loose gun rights?  Because of the lawless gangs in Chicago and NYNY. 

The gun control acts of the 30's need to be repealed, and all of them from that time, till now.

I'm free in 2016 for 4 years, if anyone wants a big uncle in the White House.   lol

[Mntnman]

In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.

After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?

I also have issue with someone that has served their time not having their rights restored. Someone that has been incarcerated probably has more reason to fear attack than somebody that hasn't. I do realize that it presents the very real possibility that someone dangerous would have access to a deadly weapon, but being illegal obviously won't stop them, either.

I have a friend that was in the back seat of a car, intoxicated, at 18 years old when the people he was with decided to rob a convenience store. He served time. He applied for and was granted amnesty after the required amount of time passed. He is one of the few people that I would trust to watch my kids. I even got the call to come watch his kids when he had a medical emergency. I can't imagine being prohibited from owning defensive firearms because of a stupid thing such as hanging out with the wrong people at the wrong time.

[nightraider717]

.

[Gary]

A duck is a duck is a duck.  Ducks usually stay pretty close to duck like their whole life.

An example Johnny Rogers.  He might be a great Husker.  He might be a swell guy, but giving someone all the rights back, that tossed caution to the wind, and knew he was being a bad guy, but in later life, wants to trade in a black hat for a white hat, I would say no. 

Bronze stays bronze.  You can count on that.  However, if you have a clay personality, it does not just turn bronze, because it gets caught a few times.

Hey, lets turn loose Charlie Manson, and hope he is a new man.   pass.

[nightraider717]

.

[Gary]

I tend to trust people with a track record of straight and narrow.   

I would not hire someone with a history of embezzlement convictions to handle making cash reciepts into my bank account.

I dont think someone with a history of drinking and driving and DWI convictions should be given a bottle of whiskey and the keys to a car, expecting he will be better in the future.

Should someone with felony convictions be allowed to walk into a gun store and purchase firearms?   There is something about that, sounds aberrant to me. 

[Mntnman]

The point being that they should not be denied their rights based on our oppinions. Making it illegal for them to own a gun will not stop them if they want one anyway. Laws do not stop criminals, we all can agree on that!

[farmerbob]

I have been caught doing something that's not socially acceptable, that's right I like to put my cake in a bowl and pore milk over it. I no longer do this in public because of the looks I get. I could be banned from cake all together.

[Mntnman]

I would appreciate it if we don't spam up the thread. Thanks.

[landon410]

you'd have to have a pretty darn good reason for taking someones rights away for ever.
I am also in the line of thinking that if you have "paid your debt" then you have paid your debt.

My views on the world are pretty messed up, I am first and foremost a Christian, politically I am a mix between fiscal conservative and social libertarian. I don't think we should spend money on welfare, I do not find it to be constituional and I could write an essay on that if I wanted to get into my whole thing. We also should have no say on what people do/want to do in their own life.
You want to do gross things with another dude, thats nasty but I don't care.

You want to remove someone's rights  you better have a damn good reason that goes beyong any question, there better be no grey area. We know we have the RIGHT to bear arms, there is no caveat saying "except full auto" or "except standard capacity mags" etc, so in my views and using contra proferentem as a back up, I think any and all laws that make it harder for me to get anything arms related is unconstitutional. Cost should be the only factor that determines what I own and use.

I'll conclude by saying though I am socially a libertarian I have to balance those views with what controls my life/soul/mind/heart, and in that I could never vote for or allow anything against my faith because I have to level my thoughts and life with my faith.

[ILoveCats]

I tend to trust people with a track record of straight and narrow.   

I dont think someone with a history of drinking and driving and DWI convictions should be given a bottle of whiskey and the keys to a car, expecting he will be better in the future.

Not trusting people with a spotty past is perfectly valid in many cases. You can't commit crimes and use drugs in your youth, wash out of college, then read a John LeCarre novel at age 28 and say, "Gosh it would be cool to be a spy. Maybe I'll do that with my life!" Good luck passing the polygraph and SCI clearances. Actions have consequences. Small actions have permanent consequences. Our society currently needs more people to understand that, but actions having consequences is currently falling out of fashion in this tiresome era.

The drunk driving analogy is good because of the frightening rate of recidivism. One DUI in a lifetime may not mean much, but when you look at the data it becomes clear that as soon as you get into multiple arrests, i.e. two or more, it soon becomes someone who will continue to violate over and over - all too often until they kill someone.

I realize there are a lot of ex cons out there on the straight an narrow, but the memory of Nikko Jenkins spree is a little too fresh to have any faith in the criminal justice system's ability to have "released" correlate in any way with "rehabilitated" or "nonsociopathic".

Maybe what I'm arguing for really is locking more people up longer and/or permanently, but that's ok. I'd like to see them bring back chain gangs so someone would finally fix all these pothole in Lincoln.

((((PS..... I thought I was the only one who did the milk on the cake thing, farmerbob.))))

[Mudinyeri]

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.  I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.

[farmerbob]

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.  I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.

^^That is might thoughts exactly^^

The advent of cable news, the slanting of the news to push a political view, sensationalism of the news for ratings,the inability to tell both sides of a story,dwelling on a tragedy for days,pretending to care and act like there must be an easy answer(more gun control) add low information voters and stir and bang that's where we are.

[Mntnman]

The drunk driving analogy is good because of the frightening rate of recidivism. One DUI in a lifetime may not mean much, but when you look at the data it becomes clear that as soon as you get into multiple arrests, i.e. two or more, it soon becomes someone who will continue to violate over and over - all too often until they kill someone.

I realize there are a lot of ex cons out there on the straight an narrow, but the memory of Nikko Jenkins spree is a little too fresh to have any faith in the criminal justice system's ability to have "released" correlate in any way with "rehabilitated" or "nonsociopathic".

Maybe what I'm arguing for really is locking more people up longer and/or permanently, but that's ok. I'd like to see them bring back chain gangs so someone would finally fix all these pothole in Lincoln.

The fallacy in that analogy is driving isn't protected by the Constitution and you get plenty of chances before they pull your licence for life.

The power in the document is that it is not subject to opinion. If it is, it is powerless. I have strong opinions about limiting those who vote liberal owning guns. What if a bunch of us got together and created a law keeping them from legally buying guns? There is plenty of statistical evedence that they are far more likely to use them in a crime.

The only way to change the Constitution is by passing amendments. The founders were smart enough to make that a difficult task. They knew making it easy would quickly lead to it being watered down to nothing. Think about how many courts have caved to violating your liberties in the name of public safety. If we can temporarily suspend our protection for such an ambiguous reason, we really have already given them up.

[Gunscribe]

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.  I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.

Could not have said it better myself. +10