True or False: "Crazy" People & Felons Should NOT Have Guns

[IdaBriggs]

Argue all you want about the definitions.

[Betsy Ross]

1. If crazies and felons didn't have guns

our police wouldn't be able to protect us. :sarcasm: in case you doubted it.

[IdaBriggs]

2. The police as "protectors" is kind of a myth, isn't it?

As far as I can tell, they are there for *after* the fact -- to make sure "justice" is served.

And also to make sure people don't always drive like maniacs (because they drive sensibly for fear of getting caught). :)

[noonwitch]

17. They protect people all the time

The cops look for missing children and teens, and frequently find them before harm can come to them.

When CPS workers have to remove children from dangerous families, the police accompany them to keep them safe.

The police patrol parades and public events to keep people safe. It's opening day for the Tigers in downtown Detroit-there will be cops all over the area by the stadium to keep the public safe.

They might not be able to protect all the people all the time, but protecting the public is still a big part of their jobs. Most cops are not like the bastards on "The Sheild". Most are just average guys and gals who have tough jobs.

[IdaBriggs]

23. I see what you mean. (And by the way, I have the utmost respect

for police officers, who in my opinion, do an incredibly difficult job).

If I am reading what you say correctly, you are talking about the police officer who protects against danger in a "planned" situation, and also who assists in rescue efforts, etc.

But, I don't think they can protect individuals in their homes, or at work from the "random criminal" who breaks, enters, robs, rapes, and murders, especially since the criminals usually don't advertise their intentions until AFTER the fact. In those cases, I believe the police are there to protect us from becoming a society where "blood vengeance" is considered the norm....

Its an impossible task we give them....:(

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. ...

:popcorn:

[Swamp Rat]

4. And certain vice presidents

[Ohio Joe]

12. I believe he falls under 'Crazy"

[Ohio Joe]

13. Actualy... he falls under 'Felon' as well

[dave502d]

5. "Crazy" People & Felons "You mean people like Dick Cheney.n/t

[Ian David]

6. People who are "the happy kind" of crazy should have guns

Seriously though...

During The Holocaust, the mentally ill were among the first carted away for "special treatment" where they "died of pneumonia" to have their ashes sent home to their families in little wooden boxes.

"Crazy" people have a right to defend themselves as much as anyone else.

And what kind of crazy shouldn't get guns?

How "crazy" must you be to have your guns taken away?

What is the litmus test to determine who is too crazy to own a gun?

"Crazy" people have the same rights as anyone else. So long as they're not a danger to themselves or others, sure... why not?

[IdaBriggs]

15. Do you believe that a well armed civilian population can/could

stand up to a "modern" military? And do you believe that if the mentally ill were armed and had resisted that they would NOT have been carted away for the "special treatment" they received? I am not arguing with you; I am asking your opinion. :)

[Ian David]

20. The Iraqis are sure doing well at standing up to our modern military

Also, the average lifespan of those who resisted in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was longer than those who meekly submitted and got on the trains.

The Vietnamese sure did well against a modern military. First the French, then the Americans.

Afghanistan sure kicked Russia's ass.

Somalia also comes to mind. Ever see Blackhawk Down?

Algeria versus France.

Israel vs Great Britain.

America vs Great Britain.

Our country's very existence is a testament to the fact that guerrilla warfare waged against an occupying force, in a battle of attrition, is extremely effective. Massive armies of British troops marching in neat rows down the road being sniped-at by Minutemen hiding in the underbrush...

The South could have easily won the Civil War if they had learned more of the lessons of The American Revolutionary War. Or of Sun Tzu for that matter.

You don't meet a superior enemy on their own terms. When the Union troops are lined-up in neat little rows marching toward you, you should meet their form with formlessness. You run for the trees and pick them off. Or better still, you send small forces to create attrition while they are marching from one presumed battlefield to the next.

Look at what's happening in Iraq.

They rarely attack our bases.

They attack us on the roads, while we're moving and vulnerable.

And what do we do? We bust down their doors at night and scare more people into hating us.

Every Iraqi family has lost someone to our invasion and occupation. They are all "9/11 Families." They are all "Gold Star Moms."

And for better or for worse, they are winning. 75% of our troops want to give-up. And their officers are abandoning them.

Hypothetically, an American insurgency would be far more effective than what's going on in Iraq.

Not because we're smarter or better.

It's because we have all the tools of guerrilla warfare for sale at Wal-Mart or Home Depot, and access to a World Wide Web full of ideas.

We can be on the other side of the country within seven hours. We can communicate with virtually anyone, anywhere instantaneously. We can buy any tool needed to resist. And we can quickly research how to use it.

And those same networks are so valuable, and so many people depend upon them, that any government attempt to interfere with them for the sake of quashing a domestic insurgency would have negative impact on the economy, fuel more discontent among the citizenry, and draw more attention to the insurgency.

And we've got a media addicted to scenes of carnage and bloodshed and violence that will dutifully broadcast and even exaggerate any act of resistance if it's good for ratings.

An American insurgency would be the most televised and reported war in the world's history. It would be televised, emailed, blogged, text-messaged, radioed and documented like nothing ever seen.

And it would be heartbreaking and bloody, which is why I hope it never happens.<'/b>

But if it does, I want everyone armed-- even the "crazy" people.

We're already arming the crazy people anyway. They're the ones that have the "Veterans against Kerry" bumper stickers.

[michreject]

22. False argument

Do you think that the modern military would fire on U.S. citizens if ordered to do so?

[IdaBriggs]

24. I said "a" modern military -- my question had more to do with a

hypothetical invasion force (ala "Red Dawn" or our actions in Iraq).

But in answer to your question, yes, I believe that if ordered to fire upon American citizens, our military people would do so. I think there would be a lot of questions AFTERWARDS, but, yes, I believe the majority of them would "follow orders" and do so. :(

[benEzra]

29. A survey was taken of U.S. Marines on that question a few years ago...

But in answer to your question, yes, I believe that if ordered to fire upon American citizens, our military people would do so. I think there would be a lot of questions AFTERWARDS, but, yes, I believe the majority of them would "follow orders" and do so.

A survey was taken of U.S. Marines on that question a few years ago, as part of someone's thesis for a degree from the Naval War College, as I recall. It was administered to a group of U.S. Marines at the Twenty-Nine Palms base in California, and included the following question:

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

As I recall, 75% of Marines answered No to whether or not they would fire on U.S. citizens who refused to hand over their "assault weapons," with the majority sentiment being not just no, but "HELL no."

If the military were ever order to pull crap like that, you'd have some who would obey...and a lot who would be fighting them, on the side of the citizenry.

[BiggJawn]

33. Sure do.

Read the "Good News" from Iraq-Nam lately?

[Zorra]

7. Some felons should not be permitted to own firearms.

But some poor Joe or Jane that got busted for some trivial "offense", such as possession of herb, should not have their right to own a firearm, or to vote, taken from then

[genieroze]

8. I depends on the felony and how crazy.

A felony that involved violence, no. A crazy person that is prone to violent outbursts or has a history of severe mental illness, no. Many felonies don't involve violence, and a person with anxiety problems etc... isn't necessarily mentally ill.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. if by crazy and felons you mean

everyone, then yes.

[marions ghost]

10. Having been once threatened by a crazy person with a gun

who had serious delusions (and yet his daughter did nothing to restrict his access to the family arsenal), I would say there is definitely a problem in present-day loose attitudes towards guns.

But I know that America does not really care about this. All you can do is try not to go out in public too much. Shopping malls before Xmas, for example, are a great place to get threatened with a gun. Also hospitals, where people go to settle arguments after a gun incident. And of course don't frequent bars, quick stops, and neighborhoods with "W" stickers and rebel flags.

[maxsolomon]

11. Guns should be MANDITORY for crazy people

No bullets, though.

only half :sarcasm:

"Its WAY too late for gun control in America" -Steve Earle

[TX-RAT]

14. Illegal for either to own a gun.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Crazy people and felons should have guns

only if they are members of a well-regulated militia.

Of course, a well-regulated milita would not accept crazy people or felons as its members -- doing so would work against it being 'well regulated'.

[DanCa]

18. Forget guns I want gernades

More fire power less accuracy :sarcasm:

[BiggJawn]

19. Who decides who's "crazy"?

According to some of the squeemish around here, the mere DESIRE to hold a firearm is proof of "crazy"...

[Crazy Guggenheim]

21. Hell no! It's bad enough as is! BTW, I am pro-Second Amendment!

:popcorn:

[Jose Diablo]

25. It's hard to decide who is crazy

and with this War on Drugs, I'd say what does it mean to be a 'felon'. I see no reason to deny a felon the right to vote. As for guns, how could any law prevent a 'crazy' or a felon from obtaining guns. Why try and why allow some 'arbitrator' of good citizenship decide?

Why are we always willing to give-up rights? Does anybody really believe the government is out to help you?

[benEzra]

26. True...and that's been enacted into law, the Gun Control Act of 1968

as amended. It's illegal for a convicted felon, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or a person adjudicated mentally incompetent to so much as TOUCH a gun, or even a single round of ammunition. Violation of that law is itself a Federal felony, as is knowingly providing a gun to a felon. This prohibition is for LIFE, with no possibility of appeal other than a pardon or grant of clemency.

Even writing a bad check to a restaurant bars you for life from owning a gun under the laws of many/most states...

[IdaBriggs]

27. 68% True (32 votes); 17% False (8 votes) & 15% Other (7 Votes) @ 4:18p.m.

Any more opinions? :)

[darkism]

28. Other: NO ONE should have guns, period.

::dons asbestos suit::

[benEzra]

30. Too late! :-) n/t

[TahitiNut]

31. "Felons" or "ex-felons"??

So much for any end to one's "debt to society" huh? :eyes:

[ThomWV]

32. I Carry A Gun All The Time

At least every time I leave home I have one. When I filled out the Federal form to buy the pistol I carry I had to attest that I was neither a felon nor crazy, nor had I ever been a felon or adjudged crazy or even just treated for any kind of crazy. Couldn't be a drunk, wife-beater, or drug addict either.

Later when I got my concealed carry permit I had to once again attest to all the same things. This time, however, the Sheriff of the county I live in had to attest to the same things so there was an actual investigation of sorts. None of this shit comes lightly.

The thing is its my right to do what I do and have what I have. I live in a county where the Sheriff is loath to issue the permits. Know what? He can go fuck himself. This is a "Must Issue" state. That means he has no discretion not immediately changeable in court and must show his reasons for NOT issuing a license. Among the reasons he might use, had his investigation so indicated, would be my history as a felon, drug addict, blah, blah, blah ....

[IdaBriggs]

34. So, does that mean you *want* the statement to be True or False?

I'm not asking what is currently being done; I'm asking what you, as a citizen, want. :)

(But its good to know your sheriff is actually doing his job; it may be a hassle, but hopefully, he's continuing to be diligent in doing what he's being paid to do.)