Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it...
I couldn't disagree with you more. so long as the person is of age and mentally competent... there should be no restrictions on him carrying a firearm... concealed.
I believe that private businesses should have the right to make policy for how you carry... I believe states and cities can tell you if you need to carry openly or concealed.. but that is it.
as for felons? when they get let out of prison... hand em back there gun and say "go with god" If you didn't think they could be trusted with a gun.... what the hell did you let em out for?
lazs
Gotta love it, Larz you really live in a fairytale world.
First it's there should be no "restrictions or qualifiers" for gun ownership. Then you turn around put your own personal "restrictions and qualifiers" that you think are important. Yours seem to only be their "age and if they are mentally competent".
So it's ok to break the 2nd amendment as long as it fits your personal opinion? Is that it? It's ok for "you" to set "restrictions and qualifiers" but I can't because that would break the 2nd amendment?
You can't have it both ways Larz either you agree there are certain people that should never own guns or you think anyone should. So either you agree that the govt does have the right to tailor fit the 2nd amendment and create laws to restrict gun ownership or they can't at all.
So which is it, you can't have it both ways?
Also, I never knew "trust" came into play at any point, when handing down a sentence to someone whom broke the law. A criminal is given a sentence, he "can" get out on parole if he is a good inmate "if" his sentance allows it.
However even if he tells you he will commit the same crime again and again. He still "has" to be released at the end of his full sentence. Unless he commits another crime while in jail. They can not hold him any longer than the sentence he was given in the court of law. The only thing they don't have to do is let him out early.