Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(46,522 posts)
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 04:29 PM Jun 2015

The NRA wants the "right" to sell guns to felons...

Because that works out just so well, right?

Like I said, the NRA no longer exists, they are now the GSL. Gun Sales Lobby.

NRA Embraces Deceptive Description Of GOP Rep's Guns-For-Felons Proposal

Gun Group Falsely Claimed Program Is Only Aimed At Non-Violent Felons

The National Rifle Association is falsely characterizing a legislative proposal from Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) that would allow felons to petition the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for restoration of their gun ownership rights, saying the option would only be available to "non-violent felons."

In fact, any felon could apply to have their right to own a firearm restored under Buck's proposal, which is why the ATF program that used to provide that option was defunded in the early 1990s -- research showed that even violent felons had won their appeals, and in some cases went on to commit new violent crimes.


13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies


(22,457 posts)
1. I am not sure a felon who embezzled money, etc should lose any.....
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 04:37 PM
Jun 2015

Rights after serving sentence. Like voting, etc. violence is a different thing.


(26,631 posts)
4. I agree, disqualifications and revocations of civil rights/liberties could be
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 04:48 PM
Jun 2015

more nuanced. There are non-violent felonies that really shouldn't affect RKBA, and some violent (or other) misdemeanors that should.

I'm also not in favor of life-time bans; IMO there should be a pre-determined sliding scale for restoring rights after a period of 'good behavior,' although I'd let judges over-ride that (in either direction) with a clear and articulated reason.

Nobody should ever lose the right to vote; even while incarcerated I think citizens should be able to vote absentee in their home precincts...


(4,475 posts)
2. Well, those are the people who want them, right? ...
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 04:40 PM
Jun 2015

... Government should not be in the business of interfering with market forces and the laws of supply and demand. Who NEEDS guns the most - law abiding citizens or dangerous felons? The felons, right? Why shouldn't the gun manufacturers be able to tap into that niche? Prohibiting felons from purchasing guns is making it much more difficult for them to operate their criminal enterprises. It's tough to maintain a crime syndicate these days, and even tougher to start one up. Guns would help such small businesses create jobs. I just don't see a problem with this law. Nothing could go wrong, right?


(16,286 posts)
3. I am all for ALL felons regaining ALL rights in a very short time, including guns.
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 04:40 PM
Jun 2015

As someone who thinks gun ownership is irresponsible and wrong and silly and so on (in light of the horrific harm they cause, if they didnt cause so much harm then I would be all for them), as long as the GSL is going to run our courts and government, hell yes we need to let all those felons, including all the BLACK ones, to have guns.

Maybe the only way to grow up as a society about guns is to go full throttle, then when the carnage gets so bad, we can then follow the 2nd amendment and move ALL guns to well regulated militias.


(39,171 posts)
5. So what happens if there is no blood in the streets and violence actually declines?
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 04:53 PM
Jun 2015

will you finally move on to a more pressing social issue?


(16,286 posts)
7. I dont even know where to being with a comment like that.
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 05:07 PM
Jun 2015

The implication of which is the more guns we have the less violence we will have



(39,171 posts)
8. That is exactly what happened over the past 20 years
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 05:11 PM
Jun 2015

you keep forgetting we have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half since 1992.

There is no direct correlation between the amount of gun violence and the number of guns in America. Because one went down as the other went up.


(16,286 posts)
11. These stats would have value if we were not ALREADY armed to the teeth
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 05:13 PM
Jun 2015

You do understand that, I hope.

I dont want to argue about guns with anybody.

To me it is like arguing about the value of too much radiation or something similar.

To me, you see, gun ownership in the face of our overwhelming problem with guns is irresponsible and selfish and I will NEVER agree with gun "folks"

So we can discuss almost anything else, if you want.


(39,171 posts)
12. Nice non sequitur answer.
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 05:16 PM
Jun 2015

you said more guns = more gun violence. History show exactly the opposite.



(37,748 posts)
10. Good choice-- never argue with an ideologue
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 05:13 PM
Jun 2015

Good choice-- never argue with an ideologue... giggling bemusedly at them is the most rational response (not to imply there's an ideologue who denies himself more than one perspective anywhere in this thread- or even on DU for that matter).



(5,417 posts)
6. Just imagine if Martha Stewart was allowed to buy a .22 rifle
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 04:55 PM
Jun 2015

We cant have that, she might go on a killing spree.

There should be some checks and balances, but I dont have a problem with this law with a few tweaks to it.

I want somebody to respond to this post explaining why allowing Martha Stewart to own a gun would be dangerous.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The NRA wants the "r...