w_houle
Member
Why? Apparently their weapon of choice is a car
We're just not going to legislate ourselves into a utopia.
For those who think felons should never have guns...
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
We're just not going to legislate ourselves into a utopia.
Why is it that the laws created by the “legal professionals” and their aids disagree so much from the common sense outcome we law-abiding Americans anticipate and take for granted? We're seeking for simple justice - mostly.
It’s like they - the Esq.s - are talking a foreign language that came to extinction a billion years ago?
The rest of us, your everyday American citizens, expect - I the minds of the lawyers - something unreasonable. Are we just that ignorant or stupid in general?
The rest of the civilized world appears to fare pretty well without the best legal system in the world (~70% of the world's attorneys in America).
I apologize any unintended offense. I'm just being curious.
It’s like they - the Esq.s - are talking a foreign language that came to extinction a billion years ago?
The rest of us, your everyday American citizens, expect - I the minds of the lawyers - something unreasonable. Are we just that ignorant or stupid in general?
The rest of the civilized world appears to fare pretty well without the best legal system in the world (~70% of the world's attorneys in America).
I apologize any unintended offense. I'm just being curious.
lilquiz
Member
We all remember the " baloon-boy " incident in Colorado. I understand it was a stunt and it costs money to roll those rescue vehicles...but two felony convictions. I say make him pay back the money and probation. I believe the " domestic violence" rule needs a time limit as well. too many cases of where the defendant was put into a lying plaintiff and no or false witness senario.
rainbowbob
Member
In other words...you (who seem to be among those most strongly advocating for the restriction of 2A rights for felons) refuse to answer the question?
I'm not asking what the sides of the debate would argue in court, blah, blah, blah - I'm asking how YOU would rationalize YOUR position on the matter.
I won't suspend my respiratory functions while awaiting a direct answer to a simple question.
I gave my direct answer on 27 May 2010 at 2003 hours, PDT, in post 54.rainbowbob said:
A particular crime is a felony only when the elected representative of the body politic, through the legislative process in which interested parties may participate, enact a law making it a felon. And the District Attorneys in pretty much all jurisdictions are also elected by the body politic. And I understand how the system works and understand that the filing of charges is only a being.Agostini said:
As far as "....scaring the living day lights out of us common sense ignorant law-abiding people?...", if someone is ignorant, there is a remedy. He can learn. Our legal system has evolved over something like the last 500 years, and it's not likely to be radically changing anytime soon. One can choose to feel put upon by it, or one can learn about it, understand it and learn how to deal with it. It's his choice.
It doesn't bother me because it's not true. It's just an Internet rant.Agostini said:
They haven't lost their rights yet. They've only been charged. They haven't been convicted, and I seriously doubt that the autistic kid will be.Agostini said:
Of course, we really don't know the whole stories. We don't know if, perhaps, the vandals have long histories of criminal behavior. If it's their first run in with the law, they'll probably get off lightly, but maybe having been charge with a felony will "put the fear of God" into them and help them sort out the remainder of their lives. In any can case, I'm not prepared to discount the wanton destruction of public property to a mere prank.
As for the autistic child, the DA that files the charges may very well be out of a job come the next election.
The charges were brought against the parents. They orchestrated the hoax as a publicity stunt to try to promote an idea they had hatched for a reality TV show. The father pleaded guilty to a felony and served 90 days in jail, 100 hours of community service and paid $36,000 in restitution. The mother pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served 20 days through jail supervised community service served two days a week.lilquiz said:
With a hoax of this kind, it's not only that the time and money of emergency services agencies get wasted. It's also that emergency service resources are kept occupied for no good reason and may be unavailable to promptly respond to a real emergency.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
fiddletown said:
What's the difference between this kind of hoax tying up services and the tying up of services doing background checks on everyone who buys a gun who never so much as passed gas in public? THAT is a waste that needs to be looked into. THAT is why violent criminals need to be kept locked up. THAT is why non-violent criminals who do their time retain just as much right to keep and bear arms as anyone else. If the "state" feels it's safe to release these people upon society, the "state" must believe they are not - never were - a danger to society.
If the "state" spent as much time and resources keeping violent criminals locked up, we'd be safer, it would cost a whole lot less, and no law abiding citizen would be harassed every time they wished to buy a gun.
Woody
Woody, you're being silly again. These are completely different things.ConstitutionCowboy said:
On one hand, you have an activity that might not be terribly productive (and there are many such activities in government). But it has been planned and budgeted for. It is not diverting resources from an exigent and unanticipated emergency for which those services would otherwise be urgently needed. Basically, the folks doing the NICS stuff won't be wanted for anything else.
On the other hand, you have a bunch of emergency first responders and rescue personnel called out to deal with a fabricated emergency staged by a couple of apparent sociopaths for possible financial gain. And because of that someone in an auto crash might die because the paramedic or fire rescue folks have been diverted by the hoax and can't get to the crash site in time.
These strike me as very different situations. If they seem to be the same to you, I have to doubt your judgment.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
fiddletown said:
IT'S DIVERTING RESOURCES! IT'S CALLED [size=+1] MY MONEY![/size] As for the folks working for the NICS, I don't even want them for that! It's MORE of my money being spent for an unnecessary unconstitutional bureaucracy.
fiddletown said:
There is no urgent need for the NICS to begin with! Be it diverted emergency funds or unnecessary funds, IT IS STILL MY MONEY BEING MISSPENT! That causes an emergency on my side of the equation. I've got to live a reduced lifestyle to support an unnecessary bureaucracy - this being just one of many - and there is a way to BETTER accomplish the need to prevent repetitive violent crime. It's called PRISON.
Woody
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
lets not forget endangering the folks who flew aircraft to keep an eye on the balloon or the fact an errant aircraft like that is a hazard to aviation
That's life in the big city. Write your Congressman and complain.ConstitutionCowboy said:
But it's still not the same thing as telling a lie to tie up fire rescue personnel to chase an empty balloon, when they might otherwise be required to save someone's life.
So to you your money is an emergency on a par with a car crash or a heart attack? Interesting.ConstitutionCowboy said:
More prisons don't come with expanded bureaucracies? You won't be paying more in taxes to build more prisons and to house more prisoners longer?ConstitutionCowboy said:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
fiddletown said:
Yes. I can pay for my own emergency services when needed than what it costs me in taxes over time. If I don't ever need those services, I'm that much better off. It's one of those personal responsibilities things. Besides, the feral government pays for neither of those two things you mentioned.
fiddletown said:
What makes you think these prisoners can't earn their keep?
danez71
Member
12 pages?!?!!??!
I seriously have to question the motives of a person that spends so much time replying to posts with no point to make.
I directly asked over 60 posts ago what it was. No answer was given. No purpose stated.
So now I have to also wonder, why are so many debating with someone that has no point to convey?
I seriously have to question the motives of a person that spends so much time replying to posts with no point to make.
I directly asked over 60 posts ago what it was. No answer was given. No purpose stated.
So now I have to also wonder, why are so many debating with someone that has no point to convey?
WinchesterAA
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 870
Y'all let your country fall back into the hands of the people you fought so hard to get away from.
I hate crooked power hungry *******s that are hell bent on world domination! Bastards keep startin' wars and getting people killed, experimenting on their own populations and others, and general asshattery of great magnitude. (to still include hijacking foreign governments, and enslaving underdeveloped countries by getting them hooked up support -- DEBT)
What's worst is that in the process, they seek to dehumanize every individual they can, because it makes em feel good when they know that you view yourself as worthless.
Don't let them start any more wars, y'all. We're gunna get nuked if they do. I don't want to get nuked because it'll make some global dictator feel awesome. I think I'm worth more than that.
I hate crooked power hungry *******s that are hell bent on world domination! Bastards keep startin' wars and getting people killed, experimenting on their own populations and others, and general asshattery of great magnitude. (to still include hijacking foreign governments, and enslaving underdeveloped countries by getting them hooked up support -- DEBT)
What's worst is that in the process, they seek to dehumanize every individual they can, because it makes em feel good when they know that you view yourself as worthless.
Don't let them start any more wars, y'all. We're gunna get nuked if they do. I don't want to get nuked because it'll make some global dictator feel awesome. I think I'm worth more than that.
oneounceload
member
A felony is a felony and you lose those rights.....don't do the crime if you can't do the time...in this case, a lifetime of NO 2A rights. It isn't hard to understand, unless you are a felon whining about how it's not your fault, you didn't mean it, it really is too harsh, and on and on
TFB, little boys - grow up and accept your punishment.....maybe in your next life you'll think twice.........or you can pass on how life sucks being an ex-CONVICT to your children
if you want sympathy, you'll find it in the dictionary between S--T and syphilis...
We don't allow ex sex offenders to live near schools or where kids are, why should we allow ex-CONVICTS to own guns? Recidivism rates run as high as 87% - sorry, not worth the risk
zxcvbob
Member
I don't recall felons with guns being much of a big deal before 1968. (and my memory is still pretty good.)
The whole problem was manufactured -- I think it was not so much a response to the Kennedy and King assassinations as it was a quid quo pro for the passing Civil Rights Acts. All gun control laws are ultimately class or race motivated, and GC68 helped keep the n-words and other poor and lower classes in their place. And it created what would become a whole new gigantic bureaucracy; what's not to like?
The whole problem was manufactured -- I think it was not so much a response to the Kennedy and King assassinations as it was a quid quo pro for the passing Civil Rights Acts. All gun control laws are ultimately class or race motivated, and GC68 helped keep the n-words and other poor and lower classes in their place. And it created what would become a whole new gigantic bureaucracy; what's not to like?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
oneounceload said:
First, what is there about the Second Amendment you don't understand?
Second, what would be more "harsh" about keeping the violent people locked up as opposed to restricting their rights so that the rest of us wouldn't have to suffer along with them? We suffer background checks because these people are allowed to roam free! We suffer their recidivist acts! We suffer their disregard for the law(albeit unconstitutional) that is supposed to keep these violent people disarmed!
As for the sex offenders, there is no such thing as an "ex" sex offender. These people need to be dead if not permanently locked up.
oneounceload said:
You make it sound like the law effectively keeps these people disarmed. They arm themselves anyway! Why risk letting them out of prison to begin with? If they can't be trusted with arms, they can't be trusted at all!
If violent criminals were to be kept in prison until they can be trusted with arms or your little kids, your 87% recidivism becomes moot. Keeping non violent ex-cons out of certain fields would not be unconstitutional, but infringing their right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional; just like it's unconstitutional to infringe MY right to keep and bear arms.
Woody
Last edited:
And how will you know when that is?ConstitutionCowboy said:
As far as denying a non violent ex--con lawful access to guns, it might be unconstitutional in your view, but your opinion really doesn't affect anything in the real world. It's the opinion of a court that will affect the lives of real people in the real world, so we'll just have to wait and see if the Supreme Court goes along with you.ConstitutionCowboy said:
Oh, and I gather from what you've written that in your opinion it's constitutional to deny violent ex-cons lawful access to guns.
oneounceload
member
ooooooooooooohhhhhhh, this could be good - why don't you show me where it says felons get to own guns for personal defense......please cite any or all court cases as well...........
seems more like what part of the 2A don't YOU understand? it is NOT about your right to own a gun for personal protection against criminals.........try again
Last edited:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
fiddletown said:
Screw the Court. It's in the purview of Congress to repeal the unconstitutional law and pass appropriate law. What the Court might come out with is a crap shoot.
I didn't say nor infer that. It's constitutional to deprive violent criminals access to their arms - by keeping them locked up.fiddletown said:
fiddletown said:
Oh, I think Congress might be able to come up with the answer. Maybe something like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory might be a good place to start...
Woody
zxcvbob
Member
Actually, it does: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [emphasis added] No assumptions are made as to why the people might want to k&b arms. And it doesn't say "the right of people who stay out of trouble..." The dependant clause at the beginning ("A well regulated militia...") gives one of the reasons why this right is enumerated and was cited in the US v. Miller decision. If anybody had been present to submit evidence that short-barrelled shotguns were used in the World War, the S.C. would have ruled in Miller's favor, but Miller was dead by then and the case was tried in absentia.
oneounceload
member
Sorry, quoting parts without the full body is total BS......the 2A was about allowing a militia of citizens to own arms to overthrow a runaway government - NOTHING to do with protecting yourself on a street against criminals......
try again
try again
zxcvbob
Member
I didn't think it was necessary to quote the whole thing because most people here have it memorized.
As ratified by the states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
As passed by Congress: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now go do your homework about independent and dependent clauses.
As ratified by the states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
As passed by Congress: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now go do your homework about independent and dependent clauses.
[1] Congress repealing the law would be a decision of public policy, not a confirmation that the law is, as you opine, unconstitutional.ConstitutionCowboy said:
[2] Do you really think repeal is likely in this or any foreseeable political climate? Is anyone proposing legislation to effect a repeal? Is there any support in Congress for a repeal?
[1] You did in fact imply (not "infer") that it was constitutional to deny violent criminals lawful access to guns by writing specificallyConstitutionCowboy said:
By specifically stating that it's unconstitutional to deprive non-violent ex-cons of guns, you have effectively implied that it's not unconstitutional to do so with violent ex-cons.ConstitutionCowboy said:
[2] If it's constitutional to deprive a criminal of lawful access to guns while in prison, why isn't it constitutional to deprive a criminal of lawful access to guns after he leaves prison? I see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits different elements of the overall penalty for a crime being of different durations. It's constitutional to penalize a criminal act with a fine immediately payable plus a period of incarceration. So why wouldn't it also be constitutional to add a period of deprivation of one or more civil liberties or rights continuing after the period of incarceration?
Really? Parole boards don't seem to have been doing a very good job of it.ConstitutionCowboy said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
