(PA) FBI arrests area man on illegal-weapons charges

[AF_INT1N0]

Sorry but I have to take the side of Derby on this one. Manufacturing /modifying machineguns may break the law but until he uses said weapons to hurt another or shows intent to do same the are he is strictly breaking an "unconstitutional and IMHO a BS law".

You said there were limits on 1A for instance yelling fire in a movie theater, how ever by yelling fire in a movie theater you cause harm to others. This argument has never made sense to me in this context. You're comparing apples to oranges

Unless of course you advocate surgically removing everyone's voice box lest they yell fire in a crowded movie theater??

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Guy is a previous convicted FELON......Does that not say anything?

He was to not even possess a firearm ever shipped in iterstate travel, let alone converted full autos....

 

[jdberger]

:banghead:

Manufacturing /modifying machineguns may break the law but until he uses said weapons to hurt another or shows intent to do same the are he is strictly breaking an "unconstitutional and IMHO a BS law".

But as a felon, the dirtbag has no rights!

The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of "civil death" that had its origins in Roman and European law, both as a form of retribution and a general deterrent. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status.

No rights means NO RIGHTS. No right to vote, no right to bear arms. Whether machineguns should be legal is moot. Dirtbag didn't have the right to possess even a Sarah Brady/Dianne Feinstien approved gun. No rights to possess any guns of any kind anywhere ever. None, zip, nada, zilch - why, because he was a scumbag and had proved it multiple times AND had been convicted of being a dirtball, animal abuser, all around bad person and had shown that he didn't play well with others. :banghead:

 

[Derby FALs]

Felons lost the RKBA with the 1968 GUN CONTROL Act. Need I say more, gun grabber?

 

[jdberger]

The first major gun control initiative was enacted by Congress in 1934 which regulated the sale of fully automatic firearms like machine guns. This legislation was followed in 1938 by a new federal law which required gun sellers to be licensed and which prohibited persons convicted of violent felonies from purchasing guns. No further legislation was passed by Congress until 1968. The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulated imported guns, expanded gun-dealer licensing requirements, and expanded the list of persons not eligible to purchase guns to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, minors, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.

Derby wrote: Felons lost the RKBA with the 1968 GUN CONTROL Act.

Derby, so you are half right. The codification of the felon's loss of RKBA rights happened in 1938/1968....But - so what? The ability of Congress to enact such a law like the one in 1938 (or 1968 if you prefer) is a provision of the Constitution. And the reasoning behind that, eminates from....you guessed it, here it comes again:

The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of "civil death" that had its origins in Roman and European law, both as a form of retribution and a general deterrent. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status.

!

 

[Derby FALs]

He wasn't convicted of a violent crime so he wouldn't have lost his RKBA until 1968. You keep bringing up "civil death". Do you find it curious that is came into being during the decline of the Roman Empire? Also, the English brought a lot of attitudes to the USA that were later ditched.

If Congress passed a law that made it illegal to defend yourself would you lose the right?

 

[jdberger]

Derby,

Thanks for editing your post. Ad hominem attacks aren't warranted.

You keep bringing up "civil death". Do you find it curious that is came into being during the decline of the Roman Empire?

Where did you come up with decline of the Roman Empire? the quote is:

The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of "civil death" that had its origins in Roman and European law, both as a form of retribution and a general deterrent. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status.

Please stick with the text. It makes the discussion more coherent.

I keep referring to 'civil death' because it shows the philisophical underpinnings that gives the state the right, ne the duty to restrict the civil rights of those who don't play well with others.

If you would like to have a discussion of the origins and foundations of political philosophy, I'm willing to do that.

English law is derived from Roman law. American law comes from English law. So, what is ths supposed to mean?

Also, the English brought a lot of attitudes to the USA that were later ditched.

Are you implying that all English-Roman ideas are bankrupt?

From this pretty long string, I'm getting the feeling that you are an anarchist. That is fine, political diversity is important. However, arguing law with an anarchist is like discussing cuts of steak with a vegan.

 

[Derby FALs]

Anarchist? I never said all laws are bad. Only ones that trample rights.

The concept of civil death started during the decline of the Roman Empire, didn't it? Latter day examples would be convicts serving life, without parole. Another prominent example of civil death is the "illegal enemy combatant" designation used by the United States government, which is widely believed to violate the due process rights of designated individuals. A third example of civil death on a wide scale is the use of purges by the former Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

jdberger- I'm not arguing the fact that this guy is a human waste of carbon. I too feel that he should rot in the deapest pits of Hell. I however do not agree with a person losing his right to defend himself based on past crimes. If said crimes warranted him being locked in a cell so be it. But when your debt to society is paid. its paid in full. If he is a violent felon he should already be pushing up daisies somewhere.

I won't argue that this man is garbage. And personally I would've fried him for his past crimes. But anymore the definition of Felon is broader and broader, don't pay your taxes(correctly), ATF mix-up?, run over a mailbox, speeding? Speaking out against the wrong person on capitol hill? Having the wrong plant growing on a few acres you hunt on?

 

[jdberger]

But when your debt to society is paid. its paid in full.

Having exhibited a propensity to violate the social contract on at least one previous occasion, criminals cannot be trusted to exercise the
franchise without corruption. Allowing ex-convicts to retain all of their rights of citizenship could have a perverse effect on the ability of law abiding citizens to reduce the deadly and debilitating crime in their communities.

A variant of this argument focuses on macro-level consequences for the legitimacy of democratic government. It maintains that the purity of civil rights are undermined by the participation of tainted individuals. In the philosophical arguments associated with the republican (small r) and communitarian traditions, for example, the political community can remain viable only insofar as it consists of citizens who respect the rules of democratic procedure and can be expected to live within the norms those rules generate. In conservative variants of these arguments, the presence of criminals within the polity potentially erodes confidence in the community by diluting the rights of noncriminal citizens.

As for the rest - let me see if I can take them in turn...

The concept of civil death started during the decline of the Roman Empire, didn't it?

No. Not sure where you got that. Please enlighten me.

Another prominent example of civil death is the "illegal enemy combatant" designation used by the United States government, which is widely believed to violate the due process rights of designated individuals.

Again, no. Citizenship rights don't apply to non-citizens. Also, the Geneva convention doesn't protect non-uniformed folks who target civilians - but that is WAY off topic and you and I MIGHT actually agree on that one despite my post here.

A third example of civil death on a wide scale is the use of purges by the former Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

Nope. I'd call that just death.

1) don't pay your taxes(correctly), 2) ATF mix-up?, 3) run over a mailbox, 4) speeding? 5) Speaking out against the wrong person on capitol hill? 6) Having the wrong plant growing on a few acres you hunt on?

Sorry, I had to number these to keep them straight.
1) Oops = ok and a fine. Intentional = bad.
2) same as #1
3) is destroying a mailbox a felony?
4) losing your rights to own a gun and vote for blowing through a school zone at 120 seem ok to me.
5) wrong country. Michael Moore is still running around...
6) There is still mens rea (intent) to consider

Obviously, more info on the above 6 is needed. Circumstances, circumstances...

and finally, yes, anarchist. Laws restrict rights. Jaywalking laws interfere with your right to walk unfettered across the street. However, that stroll obstructs traffic and endangers others. Your right to take a stroll is restricted by the rights of others. No laws that trample rights = anarchy.

 

[Derby FALs]

Having exhibited a propensity to violate the social contract on at least one previous occasion, criminals cannot be trusted to exercise the
franchise without corruption. Allowing ex-convicts to retain all of their rights of citizenship could have a perverse effect on the ability of law abiding citizens to reduce the deadly and debilitating crime in their communities.

Then why are they set "free"?

No. Not sure where you got that. Please enlighten me.

You brought up "civil death". When did it start?

Again, no. Citizenship rights don't apply to non-citizens. Also, the Geneva convention doesn't protect non-uniformed folks who target civilians - but that is WAY off topic and you and I MIGHT actually agree on that one despite my post here.

"Illegal enemy combatant". The case of Jose Padilla springs to mind.

Nope. I'd call that just death.

Perceived political orientation was the key variable. Not all were killed, just scooped up and off to the labor camps.

and finally, yes, anarchist. Laws restrict rights. Jaywalking laws interfere with your right to walk unfettered across the street. However, that stroll obstructs traffic and endangers others. Your right to take a stroll is restricted by the rights of others. No laws that trample rights = anarchy.

My rights end where yours start so jaywalking should be excused when no traffic is present. If I obstruct traffic then it's a different creature. Please read my sig line.

 

[jdberger]

ok - you win.

 

[Derby FALs]

Actually I feel like we are all losing. :banghead: