In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
RED = prior restraint
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Superficially correct, which is the goal of those who wish to confuse the issued, but it is, alas, factually incorrect.
Speaking of 'prior restraint' of a person in prison is an untenable position when one considers that the entire concept of prison is restraint. These people are being held against their will, and are primarily protected by Amendments 5 and 8. After due process, for example, they can be deprived of life, liberty, and property, but not before (Amendment 5).
Aside - This should focus free-thinking people upon the concept of incorporation of the 2nd through 'Due Process' rather than 'Privileges and Immunities', but it probably will not.
You, and any others that choose to promote this false argument know or should know that denying prisoners access to certain things is specifically Constitutional as shown above. It is not a 2nd Amendment issue, rather it is a criminal justice issue. While it satisfies your personal desire to alter the 2nd Amendment outside the Amendment process outlined in Article 5, it provides cover for the complete abandonment of the 2nd Amendment, as it justifies any contemporaneous legislature or council to impose any restriction they feel is reasonable.
We are either a nation of law as outlined in the Constitution or a nation of laws supported by any fleeting majority. As people we had best figure out which nation we are going to have.
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:JamesRK
Advanced Member
USA
15024 Posts
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 12:18:25 PM
In fact what they did was void the Second Amendment.
James posted this on another thread...sums it up PERFECTLY !!!...As for Jim Rau ;
quote:I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
You simply do not get to excuse failure, then use that excuse to trample on my God Given Rights.
Yeah..you and your jack-booted friends are DOING it today...but that will not last forever.
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
HB,
Unless you are 'jack booted' friend, I don't have any 'jack booted' friends.[;)]
Like I said I sincerely wish it could be the way you think it 'should be'. But it has not nor will it ever be that way. But by all means keep up the fight for idealism, you could learn alot from the idealists in power right now. They to will fail as all idealist in history have. The problem is they are taking us all down with them. [V]
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Damn majik, you killed them all with one shot. Well said, simple, straight forward.
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
Look at how I worded it...
I did not say it should be *required* that one has a background check.
What I said was (basically) that knowingly supplying a weapon that will be used in a crime, should be illegal - it basically makes you an accomplice.
Of course, one never knows with absolute certainty what the weapon will be used for.
If a person has a good reason to believe it will be used in a crime (such as a guy walking into a gun store and yelling that he needs a gun to kill his ex-wife) - then they should still not sell that person a weapon.
IF Person A sells Person B a weapon and Person B uses it to commit a crime, and the government decides to prosecute Person A as an accomplice to that crime, IF Person A ran a background check and it came up clean, THEN Person A should be acquitted (unless there is absolute proof like a camera+audio recording of some guy saying he intends to kill Person C).
Note I am not saying that he should be found guilty if he did not run the background check either. I am just saying it should be the penultimate defense, an example of due diligence.
It would be up to the seller to determine if he wants to run the background check or not - it would be a good CYA- but if you are selling to a longtime friend, someone you trust, someone who there could be no possible argument that you would have reason to believe intended to use the weapon in a crime, etc you could complete the sale without a background check.
Running background checks should be at the discretion of the seller, and if the seller runs one and it comes back clean, it should be assumed unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, that the seller is innocent of any charges, should that weapon be used at a later time to commit a crime.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Please point to the area in the Second Amendment that says a person incarcerated shall have his RKBA infringed, or is that just a common sense, reasonable restriction?
Yes, any reasonable person would recognize that the 2nd was not meant to allow convicted murders to be armed.
Any reasonable person would conclude if you can take someone's life for a crime, you can take their guns away (indeed, if they are dead, they cant bear arms).
Any reasonable person would conclude your right to bear arms doesn't extend to bearing arms while aiming a loaded weapon directly at an innocent passerby.
Reasonable restrictions like the above (inmates can't bear arms) need not be enumerated, if they are reasonable, no one will debate them.
The Problem Is that if people like the pukes in DC and Chicago can read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and think they can infringe as they see fit as the people don't have the right, how do you think they will read the new interpretation that says they can make "reasonable restrictions"?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
A pre-conviction inmate has either been adjudicated as a sufficient risk so as to deny bail, or is unable to come up with bail. Therefore, so long as his 8th Amendment protections against excessive bail are being respected, the 5th Amendment requirement for due process has been met.
Just out of curiosity, what is the goal here? Should we desire a fungible Constitution? How does that differ from just making it up as we go along?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
A pre-conviction inmate has either been adjudicated as a sufficient risk so as to deny bail, or is unable to come up with bail. Therefore, so long as his 8th Amendment protections against excessive bail are being respected, the 5th Amendment requirement for due process has been met.
Just out of curiosity, what is the goal here? Should we desire a fungible Constitution? How does that differ from just making it up as we go along?
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
So now we grasp at structural problems based upon the day of the week to point to a 'reasonable' restriction of due process so as to justify your desire to implement permanent and constant 'reasonable' restrictions on the right plainly stated in the 2nd Amendment?
You may desire to preserve and protect your ability to purchase and own a firearm through a reasonable compromise, but this assault on the 2nd Amendment in no way respects or preserves any semblance of a Right.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
Words actually DO have meaning...too bad some people are uneducated in the English language.
I could believe the above statement were it to read "I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms."
Never, not by ONE posting, has this member indicated that he has the slightest understanding of what a 'Right' is...and the utter importance, specifically, of the Second Amendment.
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'should be' bunch are out in full force.[;)]
I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his * whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
Absolutely false!
As a seller, you have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, regardless of what the law allows. Pffft, common sense covers 99% of this.
Once you sell the gun, it is no longer your responsibility. It is a very "liberal" touchy feely belief that we are all responsible for one another. That doesn't jive with freedom and personal; liberty. But the touchy feely is ALWAYS a "good" justification for more overreaching by govt.
quote:To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
No, to say otherwise is insane, not to mention un-American. Freedom carries with it much personal responsibility. I accept that. You do not. You do not even begin to understand true freedom proven by these silly touchy feely words you are spouting. You prefer govt encroachment, false sense of security, and the illusory "safety net" they provide. Grow up!
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Can you not make the distinction between free law abiding citizen and incarcerated convicted criminal?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.
Again, ability to make a very simple dinstinction. Trying to turn something simple into something complicated by splitting hairs is simply mental *.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
Real freedom carries risks. Would you give up some freedom, to avoid the extremely unlikely possiblility that you could receive a beating before being convicted? Of course you would. After all, that has become the number 1 accepted reason for taking freedom in our modern culture, has it not? Freedom for "perceived safety"? I would not. Having irrational fear of unlikely events is illogical. Maybe history has a lesson for us here? Has this happened often, and I am just unaware? Don't be ferfraid jotogordo. Being a grown up isn't so bad.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
Words actually DO have meaning...too bad some people are uneducated in the English language.
I could believe the above statement were it to read "I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms."
Never, not by ONE posting, has this member indicated that he has the slightest understanding of what a 'Right' is...and the utter importance, specifically, of the Second Amendment.
It's true words do have meaning. It's too bad you have to resort to making up words that others MIGHT have said to make your arguements. Come back when you've developed some sense of debate ethics. Until then I think you are probably unworthy of further comment.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Can you not make the distinction between free law abiding citizen and incarcerated convicted criminal?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.
Again, ability to make a very simple dinstinction. Trying to turn something simple into something complicated by splitting hairs is simply mental *.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
Real freedom carries risks. Would you give up some freedom, to avoid the extremely unlikely possiblility that you could receive a beating before being convicted? Of course you would. After all, that has become the number 1 accepted reason for taking freedom in our modern culture, has it not? Freedom for "perceived safety"? I would not. Having irrational fear of unlikely events is illogical. Maybe history has a lesson for us here? Has this happened often, and I am just unaware? Don't be ferfraid jotogordo. Being a grown up isn't so bad.
Let's make it simple then. Do you believe the 2A means "all arms for all people all the time" or do you believe in some restrictions i.e., for prisoners, insane, children. etc? Simple question, it's one or the other.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
No, the individual who made a choice to ignore the rights of another individual, added the restriction.
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?
That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined.
An infringement is an infringement. It's the 2A absolutists that are always saying the amendment means just what it says. It doesn't refer to non-incarcerated people or white people or poor people or old people but just to people. Either you believe that or you don't. What is it? Is the question too tough for you?
edit: I love it when one side of an arguement uses 'common sense' as a basis for their position when almost universally they reject what the other side sees as common sense.
Does the Second Amendment allow the federal government OR state government the authority to regulate, restrict, or otherwise hinder citizens from buying, carrying,selling or freely using the weapons of their choice ?
I pose this question. If background checks and age verification are not reasonable, then something is really wrong. People who are convicted of a felony, should be banned from gun ownership...period.
Since this is a lawsuit happy society, why should the seller of a gun be liable for its use? We need government background checks, to insulate the sale of guns. Geez people, you give out your social security number to the cell phone companies just to buy service. You give out personal info just to receive health care.Whats the big deal about a background check? If I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal record... felonies...and I'm qualified age wise, whats the big deal. If the gove decides to confiscate all guns, does anyone really believe, that whether you own one or not, your not going to be checked out. Go ahead, say what you want about the gov keeping a list...have you bought a hunting license lately...your already on a list as a gun owner. Have you ever purchased a gun on gun broker...hey.. you left a paper trial on the internet forever. Think that private sale was private...people keep list of names of people who buy guns from them, just for their own legal protection.
People might also want to remember this. if we have an all out war with another country and the draft is re-instated, its in the governments best interest to be able to have a citizen army, that can shoot. It appears to me, that this whole arguement about restrictions is bunk. by the way, talking about restricting something legal, I'll bet those that see infringement as wrong, also voted and promote bans on smoking in bars and the workplace.
Whether it be guns, autos, or smokes, society will place restrictions to promote the safety of all. Ya cant be for complete gun and un-adulterated gun ownership and then turn around and be a health nazi...Thats the question.
J 1357
New Member;
Do you understand the difference between I, as a private citizen, dealing with a business that I DECIDE I will do business with...and a government murdering me if I refuse to obey arbitrary laws that are CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION ???
The simple fact is...you cannot find it in your heart to defend the Second Amendment against domestic enemies.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
No, the individual who made a choice to ignore the rights of another individual, added the restriction.
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?
That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined.
An infringement is an infringement. It's the 2A absolutists that are always saying the amendment means just what it says. It doesn't refer to non-incarcerated people or white people or poor people or old people but just to people. Either you believe that or you don't. What is it? Is the question too tough for you?
edit: I love it when one side of an arguement uses 'common sense' as a basis for their position when almost universally they reject what the other side sees as common sense.
"That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined."
Since he, you, and every adult knows that very fact you yourself stated before they do something, it then is classified as a "choice" made by him. You know, that thing you libs love to toss around for killing babies, but when it comes to criminals. you all love them much more?
"... or worse? You didn't have any to begin with."
Joto, I have no more time for liberal trash. Have WASTED too much already on somone who simply isn't worth a damn. Since stroking yourself mentally by splitting hairs gets you off, great have at it, you are hardly the first, but enjoy yourself.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.
Run? No. Walk away from an ignorant ***(edited for pickenup[;)]) who thinks he's intelligent because he can throw up red herrings left and right, who's not worth wasting 1 more second of my valuable time? Yes.
Answering a question's with question's, asking ridulous questions to sensationalize some inane point, is not honesty, but is a tactic used by those who have no answer (literally in the last post) yet ironically still believe they are the more intelligent and have the upper hand in the debate. If the shoe fits...
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.
Run? No. Walk away from an ignorant ***(edited for pickenup[;)]) who thinks he's intelligent because he can throw up red herrings left and right, who's not worth wasting 1 more second of my valuable time? Yes.
Answering a question's with question's, asking ridulous questions to sensationalize some inane point, is not honesty, but is a tactic used by those who have no answer (literally in the last post) yet ironically still believe they are the more intelligent and have the upper hand in the debate. If the shoe fits...
Not sorry joto. Here's hoping you choke on it.
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
I'll bet your $100 of your "weeks pay" that you didn't address anything he said in your reply.
Here's another question?
Who is the government?
The government is the guy next door, who you voted in as a councilman. The government is no more than the people we elect to the offices we decided need to be there. A civil society needs to have elected people promoting the safety of all. Our government isn't just one entity, deciding whats good for the rest of us, its all of us by our vote making those decisions. All the laws and regs we have today, are because we elected people to represent us in making those laws. Majoity rules and minority lobbies. thats the way it works. When was the last time you actually called your congressman and expressed your concerns. For that matter do you vote?
One vote can have more power than any weapon ever manufactured.
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
Here's another question?
Who is the government?
The government is the guy next door, who you voted in as a councilman. The government is no more than the people we elect to the offices we decided need to be there. A civil society needs to have elected people promoting the safety of all. Our government isn't just one entity, deciding whats good for the rest of us, its all of us by our vote making those decisions. All the laws and regs we have today, are because we elected people to represent us in making those laws. Majoity rules and minority lobbies. thats the way it works. When was the last time you actually called your congressman and expressed your concerns. For that matter do you vote?
One vote can have more power than any weapon ever manufactured.
Classic disconnect with our founding which has resulted in the democratic mob rule we experience today.
The majority does not rule. The current majority is empowered to make certain decision within the constraints of the Constitution (be it the US Constitution, a State Constitution, of both).
Your majority, and the majority that existed 6 years ago do and did not respect the limits of the Constitution. As a result there currently exists no supreme law of the land. We are winging it, and the lackeys of the Democrat Party today, just like the lackeys of the GOP 6 years ago, are just fine with it.
Majority rule is mob rule, and typically mobs have to be put down by force.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
I'll bet your $100 of your "weeks pay" that you didn't address anything he said in your reply.
And just what, pray tell, did your little AH buddy ask in his last reply that needed addressing? He specifically said he didn't intend to waste his time on me so what would have been the point just on the off chance he did say something intelligent? He has admitted he believes in 'common sense' gun restrictions and that when his arguements can't stand up to scrutiny that it's because the opposition is just 'splitting hairs'. Laughable.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
You did answer, I missed it.
Contitnued.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.
If you can't stop them from being bad guys, why does how easy it is for them to get guns matter? Does it just make you feel better, or do you have any evidence that felons are stopped from getting guns? You're not stopping them from being bad guys and forcing the rest of society to accept a burden because of it. If anything it is easier and cheaper for felons to get guns from other bad guys than it is to go into a gun store. Buying a stolen gun from the local drug dealer is cheaper than retail and the drug dealer doesn't care who you are. There are many gun dealers who will and do refuse to sell to those they believe to be scumbags, even if they can pass background check.
The guy at the traffic stop, why was he ever let out of jail to begin with? If he is not deemed trustworthy to posses a gun, then he should not be out. He will use anything he can to injure others. Just because you think you might, maybe, there is a small chance, keep him from getting a gun, will not stop him from hurting someone if that is his intent. Next you will want to restrict knives and baseball bats? Make everyone get background checked for the kids Louisville slugger?
You will get more results fixing the legal/justice system than infringing free peoples rights. Honestly, if a person is deemed to not be safe with a gun out in society, wouldn't we actually be safer just killing them or exiling them to some other country?
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
You did answer, I missed it.
Contitnued.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.
If you can't stop them from being bad guys, why does how easy it is for them to get guns matter? Does it just make you feel better, or do you have any evidence that felons are stopped from getting guns? You're not stopping them from being bad guys and forcing the rest of society to accept a burden because of it. If anything it is easier and cheaper for felons to get guns from other bad guys than it is to go into a gun store. Buying a stolen gun from the local drug dealer is cheaper than retail and the drug dealer doesn't care who you are. There are many gun dealers who will and do refuse to sell to those they believe to be scumbags, even if they can pass background check.
The guy at the traffic stop, why was he ever let out of jail to begin with? If he is not deemed trustworthy to posses a gun, then he should not be out. He will use anything he can to injure others. Just because you think you might, maybe, there is a small chance, keep him from getting a gun, will not stop him from hurting someone if that is his intent. Next you will want to restrict knives and baseball bats? Make everyone get background checked for the kids Louisville slugger?
You will get more results fixing the legal/justice system than infringing free peoples rights. Honestly, if a person is deemed to not be safe with a gun out in society, wouldn't we actually be safer just killing them or exiling them to some other country?
In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'should be' bunch are out in full force.[;)]
I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
*yawn* Wrong, as usual.
LOL, if you are so sure of yourself MR. Wolf, prove me wrong, I dare you![;)]
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
RED = prior restraint
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Superficially correct, which is the goal of those who wish to confuse the issued, but it is, alas, factually incorrect.
Speaking of 'prior restraint' of a person in prison is an untenable position when one considers that the entire concept of prison is restraint. These people are being held against their will, and are primarily protected by Amendments 5 and 8. After due process, for example, they can be deprived of life, liberty, and property, but not before (Amendment 5).
Aside - This should focus free-thinking people upon the concept of incorporation of the 2nd through 'Due Process' rather than 'Privileges and Immunities', but it probably will not.
You, and any others that choose to promote this false argument know or should know that denying prisoners access to certain things is specifically Constitutional as shown above. It is not a 2nd Amendment issue, rather it is a criminal justice issue. While it satisfies your personal desire to alter the 2nd Amendment outside the Amendment process outlined in Article 5, it provides cover for the complete abandonment of the 2nd Amendment, as it justifies any contemporaneous legislature or council to impose any restriction they feel is reasonable.
We are either a nation of law as outlined in the Constitution or a nation of laws supported by any fleeting majority. As people we had best figure out which nation we are going to have.
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
quote:JamesRK
Advanced Member
USA
15024 Posts
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 12:18:25 PM
In fact what they did was void the Second Amendment.
James posted this on another thread...sums it up PERFECTLY !!!...As for Jim Rau ;
quote:I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
You simply do not get to excuse failure, then use that excuse to trample on my God Given Rights.
Yeah..you and your jack-booted friends are DOING it today...but that will not last forever.
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
HB,
Unless you are 'jack booted' friend, I don't have any 'jack booted' friends.[;)]
Like I said I sincerely wish it could be the way you think it 'should be'. But it has not nor will it ever be that way. But by all means keep up the fight for idealism, you could learn alot from the idealists in power right now. They to will fail as all idealist in history have. The problem is they are taking us all down with them. [V]
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Damn majik, you killed them all with one shot. Well said, simple, straight forward.
you even been turkey hunting?[:D]
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
Look at how I worded it...
I did not say it should be *required* that one has a background check.
What I said was (basically) that knowingly supplying a weapon that will be used in a crime, should be illegal - it basically makes you an accomplice.
Of course, one never knows with absolute certainty what the weapon will be used for.
If a person has a good reason to believe it will be used in a crime (such as a guy walking into a gun store and yelling that he needs a gun to kill his ex-wife) - then they should still not sell that person a weapon.
IF Person A sells Person B a weapon and Person B uses it to commit a crime, and the government decides to prosecute Person A as an accomplice to that crime, IF Person A ran a background check and it came up clean, THEN Person A should be acquitted (unless there is absolute proof like a camera+audio recording of some guy saying he intends to kill Person C).
Note I am not saying that he should be found guilty if he did not run the background check either. I am just saying it should be the penultimate defense, an example of due diligence.
It would be up to the seller to determine if he wants to run the background check or not - it would be a good CYA- but if you are selling to a longtime friend, someone you trust, someone who there could be no possible argument that you would have reason to believe intended to use the weapon in a crime, etc you could complete the sale without a background check.
Running background checks should be at the discretion of the seller, and if the seller runs one and it comes back clean, it should be assumed unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, that the seller is innocent of any charges, should that weapon be used at a later time to commit a crime.
Please point to the area in the Second Amendment that says a person incarcerated shall have his RKBA infringed, or is that just a common sense, reasonable restriction?
Yes, any reasonable person would recognize that the 2nd was not meant to allow convicted murders to be armed.
Any reasonable person would conclude if you can take someone's life for a crime, you can take their guns away (indeed, if they are dead, they cant bear arms).
Any reasonable person would conclude your right to bear arms doesn't extend to bearing arms while aiming a loaded weapon directly at an innocent passerby.
Reasonable restrictions like the above (inmates can't bear arms) need not be enumerated, if they are reasonable, no one will debate them.
The Problem Is that if people like the pukes in DC and Chicago can read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and think they can infringe as they see fit as the people don't have the right, how do you think they will read the new interpretation that says they can make "reasonable restrictions"?
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
A pre-conviction inmate has either been adjudicated as a sufficient risk so as to deny bail, or is unable to come up with bail. Therefore, so long as his 8th Amendment protections against excessive bail are being respected, the 5th Amendment requirement for due process has been met.
Just out of curiosity, what is the goal here? Should we desire a fungible Constitution? How does that differ from just making it up as we go along?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
A pre-conviction inmate has either been adjudicated as a sufficient risk so as to deny bail, or is unable to come up with bail. Therefore, so long as his 8th Amendment protections against excessive bail are being respected, the 5th Amendment requirement for due process has been met.
Just out of curiosity, what is the goal here? Should we desire a fungible Constitution? How does that differ from just making it up as we go along?
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
So now we grasp at structural problems based upon the day of the week to point to a 'reasonable' restriction of due process so as to justify your desire to implement permanent and constant 'reasonable' restrictions on the right plainly stated in the 2nd Amendment?
You may desire to preserve and protect your ability to purchase and own a firearm through a reasonable compromise, but this assault on the 2nd Amendment in no way respects or preserves any semblance of a Right.
Brad Steele
Words actually DO have meaning...too bad some people are uneducated in the English language.
I could believe the above statement were it to read "I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms."
Never, not by ONE posting, has this member indicated that he has the slightest understanding of what a 'Right' is...and the utter importance, specifically, of the Second Amendment.
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns
Tool.
The 'should be' bunch are out in full force.[;)]
I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
*yawn* Wrong, as usual.
Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his * whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
Absolutely false!
As a seller, you have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, regardless of what the law allows. Pffft, common sense covers 99% of this.
Once you sell the gun, it is no longer your responsibility. It is a very "liberal" touchy feely belief that we are all responsible for one another. That doesn't jive with freedom and personal; liberty. But the touchy feely is ALWAYS a "good" justification for more overreaching by govt.
quote:To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
No, to say otherwise is insane, not to mention un-American. Freedom carries with it much personal responsibility. I accept that. You do not. You do not even begin to understand true freedom proven by these silly touchy feely words you are spouting. You prefer govt encroachment, false sense of security, and the illusory "safety net" they provide. Grow up!
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Can you not make the distinction between free law abiding citizen and incarcerated convicted criminal?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.
Again, ability to make a very simple dinstinction. Trying to turn something simple into something complicated by splitting hairs is simply mental *.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
Real freedom carries risks. Would you give up some freedom, to avoid the extremely unlikely possiblility that you could receive a beating before being convicted? Of course you would. After all, that has become the number 1 accepted reason for taking freedom in our modern culture, has it not? Freedom for "perceived safety"? I would not. Having irrational fear of unlikely events is illogical. Maybe history has a lesson for us here? Has this happened often, and I am just unaware? Don't be ferfraid jotogordo. Being a grown up isn't so bad.
quote:I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
Words actually DO have meaning...too bad some people are uneducated in the English language.
I could believe the above statement were it to read "I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms."
Never, not by ONE posting, has this member indicated that he has the slightest understanding of what a 'Right' is...and the utter importance, specifically, of the Second Amendment.
It's true words do have meaning. It's too bad you have to resort to making up words that others MIGHT have said to make your arguements. Come back when you've developed some sense of debate ethics. Until then I think you are probably unworthy of further comment.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Can you not make the distinction between free law abiding citizen and incarcerated convicted criminal?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.
Again, ability to make a very simple dinstinction. Trying to turn something simple into something complicated by splitting hairs is simply mental *.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
Real freedom carries risks. Would you give up some freedom, to avoid the extremely unlikely possiblility that you could receive a beating before being convicted? Of course you would. After all, that has become the number 1 accepted reason for taking freedom in our modern culture, has it not? Freedom for "perceived safety"? I would not. Having irrational fear of unlikely events is illogical. Maybe history has a lesson for us here? Has this happened often, and I am just unaware? Don't be ferfraid jotogordo. Being a grown up isn't so bad.
Let's make it simple then. Do you believe the 2A means "all arms for all people all the time" or do you believe in some restrictions i.e., for prisoners, insane, children. etc? Simple question, it's one or the other.
Go ask your dad. He may explain it to you.
You're so right, it couldn't be simpler. All arms, for all free people, all the time. Duh
Go ask your dad. He may explain it to you.
I see you added a restriction (infringement).
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?
No, the individual who made a choice to ignore the rights of another individual, added the restriction.
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?
That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined.
An infringement is an infringement. It's the 2A absolutists that are always saying the amendment means just what it says. It doesn't refer to non-incarcerated people or white people or poor people or old people but just to people. Either you believe that or you don't. What is it? Is the question too tough for you?
edit: I love it when one side of an arguement uses 'common sense' as a basis for their position when almost universally they reject what the other side sees as common sense.
Please answer one simple question, Gordo;
Does the Second Amendment allow the federal government OR state government the authority to regulate, restrict, or otherwise hinder citizens from buying, carrying,selling or freely using the weapons of their choice ?
Since this is a lawsuit happy society, why should the seller of a gun be liable for its use? We need government background checks, to insulate the sale of guns. Geez people, you give out your social security number to the cell phone companies just to buy service. You give out personal info just to receive health care.Whats the big deal about a background check? If I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal record... felonies...and I'm qualified age wise, whats the big deal. If the gove decides to confiscate all guns, does anyone really believe, that whether you own one or not, your not going to be checked out. Go ahead, say what you want about the gov keeping a list...have you bought a hunting license lately...your already on a list as a gun owner. Have you ever purchased a gun on gun broker...hey.. you left a paper trial on the internet forever. Think that private sale was private...people keep list of names of people who buy guns from them, just for their own legal protection.
People might also want to remember this. if we have an all out war with another country and the draft is re-instated, its in the governments best interest to be able to have a citizen army, that can shoot. It appears to me, that this whole arguement about restrictions is bunk. by the way, talking about restricting something legal, I'll bet those that see infringement as wrong, also voted and promote bans on smoking in bars and the workplace.
Whether it be guns, autos, or smokes, society will place restrictions to promote the safety of all. Ya cant be for complete gun and un-adulterated gun ownership and then turn around and be a health nazi...Thats the question.
New Member;
Do you understand the difference between I, as a private citizen, dealing with a business that I DECIDE I will do business with...and a government murdering me if I refuse to obey arbitrary laws that are CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION ???
The simple fact is...you cannot find it in your heart to defend the Second Amendment against domestic enemies.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
No, the individual who made a choice to ignore the rights of another individual, added the restriction.
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?
That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined.
An infringement is an infringement. It's the 2A absolutists that are always saying the amendment means just what it says. It doesn't refer to non-incarcerated people or white people or poor people or old people but just to people. Either you believe that or you don't. What is it? Is the question too tough for you?
edit: I love it when one side of an arguement uses 'common sense' as a basis for their position when almost universally they reject what the other side sees as common sense.
"That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined."
Since he, you, and every adult knows that very fact you yourself stated before they do something, it then is classified as a "choice" made by him. You know, that thing you libs love to toss around for killing babies, but when it comes to criminals. you all love them much more?
"... or worse? You didn't have any to begin with."
Joto, I have no more time for liberal trash. Have WASTED too much already on somone who simply isn't worth a damn. Since stroking yourself mentally by splitting hairs gets you off, great have at it, you are hardly the first, but enjoy yourself.
I'm out.
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.
Run? No. Walk away from an ignorant ***(edited for pickenup[;)]) who thinks he's intelligent because he can throw up red herrings left and right, who's not worth wasting 1 more second of my valuable time? Yes.
Answering a question's with question's, asking ridulous questions to sensationalize some inane point, is not honesty, but is a tactic used by those who have no answer (literally in the last post) yet ironically still believe they are the more intelligent and have the upper hand in the debate. If the shoe fits...
Not sorry joto. Here's hoping you choke on it.
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.
Run? No. Walk away from an ignorant ***(edited for pickenup[;)]) who thinks he's intelligent because he can throw up red herrings left and right, who's not worth wasting 1 more second of my valuable time? Yes.
Answering a question's with question's, asking ridulous questions to sensationalize some inane point, is not honesty, but is a tactic used by those who have no answer (literally in the last post) yet ironically still believe they are the more intelligent and have the upper hand in the debate. If the shoe fits...
Not sorry joto. Here's hoping you choke on it.
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
I'm sorry but I don't find anything I didn't answer. Could you please repost (or C&P the last) and I'll try to reply. Thanks.
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
I'll bet your $100 of your "weeks pay" that you didn't address anything he said in your reply.
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
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.
Who is the government?
The government is the guy next door, who you voted in as a councilman. The government is no more than the people we elect to the offices we decided need to be there. A civil society needs to have elected people promoting the safety of all. Our government isn't just one entity, deciding whats good for the rest of us, its all of us by our vote making those decisions. All the laws and regs we have today, are because we elected people to represent us in making those laws. Majoity rules and minority lobbies. thats the way it works. When was the last time you actually called your congressman and expressed your concerns. For that matter do you vote?
One vote can have more power than any weapon ever manufactured.
Here's another question?
Who is the government?
The government is the guy next door, who you voted in as a councilman. The government is no more than the people we elect to the offices we decided need to be there. A civil society needs to have elected people promoting the safety of all. Our government isn't just one entity, deciding whats good for the rest of us, its all of us by our vote making those decisions. All the laws and regs we have today, are because we elected people to represent us in making those laws. Majoity rules and minority lobbies. thats the way it works. When was the last time you actually called your congressman and expressed your concerns. For that matter do you vote?
One vote can have more power than any weapon ever manufactured.
Classic disconnect with our founding which has resulted in the democratic mob rule we experience today.
The majority does not rule. The current majority is empowered to make certain decision within the constraints of the Constitution (be it the US Constitution, a State Constitution, of both).
Your majority, and the majority that existed 6 years ago do and did not respect the limits of the Constitution. As a result there currently exists no supreme law of the land. We are winging it, and the lackeys of the Democrat Party today, just like the lackeys of the GOP 6 years ago, are just fine with it.
Majority rule is mob rule, and typically mobs have to be put down by force.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
I'll bet your $100 of your "weeks pay" that you didn't address anything he said in your reply.
And just what, pray tell, did your little AH buddy ask in his last reply that needed addressing? He specifically said he didn't intend to waste his time on me so what would have been the point just on the off chance he did say something intelligent? He has admitted he believes in 'common sense' gun restrictions and that when his arguements can't stand up to scrutiny that it's because the opposition is just 'splitting hairs'. Laughable.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
You did answer, I missed it.
Contitnued.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.
If you can't stop them from being bad guys, why does how easy it is for them to get guns matter? Does it just make you feel better, or do you have any evidence that felons are stopped from getting guns? You're not stopping them from being bad guys and forcing the rest of society to accept a burden because of it. If anything it is easier and cheaper for felons to get guns from other bad guys than it is to go into a gun store. Buying a stolen gun from the local drug dealer is cheaper than retail and the drug dealer doesn't care who you are. There are many gun dealers who will and do refuse to sell to those they believe to be scumbags, even if they can pass background check.
The guy at the traffic stop, why was he ever let out of jail to begin with? If he is not deemed trustworthy to posses a gun, then he should not be out. He will use anything he can to injure others. Just because you think you might, maybe, there is a small chance, keep him from getting a gun, will not stop him from hurting someone if that is his intent. Next you will want to restrict knives and baseball bats? Make everyone get background checked for the kids Louisville slugger?
You will get more results fixing the legal/justice system than infringing free peoples rights. Honestly, if a person is deemed to not be safe with a gun out in society, wouldn't we actually be safer just killing them or exiling them to some other country?
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
You did answer, I missed it.
Contitnued.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.
If you can't stop them from being bad guys, why does how easy it is for them to get guns matter? Does it just make you feel better, or do you have any evidence that felons are stopped from getting guns? You're not stopping them from being bad guys and forcing the rest of society to accept a burden because of it. If anything it is easier and cheaper for felons to get guns from other bad guys than it is to go into a gun store. Buying a stolen gun from the local drug dealer is cheaper than retail and the drug dealer doesn't care who you are. There are many gun dealers who will and do refuse to sell to those they believe to be scumbags, even if they can pass background check.
The guy at the traffic stop, why was he ever let out of jail to begin with? If he is not deemed trustworthy to posses a gun, then he should not be out. He will use anything he can to injure others. Just because you think you might, maybe, there is a small chance, keep him from getting a gun, will not stop him from hurting someone if that is his intent. Next you will want to restrict knives and baseball bats? Make everyone get background checked for the kids Louisville slugger?
You will get more results fixing the legal/justice system than infringing free peoples rights. Honestly, if a person is deemed to not be safe with a gun out in society, wouldn't we actually be safer just killing them or exiling them to some other country?
In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'should be' bunch are out in full force.[;)]
I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
*yawn* Wrong, as usual.
LOL, if you are so sure of yourself MR. Wolf, prove me wrong, I dare you![;)]
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.