Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[woodwork201]

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

Gun ownership is a right listed in the US Constitution, therefore it's not a privilege. Driving is a privilege.

In many states you can't vote either if you are a convicted felon. The commies are trying to change that because if criminals could vote, they'll all vote Democrat.

With rights comes responsibility. If you've demonstrated you are incapable of handling responsibility such as voting or firearms, those rights are taken away.

No; if someone has demonstrated that they are a danger to society and they've been convicted to back that up, then the solution is to keep them in prison. Why in the world would people be OK with a rapist who is still a threat being let out of prison as long as we make it illegal for him to own a gun, especially considering that the law against it has zero impact on dangerous felons owning guns.

By the way, the Constitution allows for preventing people from voting for having committed crimes. There's no such mention for any other protection or restriction in the Constitution.

If you want the government to strip rights for crimes, just show me where the Constitution allows for it. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the Constitution is just a recommendation to government rather than a limit to government. If you believe that, you have more in common with Thurgood Marshall than you have with Antonin Scalia.

 

[woodwork201]

When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.

And law abiding civilians have the right to won firearms. I will never agree that they don't.

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

Of course the Constitution explicitly states that it is a right and not a privilege.

But you're absolutely right that the only difference between you and many, so-called, gun rights supporters is how many restrictions or which restrictions you want.

 

[Blues Man]

You're wrong again of course.

I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime.

Would you be so keen on letting the violent assholes who raped your wife buy guns when they got out of prison?

Would you be defending the 2nd amendment rights of the 3 or 4 guys who ambushed you and put you in the hospital for a few weeks?

I highly doubt it.

You're far too easy on rapists. The problem is not whether they buy a gun when they get out of prison; the problem is that they get out of prison. The problem I would have to consider is whether they should be breathing air if they got out of prison. But if a rapist got out of jail and wanted a gun, there's no law that would stop them from getting a gun. Your gun control only stops the truly reformed from having a gun; it doesn't even slow down gun access for the felon that is still criminally inclined.

So many so-called gun rights supporters, self-proclaimed constitutionalists, go along with the left in creating bad laws in an attempt to fix problems that those laws don't really fix. Do you think a ban on gun ownership stops a rapist from owning a gun? If that worked then all we had to do is make rape illegal and, if your comments represent reality rather than example, your wife would not have been raped.

Or, if rape convictions resulted in 20 or 30 years in prison as it did 50 years ago, there'd be far fewer rapes; that is the law that you should be advocating for, not a silly, pointless, completely ineffective, law that claims to, but completely fails to, prevent their access to an inanimate object.

There was a time in this country when rape was a capital offense, punishable by death. That's too much because it incentivizes the rapist to kill their victim but 20 to 30 years would be a great disincentive to breaking the law.

Once again, your words speak loudly. If your "what if" is real, I am sorry for your wife and for you. But that doesn't mean the Government can violate the very Constitution that created it. If you think they can and should then you are not a constitutionalist.

I'm sure you've heard it, possibly even said it: I may hate your speech but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it. That's the kind of things that constitutionalists say - and they mean it. If your story is true then I understand, but disagree with, your emotional reaction against rapists, but I still don't understand your stance against felony litterers.

I never proclaimed to be a constitutionalist. You said I claimed to be a constitutionalist.

The only what if that is true in my case is the latter.

I was ambushed by a few pieces of shit and wound up with a fractured eye orbital, some permanent vision impairment in one eye, a grade 4 concussion, 3 broken ribs and a ruptured spleen.

And you want to tell me these assholes have the right to buy ******* guns even though they have proven they are irresponsible pieces of shit.

As far as I'm concerned by committing that crime they voluntarily forfeited their rights.

 

[Blues Man]

When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.

And law abiding civilians have the right to won firearms. I will never agree that they don't.

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights. By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens.

Anyone who is law abiding has the right to own a firearm. The second you become a convicted criminal you hace voluntarily given up that right.

I've asked it more than once but you completely ignore it. Does a convicted felon give up his right to a trial by jury of his peers in any future charge? Does he give up his right to free speech? Can he be banned from owning a Bible? The police can search him or his house at will for the rest of his life? No more need for a warrant or probable cause?

I understand your emotional-based views. The point here is that you don't understand them. You have understandable, even if wrong, reactions to crime and experience in your own life but you don't realize, or won't admit, apparently even to yourself, that you are no longer a constitutionalist and you certainly do not support the 2nd Amendment.

Once again I never claimed to be a constituionalist.

If you think I did then quote the post.

And if a piece of shit felon commits another crime he gets tried for that crime.

I see no reason to allow him to buy firearms so he can use them in more crimes.

Like I said anyone who commits violence on another has voluntarily forfeited his rights as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No; if someone has demonstrated that they are a danger to society and they've been convicted to back that up, then the solution is to keep them in prison. Why in the world would people be OK with a rapist who is still a threat being let out of prison as long as we make it illegal for him to own a gun, especially considering that the law against it has zero impact on dangerous felons owning guns.

By the way, the Constitution allows for preventing people from voting for having committed crimes. There's no such mention for any other protection or restriction in the Constitution.

If you want the government to strip rights for crimes, just show me where the Constitution allows for it. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the Constitution is just a recommendation to government rather than a limit to government. If you believe that, you have more in common with Thurgood Marshall than you have with Antonin Scalia.

I'm not constitutional expert, but I'm totally unaware where the Constitution gives government the ability to strip that right. Actually the right for everybody to vote was annexed later on. The founders didn't think everybody should have the right to vote, only those with a dog in the race.

We can't keep criminals in prison forever for something like rape or selling dope. Anybody that leaves prison is a potential future problem and a society risk. We have one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. Life in prison would be considered cruel and unusual punishment for anything less than death. Not allowing certain criminals not to have the right to bear arms is the least we can do to protect our society from them causing others harm.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I`ve never known a woman who lived in constant fear of being helplessly raped and murdered. Is this your wife you`re describing?

Actually most women live in fear the rest of their lives after suffering the mental and physical trauma of something like being raped or attempted rape. Before people were allowed to carry in most states, all a woman could do is sit home in the corner and only leave the house without fear when accompanied by a male companion. Do you think that 65 year old lady in NYC that was brutally attacked by that animal won't live in fear the rest of her life? Unfortunately she lives in a commie city and state and would not be able to get a license to carry a firearm.

A few years ago I read a story that our state had more female CCW applicants than male. I say good for them. Nobody male or female should have to live in fear or allow their lives to be ruined because they were a helpless victim.

I hate to break it to guys, but every woman with any sense of self-preservation lives all the time with the fear of being sexually assaulted. I'm not saying we're hyperventilating and freaking out like a herpetophobe stepping on a snake or anything, but it's something that's always there and always factored into our daily decisions.

Ever known a woman who asked a security guard or a male colleague to walk her to her car when she works late? Refused to go for a walk or a jog at night by herself? Went on a first date with a guy and insisted on meeting him at the restaurant rather than having him pick her up at home? Texted or called a family member or friend to let them know where she was if she was going somewhere unusual to her normal routine? I could go on and on listing everyday adjustments any woman with a brain in her head makes to her everyday life because of the ever-present possibility of being assaulted that's in the back of her mind.

Yep.....I understand that, which is why I support he 2nd Amendment....democrats see powerless women as fair game.....which is why they want to keep them unarmed.

Well, and we all know how much Democrats love people feeling like helpless victims, because that's always their power base. Under no circumstances do Democrats EVER want people to feel strong, independent, and able to handle their own business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, and we all know how much Democrats love people feeling like helpless victims, because that's always their power base. Under no circumstances do Democrats EVER want people to feel strong, independent, and able to handle their own business.

If everybody in the US did that, who would need Democrats around anymore?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

Gun ownership is a right listed in the US Constitution, therefore it's not a privilege. Driving is a privilege.

In many states you can't vote either if you are a convicted felon. The commies are trying to change that because if criminals could vote, they'll all vote Democrat.

With rights comes responsibility. If you've demonstrated you are incapable of handling responsibility such as voting or firearms, those rights are taken away.

No; if someone has demonstrated that they are a danger to society and they've been convicted to back that up, then the solution is to keep them in prison. Why in the world would people be OK with a rapist who is still a threat being let out of prison as long as we make it illegal for him to own a gun, especially considering that the law against it has zero impact on dangerous felons owning guns.

By the way, the Constitution allows for preventing people from voting for having committed crimes. There's no such mention for any other protection or restriction in the Constitution.

If you want the government to strip rights for crimes, just show me where the Constitution allows for it. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the Constitution is just a recommendation to government rather than a limit to government. If you believe that, you have more in common with Thurgood Marshall than you have with Antonin Scalia.

You do know that, by definition, the government strips rights in punishment for crimes by imprisoning and executing people, right? It's sort of inherent in the whole process, and has been since . . . forever. Not sure the Founding Fathers or anyone else ever felt the need to spell out something that "water is wet" obvious.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, and we all know how much Democrats love people feeling like helpless victims, because that's always their power base. Under no circumstances do Democrats EVER want people to feel strong, independent, and able to handle their own business.

If everybody in the US did that, who would need Democrats around anymore?

Basically. But people who feel afraid and helpless will vote for damned near anything to try to alleviate that feeling. Emotions cloud one's reasoning abilities, which is why Democrats spend so much time trying to rile people up with emotional appeals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Basically. But people who feel afraid and helpless will vote for damned near anything to try to alleviate that feeling. Emotions cloud one's reasoning abilities, which is why Democrats spend so much time trying to rile people up with emotional appeals.

It's also their reason for being so anti-gun. They don't care that we have guns, what they care about is that we can take care of ourselves with them.

If they are able to strip law abiding citizens of their guns, then only the police and criminals will have them. Violent crime and robberies hit a new high, and people will stupidly beg the Democrats to do something about the big crime they created.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Basically. But people who feel afraid and helpless will vote for damned near anything to try to alleviate that feeling. Emotions cloud one's reasoning abilities, which is why Democrats spend so much time trying to rile people up with emotional appeals.

It's also their reason for being so anti-gun. They don't care that we have guns, what they care about is that we can take care of ourselves with them.

If they are able to strip law abiding citizens of their guns, then only the police and criminals will have them. Violent crime and robberies hit a new high, and people will stupidly beg the Democrats to do something about the big crime they created.

Emotional women have been a voting gold mine for Democrats for a long time. But a woman who feels strong and empowered to take charge of her own personal safety may carry that over to other aspects of her life and stop feeling afraid and helpless and in need of Daddy Government to take care of her. We can't have that.

 

[woodwork201]

I'm not constitutional expert, but I'm totally unaware where the Constitution gives government the ability to strip that right. Actually the right for everybody to vote was annexed later on. The founders didn't think everybody should have the right to vote, only those with a dog in the race.

We can't keep criminals in prison forever for something like rape or selling dope. Anybody that leaves prison is a potential future problem and a society risk. We have one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. Life in prison would be considered cruel and unusual punishment for anything less than death. Not allowing certain criminals not to have the right to bear arms is the least we can do to protect our society from them causing others harm.

Actually, we could keep criminals in prison forever for rape. Selling dope is not a violent crime. If dope sellers engage in violence to protect their territories or otherwise then convict them of the violence and keep them in prison appropriately.

The average rape sentence in the US is 12.2 years. Average sentence served is 61% of that, or roughly 7.5 years. 2% of rapists get less than 6 months. Another 2% get less than a year. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf


Literally, greater than 50% of those charged with rape have at least one prior felony conviction. 8% of them have more than 10 prior rape convictions. This is the Democratic war on women in America. We cannot continue to let these violent animals back into society. To suggest that we can let them into society as long as we don't let them buy a new gun from a gun store is absolutely absurd. Do you really, honestly, believe that your wife is safer because you didn't let a criminal with 10 rape convictions buy a gun at a gun shop? Do you really, honestly, believe that that little piece of shit deterrent is any deterrent at all?

By the way, only 11% of rapes include a weapon other than physical strength. Only 6% of rapists use a gun; 4% of rapists use a knife. If you could actually keep guns out of the hands of violent repeat offenders, it would not reduce rapes a single iota. The rapist would either use a knife or would use his hands. The weapon of rape is a dick, not a gun. If you want to reduce rapes, please see your doctor and turn in your weapon.

Statistics: Perpetrators of Sexual Violence - RAINN

Research reveals that most perpetrators are not scary strangers lurking in the shadows; they are people their victims knew—and often trusted. Perpetrators may be family members, intimate partners, friends, classmates, coworkers, authority figures, or caregivers. While anyone can commit sexual...

www.rainn.org

Gun control does not prevent rapes. What it does is to increase rapes because many women cannot defend themselves. How many women live in a home where a family member was convicted of a felony, including non-violent felonies, and cannot now have a gun in the home to defend themselves. How many women served time in prison after being pushed by a man they mistakenly fell for to do drugs so the man could get his way with her. Now she's a felon and can't defend herself.

Gun control increases crime; it does not reduce crime. Take some time; think it through; study the actual data about crime, and reconsider your pro-gun-control views.

 

[woodwork201]

I'm not constitutional expert, but I'm totally unaware where the Constitution gives government the ability to strip that right. Actually the right for everybody to vote was annexed later on. The founders didn't think everybody should have the right to vote, only those with a dog in the race.

Read the 14th Amendment, section 2. I was careful to not suggest that it grants the power; I said that the power was allowed for, as in mentioned or acknowledged.

 

[woodwork201]

You do know that, by definition, the government strips rights in punishment for crimes by imprisoning and executing people, right? It's sort of inherent in the whole process, and has been since . . . forever. Not sure the Founding Fathers or anyone else ever felt the need to spell out something that "water is wet" obvious.

Imprisoning those who are found guilty of crimes is found in common law, which is acknowledged throughout history. When imprisoned, obviously, as water is wet, a prisoner cannot have access to their guns. For 189 years in the United States, from 1789 to 1968, prisoners retained their right to their guns, were able to retrieve their guns, and carry their guns, once released from prison. It was known, as water is wet, that the Constitution did not allow for their right to keep and bear arms to be infringed.

If you're right, and I'm wrong, you make all the argument needed by the gun controllers to do anything they wish. It's as obvious as water is wet that getting 100% of guns out of the hands of the people would end all gun crime - except that it won't because many gun crimes are committed by law enforcement and military.

If you're right and I'm wrong, you make all the argument needed that the Constitution is a living document and that the government has any power they need, regardless of original intent or the actual words in the Constitution, as long as it is as obvious as is that water is wet, to do any thing they want and to ignore the Constitution.

The Constitution expressly forbids gun control as we know it. If you want to change it, consider changing the Constitution. If you support gun control, you're a gun controller and not a constitutionalist. In fact, you're a subject just as would be if we had a king. Government owns you and you live, move, exist, breathe, at their will. The alternative is that government, government of the people, by the people, for the people. Which are you? A free human being with a government created by the people, and limited by the Constitution, or are you a subject of a government that has ultimate power over you and your existence is at the good will of the government. If the latter, please explain how the government got that power.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do know that, by definition, the government strips rights in punishment for crimes by imprisoning and executing people, right? It's sort of inherent in the whole process, and has been since . . . forever. Not sure the Founding Fathers or anyone else ever felt the need to spell out something that "water is wet" obvious.

Imprisoning those who are found guilty of crimes is found in common law, which is acknowledged throughout history. When imprisoned, obviously, as water is wet, a prisoner cannot have access to their guns. For 189 years in the United States, from 1789 to 1968, prisoners retained their right to their guns, were able to retrieve their guns, and carry their guns, once released from prison. It was known, as water is wet, that the Constitution did not allow for their right to keep and bear arms to be infringed.

If you're right, and I'm wrong, you make all the argument needed by the gun controllers to do anything they wish. It's as obvious as water is wet that getting 100% of guns out of the hands of the people would end all gun crime - except that it won't because many gun crimes are committed by law enforcement and military.

If you're right and I'm wrong, you make all the argument needed that the Constitution is a living document and that the government has any power they need, regardless of original intent or the actual words in the Constitution, as long as it is as obvious as is that water is wet, to do any thing they want and to ignore the Constitution.

The Constitution expressly forbids gun control as we know it. If you want to change it, consider changing the Constitution. If you support gun control, you're a gun controller and not a constitutionalist. In fact, you're a subject just as would be if we had a king. Government owns you and you live, move, exist, breathe, at their will. The alternative is that government, government of the people, by the people, for the people. Which are you? A free human being with a government created by the people, and limited by the Constitution, or are you a subject of a government that has ultimate power over you and your existence is at the good will of the government. If the latter, please explain how the government got that power.

My, that's an awful lot of unsubstantiated assertions you made there. You'll excuse me if I wait on responding to them as though they're serious until such time as you make them serious by providing some evidence as to their factual nature.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Literally, greater than 50% of those charged with rape have at least one prior felony conviction. 8% of them have more than 10 prior rape convictions. This is the Democratic war on women in America. We cannot continue to let these violent animals back into society. To suggest that we can let them into society as long as we don't let them buy a new gun from a gun store is absolutely absurd. Do you really, honestly, believe that your wife is safer because you didn't let a criminal with 10 rape convictions buy a gun at a gun shop? Do you really, honestly, believe that that little piece of shit deterrent is any deterrent at all?

By the way, only 11% of rapes include a weapon other than physical strength. Only 6% of rapists use a gun; 4% of rapists use a knife. If you could actually keep guns out of the hands of violent repeat offenders, it would not reduce rapes a single iota. The rapist would either use a knife or would use his hands. The weapon of rape is a dick, not a gun. If you want to reduce rapes, please see your doctor and turn in your weapon.

They could use anything they want, but an armed victim is what will stop them. Now, if the attacker does use a gun, then it's a matter of who shoots first. If a rapist uses a knife, then the gun beats a knife hands down in any conflict. Not only does the woman win, she has the right to put him in a grave where he belongs.

If he rapes a woman using a gun, then that's additional prison time: one for rape and the other for using a firearm he wasn't allowed to have, because losing that right not only stops somebody from buying a new firearm, they are not allowed to be in possession of one either.

 

[JoeB131]

Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights. By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens.

Anyone who is law abiding has the right to own a firearm. The second you become a convicted criminal you hace voluntarily given up that right.

But then it stops being a "right" and becomes a "privilege"... that's the point. Rights can't be given by governments, they can only be given by God or Nature.

So now that we've established gun ownership is a privilege, we can have the rational discussion about who shouldn't have the privilege.

Criminals? Absolutely. Let's have real background checks to make sure that doesn't happen.
Crazy People. Sure.
People who done think that they needs them their gun to overthrow the government, Cleetus? Sure.

 

[JoeB131]

They could use anything they want, but an armed victim is what will stop them. Now, if the attacker does use a gun, then it's a matter of who shoots first. If a rapist uses a knife, then the gun beats a knife hands down in any conflict. Not only does the woman win, she has the right to put him in a grave where he belongs.

Except that never happens. According to the FBI, there were only 200 cases a year of justifiable homicide with a gun by a civilian compared to 15,000 gun homicides a year which are regular street crime and domestic violence.

It's like saying it's good you have an angry pit bull, when it never actually takes out a burglar, but it has managed to maul several of the neighborhood kids.

If he rapes a woman using a gun, then that's additional prison time: one for rape and the other for using a firearm he wasn't allowed to have, because losing that right not only stops somebody from buying a new firearm, they are not allowed to be in possession of one either.

Again, we lock up 2 million people. The police make 10 million arrests a year. Arrests and prisons aren't stopping crime, buddy.

 

[Blues Man]

Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights. By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens.

Anyone who is law abiding has the right to own a firearm. The second you become a convicted criminal you hace voluntarily given up that right.

But then it stops being a "right" and becomes a "privilege"... that's the point. Rights can't be given by governments, they can only be given by God or Nature.

So now that we've established gun ownership is a privilege, we can have the rational discussion about who shouldn't have the privilege.

Criminals? Absolutely. Let's have real background checks to make sure that doesn't happen.
Crazy People. Sure.
People who done think that they needs them their gun to overthrow the government, Cleetus? Sure.

No it doesn't. A person can voluntarily give up their rights.

And you say you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminal but you refuse to say that we should enforce the federal gun laws we already have on the books.

 

[JoeB131]

No it doesn't. A person can voluntarily give up their rights.

And you say you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminal but you refuse to say that we should enforce the federal gun laws we already have on the books.

I'm saying those laws are kind of meaningless if they are selectively enforced.

For instance, prostitution is illegal where I live. Which means, yeah, if you have a girl in the short skirt walking down the street in fishnets, the cops are going to bust her ass.

But they'll ignore the Massage Parlor, the Strip Club and the Escort Service because those places know how to skirt the edges of the law.