No one is going to take your guns

[Geaux4it]

Me sitting in a jail cell does not mean I lost my rights, even if I actually committed a felony.

I do have a question for you, what if I like being in jail cells? What if that is how I pursue happiness, and I actually go out and commit felonies just so I can get into one. Since I am, quite obviously, pursuing my happiness, how does throwing me in a jail cell prevent me from pursuing happiness?

are you ******* stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this ******* stupid

Wrong twice in a single sentence.

The right to vote is not unalienable, it is a privilege granted by the government. Not to mention that it is perfectly legal to be in jail and vote everywhere in the country unless you have actually been convicted of a felony. Some places don't even restrict you from voting after you get convicted.

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf

What was that about me being stupid again? Were you looking in a mirror when you said it?

To paraphrase, the left blows so much that isn't so and thinks everyone else is as ignorant as they are.

Liberalism is a disease

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

I support a testing and licensing procedure similar to obtaining a driver's license.
I see no harm in requiring gun owners to take some kind of safety course then becoming licensed upon passing said course.
After all, in order to get a permit( In NC) one must submit to a background check by local or county law enforcement. For concealed carry, one must take a safety and knowledge course, show proficiency and knowledge of the firearm one will carry before the permit is issued.

Testing is a solution in search of a problem. While common sense dictates one should know how to safely handle a firearm, there is no evidence this requirement would have any effect on crime

-Geaux

Common sense would tell us we all would know after receiving training, how to safely operate an automobile.
The credential would indicate to law enforcement that "yes i have a firearm. And I am trained in the safe usage of said firearm. So leave me alone!".
In fact the SCOTUS has upheld the Second Amendment in a case vs Wash DC in that the court ruled the Wash DC handgun ban was Unconstitutional. The Court ruled the ban was a violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
Later, Chicago's ban was also overturned when a resident who used his gun in protecting his person and home from an intruder, was arrested and charged. The man subsequently sued the City. The case made it to the SCOTUS.

Fine and well, but how does this training deter gun crime?

-Geaux

 

[thereisnospoon]

Me sitting in a jail cell does not mean I lost my rights, even if I actually committed a felony.

I do have a question for you, what if I like being in jail cells? What if that is how I pursue happiness, and I actually go out and commit felonies just so I can get into one. Since I am, quite obviously, pursuing my happiness, how does throwing me in a jail cell prevent me from pursuing happiness?

are you ******* stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this ******* stupid

Wrong twice in a single sentence.

The right to vote is not unalienable, it is a privilege granted by the government. Not to mention that it is perfectly legal to be in jail and vote everywhere in the country unless you have actually been convicted of a felony. Some places don't even restrict you from voting after you get convicted.

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf

What was that about me being stupid again? Were you looking in a mirror when you said it?

I had always thought a felony conviction would result in one losing their right to own firearms. That is incorrect. The loss of said right must be part of the sentence handed down after conviction. That is to my knowledge.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Testing is a solution in search of a problem. While common sense dictates one should know how to safely handle a firearm, there is no evidence this requirement would have any effect on crime

-Geaux

Common sense would tell us we all would know after receiving training, how to safely operate an automobile.
The credential would indicate to law enforcement that "yes i have a firearm. And I am trained in the safe usage of said firearm. So leave me alone!".
In fact the SCOTUS has upheld the Second Amendment in a case vs Wash DC in that the court ruled the Wash DC handgun ban was Unconstitutional. The Court ruled the ban was a violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
Later, Chicago's ban was also overturned when a resident who used his gun in protecting his person and home from an intruder, was arrested and charged. The man subsequently sued the City. The case made it to the SCOTUS.

Fine and well, but how does this training deter gun crime?

-Geaux

It doesn't. All training and licensure/permitting does is ensure accountability. Same as operating an automobile, acting as an attorney, performing contracting work such as a trade, acting as a real estate appraiser. The examples are limitless.

 

[Geaux4it]

are you ******* stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this ******* stupid

Wrong twice in a single sentence.

The right to vote is not unalienable, it is a privilege granted by the government. Not to mention that it is perfectly legal to be in jail and vote everywhere in the country unless you have actually been convicted of a felony. Some places don't even restrict you from voting after you get convicted.

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf

What was that about me being stupid again? Were you looking in a mirror when you said it?

I had always thought a felony conviction would result in one losing their right to own firearms. That is incorrect. The loss of said right must be part of the sentence handed down after conviction. That is to my knowledge.

Not correct.

The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About Federal Gun Law | Law Offices of Keith A. Williams, P.A. | Greenville North Carolina

1. No guns for felons. Most of us are familiar with the rule that a convicted felon cannot possess a gun. The federal rule is found in one of the main firearm statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

 

[FA_Q2]

I support a testing and licensing procedure similar to obtaining a driver's license.
I see no harm in requiring gun owners to take some kind of safety course then becoming licensed upon passing said course.
After all, in order to get a permit( In NC) one must submit to a background check by local or county law enforcement. For concealed carry, one must take a safety and knowledge course, show proficiency and knowledge of the firearm one will carry before the permit is issued.

Testing is a solution in search of a problem. While common sense dictates one should know how to safely handle a firearm, there is no evidence this requirement would have any effect on crime

-Geaux

Common sense would tell us we all would know after receiving training, how to safely operate an automobile.
The credential would indicate to law enforcement that "yes i have a firearm. And I am trained in the safe usage of said firearm. So leave me alone!".
In fact the SCOTUS has upheld the Second Amendment in a case vs Wash DC in that the court ruled the Wash DC handgun ban was Unconstitutional. The Court ruled the ban was a violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
Later, Chicago's ban was also overturned when a resident who used his gun in protecting his person and home from an intruder, was arrested and charged. The man subsequently sued the City. The case made it to the SCOTUS.

The core problem here is that driving is not a constitutional right. There are problems with defining rights in a way that allows them to be restricted based on an arbitrary governmental requirement. Would you support the same thing for the exercise of your religion? Your speech? Why then would you treat the second differently?

The only real push back here is in a compelling governmental interest – something that I highly doubt you can provide in this instance considering that there is no real evidence that this ‘training’ would actually accomplish anything of that magnitude. There are very few cases of ignorance of the gun owner in the weapons use being the reason that someone dies. Almost all the accidental deaths are from carelessness. Training does not solve carelessness. Further, most of them are from people that are very adept with there weapons. Being overly familiar tends to make people complacent.

 

[jasonnfree]

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his fellow members of the Japanese Imperial General Staff that they could not hope to invade America because they "Would be met by a rifle behind every blade of grass". Thus advised, Japan made its war plans accordingly, planning assaults and invasions strategically at the perimeters of America's defensive line.
Comrade Barack is well aware of Admiral Yamamotos warning and knows full well in order to make the way safe for conquest by his Army of Muslim Holy Warriors he has to completely disarm America eliminating the possibility of his Muslim Holy Warriors meeting an American defending his country, his family, his freedom, his civilization, and his religion with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Right to bear arms people like to quote Yamamoto on this but Japan didn't have the capability to launch a huge invasion of USA either from the air or sea. What muslim nation has an army, navy, or air force capable to invade us?

 

[Geaux4it]

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his fellow members of the Japanese Imperial General Staff that they could not hope to invade America because they "Would be met by a rifle behind every blade of grass". Thus advised, Japan made its war plans accordingly, planning assaults and invasions strategically at the perimeters of America's defensive line.
Comrade Barack is well aware of Admiral Yamamotos warning and knows full well in order to make the way safe for conquest by his Army of Muslim Holy Warriors he has to completely disarm America eliminating the possibility of his Muslim Holy Warriors meeting an American defending his country, his family, his freedom, his civilization, and his religion with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Right to bear arms people like to quote Yamamoto on this but Japan didn't have the capability to launch a huge invasion of USA either from the air or sea. What muslim nation has an army, navy, or air force capable to invade us?

Are there Muslims in China?

-Geaux

 

[theliq]

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his fellow members of the Japanese Imperial General Staff that they could not hope to invade America because they "Would be met by a rifle behind every blade of grass". Thus advised, Japan made its war plans accordingly, planning assaults and invasions strategically at the perimeters of America's defensive line.
Comrade Barack is well aware of Admiral Yamamotos warning and knows full well in order to make the way safe for conquest by his Army of Muslim Holy Warriors he has to completely disarm America eliminating the possibility of his Muslim Holy Warriors meeting an American defending his country, his family, his freedom, his civilization, and his religion with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Right to bear arms people like to quote Yamamoto on this but Japan didn't have the capability to launch a huge invasion of USA either from the air or sea. What muslim nation has an army, navy, or air force capable to invade us?

No but they had 5 conspiritors who blew up the twin towers(Regrettably)steve

 

[theliq]

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his fellow members of the Japanese Imperial General Staff that they could not hope to invade America because they "Would be met by a rifle behind every blade of grass". Thus advised, Japan made its war plans accordingly, planning assaults and invasions strategically at the perimeters of America's defensive line.
Comrade Barack is well aware of Admiral Yamamotos warning and knows full well in order to make the way safe for conquest by his Army of Muslim Holy Warriors he has to completely disarm America eliminating the possibility of his Muslim Holy Warriors meeting an American defending his country, his family, his freedom, his civilization, and his religion with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Right to bear arms people like to quote Yamamoto on this but Japan didn't have the capability to launch a huge invasion of USA either from the air or sea. What muslim nation has an army, navy, or air force capable to invade us?

Are there Muslims in China?

-Geaux

Geaux,

Of course there are,circa 27 million(one 10th of the US population) been in China for over 1400 years mainly in the North West.......Silk Road......Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims over 270 Million.....There are 1.67 Billion Muslims world wide. It is the 2nd largest religion after Christianity

Christians in the various forms..... 2.2 Billion worldwide...Largest population USA 246 Million(a lot adhere to not too much though) followed by Brazil...175 Million,Russia 106 Million.....China surprisingly 67 Million and Palestinians 170,000.

Christians and Muslims are in virtually every country Worldwide,to a greater or lesser degree......steve

 

[Plasmaball]

Me sitting in a jail cell does not mean I lost my rights, even if I actually committed a felony.

I do have a question for you, what if I like being in jail cells? What if that is how I pursue happiness, and I actually go out and commit felonies just so I can get into one. Since I am, quite obviously, pursuing my happiness, how does throwing me in a jail cell prevent me from pursuing happiness?

are you ******* stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this ******* stupid

Wrong twice in a single sentence.

The right to vote is not unalienable, it is a privilege granted by the government. Not to mention that it is perfectly legal to be in jail and vote everywhere in the country unless you have actually been convicted of a felony. Some places don't even restrict you from voting after you get convicted.

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf

What was that about me being stupid again? Were you looking in a mirror when you said it?

Ah so you needed to walk back to only a felony as your excuse.
This is fun watching you fail again.
Your rights are meaningless. They can be stripped at any point in time. This is how foolish you really are. Man I would have loved to see you during the khans..but I have the right to bear arms...shut up and die peasant. Then they chop your head off.

Lol unalienable rights...shut up

 

[OKTexas]

Anyone who believes anything Obama promises is an idiot.

Anybody who lives in NYC is an idiot. They are the ones to blame for electing assholes who would do this. They asked for it, they got it.

 

[S.J.]

Anyone who believes anything Obama promises is an idiot.

Anybody who lives in NYC is an idiot. They are the ones to blame for electing assholes who would do this. They asked for it, they got it.

I was referring to the comment in the link in the OP.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No kidding..but the reality here is your rights are not absolute. I have 200 years of scotus rulings, you have your opinion.

[MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION]

On one hand, the SCOTUS and you Government Huggers can have an opinion.

On the other hand, Libertarians and true Conservatives have another opinion.

But in the end --- the ONLY opinion that matters is the Jury --- because only they can convict you.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

 

[theliq]

No kidding..but the reality here is your rights are not absolute. I have 200 years of scotus rulings, you have your opinion.

[MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION]

On one hand, the SCOTUS and you Government Huggers can have an opinion.

On the other hand, Libertarians and true Conservatives have another opinion.

But in the end --- the ONLY opinion that matters is the Jury --- because only they can convict you.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Problem though with the Jury System is...that they are often guided by the Judge
Ditto...................................................that they are often guided by the Media
Ditto...................................................that they often are incapable of fully understanding the charges of a particular case.
steve as for your 2nd Amendment......Guns are no longer relevant for the original purpose they were intended for...FACT

SINCE JFK'S ASSASSINATION OVER 1.2 MILLION AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED/MURDERED BY GUNS......I REPEAT OVER 1.2 MILLION HAVE BEEN KILLED/MURDERED BY GUNS,DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT YOUR FORE-FATHERS ANTICIPATED YOU WOULD EVER HAVE SUCH HIGH POWERED WEAPONERY(Let alone your introverted siege mentality minds.."Everybody Hates Us"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ain't true but you think it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)............of course NOT......Your whole premise for your statement........and your fore-fathers would agree....that you are basically talking through your ASSHOLE.

WAKE UP 2nd Amendment,WAKE UP America statistics and facts don't lie and it's a bloody disgrace

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong twice in a single sentence.

The right to vote is not unalienable, it is a privilege granted by the government. Not to mention that it is perfectly legal to be in jail and vote everywhere in the country unless you have actually been convicted of a felony. Some places don't even restrict you from voting after you get convicted.

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf

What was that about me being stupid again? Were you looking in a mirror when you said it?

I had always thought a felony conviction would result in one losing their right to own firearms. That is incorrect. The loss of said right must be part of the sentence handed down after conviction. That is to my knowledge.

Not correct.

The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About Federal Gun Law | Law Offices of Keith A. Williams, P.A. | Greenville North Carolina

1. No guns for felons. Most of us are familiar with the rule that a convicted felon cannot possess a gun. The federal rule is found in one of the main firearm statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

Technically, I was correct. Not all felony convictions result in one relinquishing their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Problem though with the Jury System is...that they are often guided by the Judge
Ditto...................................................that they are often guided by the Media
Ditto...................................................that they often are incapable of fully understanding the charges of a particular case.
steve

New Hampshire ratified Jury Nullification into their law in 2012, all juries are informed that they need not follow the judges instructions and that they have the right to judge the constitutionality of the law.

Also, even without this law in New Hampshire, it's been shown many times that those who ask for jury trials (instead of plea deals) for non violent offenses are more often acquitted than not.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Your rights are meaningless. They can be stripped at any point in time. This is how foolish you really are.

Come and get them.

You sound just like this iconic tyrant:

No, not slaves. Your women will be slaves. Your sons, your daughters, your elders will be slaves, but not you. By noon this day, you will all be dead men! The thousand nations of the Persian Empire descend upon you! Our arrows will blot out the sun!

But you are correct, without the Second Amendment, our rights would be meaningless. You should be the new poster boy for the NRA.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Testing is a solution in search of a problem. While common sense dictates one should know how to safely handle a firearm, there is no evidence this requirement would have any effect on crime

-Geaux

Common sense would tell us we all would know after receiving training, how to safely operate an automobile.
The credential would indicate to law enforcement that "yes i have a firearm. And I am trained in the safe usage of said firearm. So leave me alone!".
In fact the SCOTUS has upheld the Second Amendment in a case vs Wash DC in that the court ruled the Wash DC handgun ban was Unconstitutional. The Court ruled the ban was a violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
Later, Chicago's ban was also overturned when a resident who used his gun in protecting his person and home from an intruder, was arrested and charged. The man subsequently sued the City. The case made it to the SCOTUS.

The core problem here is that driving is not a constitutional right. There are problems with defining rights in a way that allows them to be restricted based on an arbitrary governmental requirement. Would you support the same thing for the exercise of your religion? Your speech? Why then would you treat the second differently?

The only real push back here is in a compelling governmental interest – something that I highly doubt you can provide in this instance considering that there is no real evidence that this ‘training’ would actually accomplish anything of that magnitude. There are very few cases of ignorance of the gun owner in the weapons use being the reason that someone dies. Almost all the accidental deaths are from carelessness. Training does not solve carelessness. Further, most of them are from people that are very adept with there weapons. Being overly familiar tends to make people complacent.

Here's the rub. Gun ownership and the possession of guns is already restricted by a veritable hodgepodge of state and local laws. It's maddening.
For example. Here in NC one if permitted by authority may carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle. The gun must be in 'in plain view'. Cross the state line into SC and the same gun must be out of view in a glove box or compartment and is NOT permitted to be loaded.
In other states, one may carry a loaded weapon but in the case of semi-automatic weapons, there cannot be a round 'in the chamber'..
And in most cases, just because one may carry in one state does not mean they may do so in another. In fact it's damned likely it's prohibited by law..
To that end, why not have a national system where law abiding citizens can go through a battery of permitting and vetting with the goal of safe and lawful use and carriage of firearms.
Any further debate is pointless. We agree to disagree.
Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Amelia]

<snipped>

To that end, why not have a national system where law abiding citizens can go through a battery of permitting and vetting with the goal of safe and lawful use and carriage of firearms.

<snipped>

States' rights.