Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[pete]

Speaking of stupid No Star Logic, what makes you think that people AREN'T going to go to these town halls and NOT start firing? Their basic kindness towards their fellow man?

Nope.

And when this is all Done and the Townhalls are over and there is not Shooting, what will you say?...



peace...

We should take pity on the stinking rotting christian neo con fascist gouls that they did not achieve thier objective.

We should give em an encouraging "atta boy" and a "better luck next time"!

why not that ... oh wait I thought you were referring to the shit stain in office!

 

[DiveCon]

First of all, when you're convicted of anything, there's a sentence. Some crimes carry with that a period of probation where there is monitoring after release. Once that is served, the person has served their time, paid their debt, then due process is (should) be required for any further action by the State, to include continuing to prohibit the person from exercising their full rights of citizenship. If 10 years isn't enough and they aren't "cured" (of what, btw???), then they have no business being out of jail or off probation. It's not that person's fault if the laws are such that they are released from custody and probation 'too soon'. Refusing to restore their rights after they've served all legally required punishment is akin to convicting and sentencing them without due process for something they may do in the future.

how about looking at it this way(it's how i do)
when they are convicted, the 2nd amendment right is terminated as a part of their conviction
and they have to ask for it to be restored

HELL no.

That's even worse.

um, thats how it IS now

 

[Emma]

how about looking at it this way(it's how i do)
when they are convicted, the 2nd amendment right is terminated as a part of their conviction
and they have to ask for it to be restored

HELL no.

That's even worse.

um, thats how it IS now

Did I indicate that I agree with how it's done 'now'?

 

[DiveCon]

HELL no.

That's even worse.

um, thats how it IS now

Did I indicate that I agree with how it's done 'now'?

then how would it be "worse" ?

 

[Emma]

um, thats how it IS now

Did I indicate that I agree with how it's done 'now'?

then how would it be "worse" ?

As in what I was responding to in my post. And btw, I don't believe that's how it's done in all states.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

The Constitution cites 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble'. Clearly the inclusion of the word 'peaceably' indicates that the people do not have the right to assemble non-peacefully.

Carrying weapons concealed or unconcealed to a political rally or protest constitutes a non-peaceful armed mob - not a peaceful demonstaration.

The message that these idiots conveyed was clear - their action were intended as a threat to the freely and legally elected President of the United States and to Democracy. Not to mention creating a huge potential public safety hazard.

On a practical basis, allowing people to carry automatic weapons to rallys just outside of a Presidential venue creates a situation where a large number of extremely well armed and coordinated militants could easily launch an overwehlming attack against the President.

It's my not-so-humble opinion that everyone that is known to have or does carry weapons to any Presidential venue or associated rally should be arrested and charged with sedition.

Arrested and charged with sedition for what exactly? Carrying a gun in a lawful manner does not constitute sedition. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I was wondering the exact same thing bro. ~BH

 

[DiveCon]

Did I indicate that I agree with how it's done 'now'?

then how would it be "worse" ?

As in what I was responding to in my post. And btw, I don't believe that's how it's done in all states.

well, i think your way would be worse
especially if they had been convicted of a crime while using a gun
they have already shown they will abuse that right

 

[Emma]

then how would it be "worse" ?

As in what I was responding to in my post. And btw, I don't believe that's how it's done in all states.

well, i think your way would be worse
especially if they had been convicted of a crime while using a gun
they have already shown they will abuse that right

You got a speeding ticket last week and were convicted and sentenced. The state should revoke your license permanently because you've been shown you will abuse it.

 

[DiveCon]

As in what I was responding to in my post. And btw, I don't believe that's how it's done in all states.

well, i think your way would be worse
especially if they had been convicted of a crime while using a gun
they have already shown they will abuse that right

You got a speeding ticket last week and were convicted and sentenced. The state should revoke your license permanently because you've been shown you will abuse it.

did i do it with a gun????

 

[Emma]

well, i think your way would be worse
especially if they had been convicted of a crime while using a gun
they have already shown they will abuse that right

You got a speeding ticket last week and were convicted and sentenced. The state should revoke your license permanently because you've been shown you will abuse it.

did i do it with a gun????

What does that have to do with anything? A car can be just as deadly.

Nah.

You've proven to the state you will abuse that license. Hand it over.

 

[DiveCon]

You got a speeding ticket last week and were convicted and sentenced. The state should revoke your license permanently because you've been shown you will abuse it.

did i do it with a gun????

What does that have to do with anything? A car can be just as deadly.

Nah.

You've proven to the state you will abuse that license. Hand it over.

lol
yeah, totally not the same thing


and you know it



btw, convince a state to enact such a law, and you MIGHT have a point
till then your pissin into the wind

 

[mal]

Nope.

If they are that dangerous that they cannot be trusted to have their full rights of citizenship restored AFTER they've paid their debt, then they have no business being out of jail or off probation.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once they've paid their debt, there is no reason to continue to withhold their rights from them. Because in effect, you're extending their sentence without due process.

If you wish to have them on probation for life, so be it. But otherwise, give 'em back their vote (if taken) and their right to own firearms.

The Conviction was the Due Process...

But I am for Easing the Laws regarding Convicts and Guns.

Considering the Justice System and it's Punishments, I don't Beleive that simply beacuse a Judge says 10 Years on a Gun Crime, that the Person who was Convicted should be allowed to have Guns again...

10 Years doesn't mean they are Cured.



peace...

First of all, when you're convicted of anything, there's a sentence. Some crimes carry with that a period of probation where there is monitoring after release. Once that is served, the person has served their time, paid their debt, then due process is (should) be required for any further action by the State, to include continuing to prohibit the person from exercising their full rights of citizenship. If 10 years isn't enough and they aren't "cured" (of what, btw???), then they have no business being out of jail or off probation. It's not that person's fault if the laws are such that they are released from custody and probation 'too soon'. Refusing to restore their rights after they've served all legally required punishment is akin to convicting and sentencing them without due process for something they may do in the future.

It's the Law... They Knew it BEFORE they Committed a Felony...

It's NOT Extra Punishment, it's one of the Punishments for Felons.

And if they didn't Know, Ignorance is NO Excuse.



peace...

 

[Emma]

did i do it with a gun????

What does that have to do with anything? A car can be just as deadly.

Nah.

You've proven to the state you will abuse that license. Hand it over.

lol
yeah, totally not the same thing


and you know it



btw, convince a state to enact such a law, and you MIGHT have a point
till then your pissin into the wind

How is it not the same thing? You claim someone should lose a right without due process because they've shown they will abuse it.

As far the second part to your post, that's irrelevant.

 

[Emma]

The Conviction was the Due Process...

But I am for Easing the Laws regarding Convicts and Guns.

Considering the Justice System and it's Punishments, I don't Beleive that simply beacuse a Judge says 10 Years on a Gun Crime, that the Person who was Convicted should be allowed to have Guns again...

10 Years doesn't mean they are Cured.



peace...

First of all, when you're convicted of anything, there's a sentence. Some crimes carry with that a period of probation where there is monitoring after release. Once that is served, the person has served their time, paid their debt, then due process is (should) be required for any further action by the State, to include continuing to prohibit the person from exercising their full rights of citizenship. If 10 years isn't enough and they aren't "cured" (of what, btw???), then they have no business being out of jail or off probation. It's not that person's fault if the laws are such that they are released from custody and probation 'too soon'. Refusing to restore their rights after they've served all legally required punishment is akin to convicting and sentencing them without due process for something they may do in the future.

It's the Law... They Knew it BEFORE they Committed a Felony...

It's NOT Extra Punishment, it's one of the Punishments for Felons.

And if they didn't Know, Ignorance is NO Excuse.



peace...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[DiveCon]

What does that have to do with anything? A car can be just as deadly.

Nah.

You've proven to the state you will abuse that license. Hand it over.

lol
yeah, totally not the same thing


and you know it



btw, convince a state to enact such a law, and you MIGHT have a point
till then your pissin into the wind

How is it not the same thing? You claim someone should lose a right without due process because they've shown they will abuse it.

As far the second part to your post, that's irrelevant.

they had due process
its known as a trial

 

[AllieBaba]

did i do it with a gun????

What does that have to do with anything? A car can be just as deadly.

Nah.

You've proven to the state you will abuse that license. Hand it over.

lol
yeah, totally not the same thing


and you know it



btw, convince a state to enact such a law, and you MIGHT have a point
till then your pissin into the wind

More people are killed by cars in this country than by guns. His point is valid.

 

[DiveCon]

What does that have to do with anything? A car can be just as deadly.

Nah.

You've proven to the state you will abuse that license. Hand it over.

lol
yeah, totally not the same thing


and you know it



btw, convince a state to enact such a law, and you MIGHT have a point
till then your pissin into the wind

More people are killed by cars in this country than by guns. His point is valid.

i disagree, her point is a deflection
because if it was valid, then some state would have enacted just such a law
and since most states remove the right to gun ownership to convicted felons, it is already existing law

 

[Emma]

lol
yeah, totally not the same thing


and you know it



btw, convince a state to enact such a law, and you MIGHT have a point
till then your pissin into the wind

How is it not the same thing? You claim someone should lose a right without due process because they've shown they will abuse it.

As far the second part to your post, that's irrelevant.

they had due process
its known as a trial

Again. You were speeding and the state properly applied due process to convict and sentence you. Why should you ever again be allowed a license? After all, you've had your due process.

 

[mal]

First of all, when you're convicted of anything, there's a sentence. Some crimes carry with that a period of probation where there is monitoring after release. Once that is served, the person has served their time, paid their debt, then due process is (should) be required for any further action by the State, to include continuing to prohibit the person from exercising their full rights of citizenship. If 10 years isn't enough and they aren't "cured" (of what, btw???), then they have no business being out of jail or off probation. It's not that person's fault if the laws are such that they are released from custody and probation 'too soon'. Refusing to restore their rights after they've served all legally required punishment is akin to convicting and sentencing them without due process for something they may do in the future.

It's the Law... They Knew it BEFORE they Committed a Felony...

It's NOT Extra Punishment, it's one of the Punishments for Felons.

And if they didn't Know, Ignorance is NO Excuse.



peace...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's part of the Original Due Process of the Conviction...

Part of being Convicted of a Felony is NOT being Able to Own or Possess a Gun.

It's the Law... Ignorance of it Prior to Committing a Felony is not my Problem.



peace...

 

[DiveCon]

How is it not the same thing? You claim someone should lose a right without due process because they've shown they will abuse it.

As far the second part to your post, that's irrelevant.

they had due process
its known as a trial

Again. You were speeding and the state properly applied due process to convict and sentence you. Why should you ever again be allowed a license? After all, you've had your due process.

once again, get a state to enact such a law