Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[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

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

You're arguing that a law is Constitutional because it is a law?

Really???

 

[DiveCon]

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...

and they still have the due process to get the right restored

 

[DiveCon]

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

You're arguing that a law is Constitutional because it is a law?

Really???

then challenge it if you think it is unconstutional
and stop pissin on yourself

 

[Emma]

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

You're arguing that a law is Constitutional because it is a law?

Really???

then challenge it if you think it is unconstutional
and stop pissin on yourself

Amazing.

A law is Constitutional because it's the law.

Now I've seen it all

 

[jillian]

You're arguing that a law is Constitutional because it is a law?

Really???

what are the recidivist rates for violent felons? there are exceptions to constitutional protections when needed. for example, the need for a search warrant doesn't exist when you're in hot pursuit or if there are exigent circumstances.

sex offenders are required to register their residence even after the jail terms are finished because of the recidivist rate. wouldn't you say freedom trumps owning a gun?

no one violent should have a gun. and no one who was ever a spouse or child abuser should have a gun. and no one mentally ill should have a gun.

i have no issue with people owning guns. but not people who can't be trusted with them.

i don't think ay constitutional challenge would be very successful.

 

[DiveCon]

You're arguing that a law is Constitutional because it is a law?

Really???

then challenge it if you think it is unconstutional
and stop pissin on yourself

Amazing.

A law is Constitutional because it's the law.

Now I've seen it all

until it is challenged and ruled unconstitutional, yes


and stop using that strawman
i never said that because any law could be unconstitutional but it is still the rule of law until challenged and ruled unconstitutional

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

My Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator friend, the Clause you quoted, has to do with civil rights. In my opinion, you are taking the XIV Amendment out of context.

In regards to having one's II Amendment rights restored once they have served their time, ( including probation ) I agree with you Emma. I believe they should have their right restored. If they are a danger that they can't, then they shouldn't be walking the streets, in my opinion. I find it just as hypocritical as you do Emma. With that being said, the states are free to place restrictions on the II Amendment right. If an individual state puts a II Amendment restriction on someone convicted of a crime, they are free to do so Emma. That does not equate to them being denied due process of the law.

The car analogy you used, is a good attempt. I understand your point. However, driving in and of itself is a privilege. If we put rights and privileges to the side for a moment and look at your analogy, it is valid.

In my opinion, the only way you can attempt to argue lack of due process, is if the II Amendment was incorporated, and a state was attempting to place restrictions above that of the fed. If they ugly and bastardized scenario ever came to fruition, you might would have a case Emma. I pray that the II Amendment never gets incorporated.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lots of violent people never use guns, period.

Felons aren't allowed to own firearms. That's good enough.

 

[Emma]

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...

Due process is specific to a specific charge. Just because I've received appropriate due process for a crime doesn't mean that particular instance of due process carries over and covers any further crimes I may commit. The process starts all over again for each and every charge.


It includes what the law explicitly states in sentencing guidelines, including parole and probation considerations for the particular crime. If you want to contend that the state should keep the person on probation and monitored *forever* and thus not have their rights restored, fine. I have no problem with that.

But if you're saying that a person must be perpetually punished even after they have satisfied what the state had deemed their punishment to be for that particular crime and has allowed them to return into society otherwise unencumbered or monitored, then absolutely not.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

My Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator friend, the Clause you quoted, has to do with civil rights. In my opinion, you are taking the XIV Amendment out of context.

In regards to having one's II Amendment rights restored once they have served their time, ( including probation ) I agree with you Emma. I believe they should have their right restored. If they are a danger that they can't, then they shouldn't be walking the streets, in my opinion. I find it just as hypocritical as you do Emma. With that being said, the states are free to place restrictions on the II Amendment right. If an individual state puts the kind of restriction on someone convicted of a crime, they are free to do so Emma. That does not equate to them being denied due process of the law.

The car analogy you used, is a good attempt. I understand your point. However, driving in and of itself is a privilege. If we put rights and privileges to the side for a moment and look at your analogy, it is valid.

In my opinion, the only way you can attempt to argue lack of due process, if is the II Amendment was incorporated, and a state was attempting to place restrictions above that of the fed. If they ugly and bastardized scenario ever came to fruition, you might would have a case Emma. I pray that the II Amendment never gets incorporated.

and as i said, if a state passed such a law for drivers, then it would be a constitutional law
but they haven't

the issue on gun s and felons is they had their due process when they were convicted and this is part of the law and has been for some time
unless you want to allow "ignorance of the law" to be a valid defense
then they know they will lose rights when they commit the crime
this is one that exceeds whatever detention they face and can be restored by due process

 

[DiveCon]

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...

Due process is specific to a specific charge. Just because I've received appropriate due process for a crime doesn't mean that particular instance of due process carries over and covers any further crimes I may commit. The process starts all over again for each and every charge.


It includes what the law explicitly states in sentencing guidelines, including parole and probation considerations for the particular crime. If you want to contend that the state should keep the person on probation and monitored *forever* and thus not have their rights restored, fine. I have no problem with that.

But if you're saying that a person must be perpetually punished even after they have satisfied what the state had deemed their punishment to be for that particular crime and has allowed them to return into society otherwise unencumbered or monitored, then absolutely not.

its PART of the punishment
you keep missing that fact

 

[Emma]

and they still have the due process to get the right restored

BTW

Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to us to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".

 

[jillian]

Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to us to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".

well, not really. rights only exist to the extent they are enforced. if you believe a right is being infringed, and you have standing to challenge that infringement, then the remedy is to bring suit.

 

[DiveCon]

and they still have the due process to get the right restored

BTW

Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to us to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".

they HAD due process when the right was revoked
thus its only logical they would need due process to get it restored

the state used due process(the trial and conviction) to remove several rights, and only put a time limit on some of them, and the rest are not limited
like there will still be a record of the conviction and imprisionment
same for the loss of the 2nd amendment rights
the state followed due process

 

[Emma]

My Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator friend, the Clause you quoted, has to do with civil rights. In my opinion, you are taking the XIV Amendment out of context.

You know my thoughts on that; if it was intended to only pertain to civil rights, it should have stated so. The 14th assures that all levels of government adhere to due process.

In regards to having one's II Amendment rights restored once they have served their time, ( including probation ) I agree with you Emma. I believe they should have their right restored. If they are a danger that they can't, then they shouldn't be walking the streets, in my opinion. I find it just as hypocritical as you do Emma. With that being said, the states are free to place restrictions on the II Amendment right. If an individual state puts a II Amendment restriction on someone convicted of a crime, they are free to do so Emma. That does not equate to them being denied due process of the law.

I disagree. And I believe I've explained why. You know how I feel about incorporation of the 2nd

The car analogy you used, is a good attempt. I understand your point. However, driving in and of itself is a privilege. If we put rights and privileges to the side for a moment and look at your analogy, it is valid.

I'm surprised no one pointed that out earlier however it's really irrelevant to the post I responded to and to the point I was making. I think it's a good analogy, because the point wasn't about rights vs privileges, but to demonstrate the absurdity of his assertion that simply breaking a law in the past somehow equates to "being shown" one will abuse a right (or privilege) in the future. We don't punish people for what we think they will do in the future, not without evidence that they actually plan to commit a future crime.

But if you wish, we can make an analogy using any of our other protected rights. Prior restraint, for example.

”The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity."

Assume for a moment that the cons favorite newspaper, NYT, actually did break the law by publishing sensitive material. They are charged, convicted and receive their sentence. Does this mean the government can forbid them from publishing anything else, ever again? While I know what many would wish the answer to be, it's no.

In my opinion, the only way you can attempt to argue lack of due process, is if the II Amendment was incorporated, and a state was attempting to place restrictions above that of the fed. If they ugly and bastardized scenario ever came to fruition, you might would have a case Emma. I pray that the II Amendment never gets incorporated.

I pray it does.

 

[Emma]

Lots of violent people never use guns, period.

Felons aren't allowed to own firearms. That's good enough.

As long as they're being monitored on probation, sure. If the State cuts them free, otherwise unencumbered, no.

 

[Emma]

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...

Due process is specific to a specific charge. Just because I've received appropriate due process for a crime doesn't mean that particular instance of due process carries over and covers any further crimes I may commit. The process starts all over again for each and every charge.


It includes what the law explicitly states in sentencing guidelines, including parole and probation considerations for the particular crime. If you want to contend that the state should keep the person on probation and monitored *forever* and thus not have their rights restored, fine. I have no problem with that.

But if you're saying that a person must be perpetually punished even after they have satisfied what the state had deemed their punishment to be for that particular crime and has allowed them to return into society otherwise unencumbered or monitored, then absolutely not.

its PART of the punishment
you keep missing that fact

Read the last sentence in my post again. Slowly.

 

[Emma]

Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to us to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".

well, not really. rights only exist to the extent they are enforced. if you believe a right is being infringed, and you have standing to challenge that infringement, then the remedy is to bring suit.

Well, I agree and disagree lol.

I don't agree that rights only exist if they are enforced. They're inherent.

If there is infringement, then yes. A remedy for that is to sue.

 

[Emma]

and they still have the due process to get the right restored

BTW

Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to us to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".

they HAD due process when the right was revoked
thus its only logical they would need due process to get it restored

the state used due process(the trial and conviction) to remove several rights, and only put a time limit on some of them, and the rest are not limited
like there will still be a record of the conviction and imprisionment
same for the loss of the 2nd amendment rights
the state followed due process

My point flew completely over your head.

 

[DiveCon]

Due process is specific to a specific charge. Just because I've received appropriate due process for a crime doesn't mean that particular instance of due process carries over and covers any further crimes I may commit. The process starts all over again for each and every charge.


It includes what the law explicitly states in sentencing guidelines, including parole and probation considerations for the particular crime. If you want to contend that the state should keep the person on probation and monitored *forever* and thus not have their rights restored, fine. I have no problem with that.

But if you're saying that a person must be perpetually punished even after they have satisfied what the state had deemed their punishment to be for that particular crime and has allowed them to return into society otherwise unencumbered or monitored, then absolutely not.

its PART of the punishment
you keep missing that fact

Read the last sentence in my post again. Slowly.

no, i didnt miss it
you are missing that it is included as a part of the sentence