Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[DiveCon]

Putting Emma's "due process" argument aside, I don't see her position as extreme. In my opinion, it makes logical sense for one to have their II Amendment rights restored, if the government has seen fit to release from prison. If a person is still seen as a real threat and or rehabilitated so as to be part of society again, they shouldn't be released in the first place, in my opinion.

I acknowledge the states have the right to pass laws as they see fit so long as they do not violate the Constitution of the United States. Like Emma, I don't agree with gun control and all that other gun law crap.

the situation is that the loss of the 2nd amendment right was lost in the conviction
just because (without that right) they were not seen as still being a danger to society, doesnt mean that WITH that right they wouldnt be

Rut roh. Getting on damn shaky ground there, DC.

how so?
they know that in releasing them, they wouldnt have the right to own guns, with that right, would you still release them?
i woulndt(of course this is in regard to early release) and the prision times would likely be increased otherwise

 

[Emma]

the situation is that the loss of the 2nd amendment right was lost in the conviction
just because (without that right) they were not seen as still being a danger to society, doesnt mean that WITH that right they wouldnt be

Given that position Dive, none of us should have any weapons, as we all have the potential to hurt or kill someone in a wrongful manner with our weapons.

I understand what Emma is saying. I don't agree with all of her reasoning, but her core point I do. I also realize that there were restrictions even during the days of our founding fathers. And when they had served their time, they got their weapons back. I would like to see us get back to that. It probably won't happen, given the nanny state love that so many have. But I will keep working to that end just the same.

and we would, should we establish that we are not able to be responsible with them
this is not a case of someone never having done anything wrong having that right removed

IMO, that is a very weak argument. We don't punish people for what they might do, unless there is evidence that they actually do have plans to commit a crime (and even then, that's a hard row to hoe).

 

[Emma]

i dont think they are extreem
even though i disagree

Of course you do. You want to punish people in perpetuity because they might commit another crime.

they got that punishment by committing that crime
i didn't tell, force or make them do that, they took on that all on their own

and again, they do have the right to petition to have that right restored
so, it isn't "in perpetuity"

Due process is specific to a specific charge. And that charge carries a specific sentencing guidelines (be it fines, jail, probation or all of the above). Once those are met, any further deprivation of life, liberty or property should require a further and separate application of due process by the state.

 

[DiveCon]

Given that position Dive, none of us should have any weapons, as we all have the potential to hurt or kill someone in a wrongful manner with our weapons.

I understand what Emma is saying. I don't agree with all of her reasoning, but her core point I do. I also realize that there were restrictions even during the days of our founding fathers. And when they had served their time, they got their weapons back. I would like to see us get back to that. It probably won't happen, given the nanny state love that so many have. But I will keep working to that end just the same.

and we would, should we establish that we are not able to be responsible with them
this is not a case of someone never having done anything wrong having that right removed

IMO, that is a very weak argument. We don't punish people for what they might do, unless there is evidence that they actually do have plans to commit a crime (and even then, that's a hard row to hoe).

actually, we do
after they have already DONE it
we put them in prision so they cant do it again

 

[Emma]

Putting Emma's "due process" argument aside, I don't see her position as extreme. In my opinion, it makes logical sense for one to have their II Amendment rights restored, if the government has seen fit to release from prison. If a person is still seen as a real threat and or rehabilitated so as to be part of society again, they shouldn't be released in the first place, in my opinion.

I acknowledge the states have the right to pass laws as they see fit so long as they do not violate the Constitution of the United States. Like Emma, I don't agree with gun control and all that other gun law crap.

For the record, I'm not just in favor of restoring their 2nd amendment rights, but all rights of citizenship. Including the right to vote.

You are a trouble maker Emma.

Oh, I do so love to poke people with a sharp stick

 

[DiveCon]

Of course you do. You want to punish people in perpetuity because they might commit another crime.

they got that punishment by committing that crime
i didn't tell, force or make them do that, they took on that all on their own

and again, they do have the right to petition to have that right restored
so, it isn't "in perpetuity"

Due process is specific to a specific charge. And that charge carries a specific sentencing guidelines (be it fines, jail, probation or all of the above). Once those are met, any further deprivation of life, liberty or property should require a further and separate application of due process by the state.

incorrect
they lost the right in the first due process
the next thing in the line of due process is for them to request the return of that right

 

[DiveCon]

For the record, I'm not just in favor of restoring their 2nd amendment rights, but all rights of citizenship. Including the right to vote.

You are a trouble maker Emma.

Oh, I do so love to poke people with a sharp stick

and for that, it is determined by the laws of the state
not all states remove voting rights from felons
Maine is one that doesn't
not even during the time of incarceration

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

If the II Amendment were to ever be incorporated, you would see further restrictions by the federal government across all the states. Incorporation does not bind the feds Emma. It loosens their chains.

As to your question about the NYT, no, the government could not order such.

 

[Emma]

Dive. Question and please answer honestly.

Do you agree with the argument by some 2nd amendment supporters that restricting the right to bear arms only hurts law-abiding citizens?

 

[Emma]

and we would, should we establish that we are not able to be responsible with them
this is not a case of someone never having done anything wrong having that right removed

IMO, that is a very weak argument. We don't punish people for what they might do, unless there is evidence that they actually do have plans to commit a crime (and even then, that's a hard row to hoe).

actually, we do
after they have already DONE it
we put them in prision so they cant do it again

What? First you argue we should restrict their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime, then you say we do so after they've already "done it"? And as to putting them in prison so that they can't do it again, that doesn't address my point whatsoever.

 

[DiveCon]

IMO, that is a very weak argument. We don't punish people for what they might do, unless there is evidence that they actually do have plans to commit a crime (and even then, that's a hard row to hoe).

actually, we do
after they have already DONE it
we put them in prision so they cant do it again

What? First you argue we should restrict their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime, then you say we do so after they've already "done it"? And as to putting them in prison so that they can't do it again, that doesn't address my point whatsoever.

because they have already done it, they need to be restricted

 

[DiveCon]

Dive. Question and please answer honestly.

Do you agree with the argument by some 2nd amendment supporters that restricting the right to bear arms only hurts law-abiding citizens?

to an extent, yes
but felons are not "law abiding"

 

[Emma]

You are a trouble maker Emma.

Oh, I do so love to poke people with a sharp stick

and for that, it is determined by the laws of the state
not all states remove voting rights from felons
Maine is one that doesn't
not even during the time of incarceration

Ah, but some do (35 of them, I believe). Do you believe their right to vote should be restored after they've paid their debt?

 

[jillian]

Did the cave men have to have tribal decrees to tell them they had a right to protect themselves and their property?

If the federal government forbade you from using any force whatsoever, to protect yourself and your property, would you acquiesce?

this country interned second generation americans during WWII....

still think rights are inherant?

 

[DiveCon]

Oh, I do so love to poke people with a sharp stick

and for that, it is determined by the laws of the state
not all states remove voting rights from felons
Maine is one that doesn't
not even during the time of incarceration

Ah, but some do (35 of them, I believe). Do you believe their right to vote should be restored after they've paid their debt?

i'm kinda split on that one
i can see that it should be restored, but when i think about the likelyhood of who they would vote for, it makes me not want it

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Did the cave men have to have tribal decrees to tell them they had a right to protect themselves and their property?

If the federal government forbade you from using any force whatsoever, to protect yourself and your property, would you acquiesce?

this country interned second generation americans during WWII....

still think rights are inherant?

Just because a right is inherent, that doesn't mean it can't be abused. As I have said before, there is no such thing as an absolute right without responsibility.

You didn't answer my question Jillian.

 

[Emma]

Dive. Question and please answer honestly.

Do you agree with the argument by some 2nd amendment supporters that restricting the right to bear arms only hurts law-abiding citizens?

to an extent, yes
but felons are not "law abiding"

Technically they are until they commit another crime, but that is irrelevant to the point regardless.

You realize what you've been arguing all along is the classic fallacy that gun control and restrictions prevent crime. (eta: or more to the point, prevent criminals from using guns)

Or can you explain to us how not restoring their 2nd amendment rights and telling them "you can't own a gun" is going to prevent someone from committing another crime using a firearm?

"Aw! Here I am, going to rob a bank and I can't use a gun! Damn!"

 

[DiveCon]

Dive. Question and please answer honestly.

Do you agree with the argument by some 2nd amendment supporters that restricting the right to bear arms only hurts law-abiding citizens?

to an extent, yes
but felons are not "law abiding"

Technically they are until they commit another crime, but that is irrelevant to the point regardless.

You realize what you've been arguing all along is the classic fallacy that gun control and restrictions prevent crime.

Or can you explain to us how not restoring their 2nd amendment rights and telling them "you can't own a gun" is going to prevent someone from committing another crime using a firearm?

"Aw! Here I am, going to rob a bank and I can't use a gun! Damn!"

doesnt matter
i agree with them losing that right

 

[Emma]

to an extent, yes
but felons are not "law abiding"

Technically they are until they commit another crime, but that is irrelevant to the point regardless.

You realize what you've been arguing all along is the classic fallacy that gun control and restrictions prevent crime.

Or can you explain to us how not restoring their 2nd amendment rights and telling them "you can't own a gun" is going to prevent someone from committing another crime using a firearm?

"Aw! Here I am, going to rob a bank and I can't use a gun! Damn!"

doesnt matter
i agree with them losing that right

It doesn't matter?



You've painted yourself into a corner, my friend.

Either you believe that gun control and restrictions prevent and reduce crime and effectively prevent criminals from using guns, or you don't.

And somehow, I don't think I've ever seen you take that stance on gun control. It's always been more along the lines of 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' kinda thing.

Can't have it both ways

 

[DiveCon]

Technically they are until they commit another crime, but that is irrelevant to the point regardless.

You realize what you've been arguing all along is the classic fallacy that gun control and restrictions prevent crime.

Or can you explain to us how not restoring their 2nd amendment rights and telling them "you can't own a gun" is going to prevent someone from committing another crime using a firearm?

"Aw! Here I am, going to rob a bank and I can't use a gun! Damn!"

doesnt matter
i agree with them losing that right

It doesn't matter?



You've painted yourself into a corner, my friend.

Either you believe that gun control and restrictions prevent and reduce crime and effectively prevent criminals from using guns, or you don't.

And somehow, I don't think I've ever seen you take that stance on gun control. It's always been more along the lines of 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' kinda thing.

Can't have it both ways

nope
gun control laws dont matter to the criminal
and while you are right that a felon determined to buy a gun and violate his release, wouldnt be stopped by the law, it does give law enforcement one more reason that the next time they deserve a longer sentence