Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[jillian]

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.

there has always been a right to defense of self and defense of others and defense of one's property... even the biblical mandate says only "thou shalt not murder" (not thou shalt not kill). That has nothing to do with inherant rights...it has to do with societal mores.

As I said, the concept of inherant rights is an interesting philosophical construct. it doesn't exist in the real world.

 

[Emma]

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

Precisely.

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

They don't need gun control as a reason for that; that's already built into sentencing guidelines. And keep in mind---again---I'm talking about people that have paid their debt in full and the state has otherwise fully released them back into society.

 

[DiveCon]

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

Precisely.

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

They don't need gun control as a reason for that; that's already built into sentencing guidelines. And keep in mind---again---I'm talking about people that have paid their debt in full and the state has otherwise fully released them back into society.

this is NOT gun control

 

[B94]

Emma

How about this?

My qualifying misdemeanor conviction happened many years ago—does the federal law apply to me?
Since the effective date of the federal gun law, September 30, 1996, any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition. This applies to persons who were convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence at any time, even before the passage of the law in September 1996.

Taken from here -

http://www.co.hanover.va.us/circuitct/concealed_FirearmsPamphlet.pdf


.

 

[Emma]

Emma

How about this?

My qualifying misdemeanor conviction happened many years ago—does the federal law apply to me?
Since the effective date of the federal gun law, September 30, 1996, any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition. This applies to persons who were convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence at any time, even before the passage of the law in September 1996.

Taken from here -

http://www.co.hanover.va.us/circuitct/concealed_FirearmsPamphlet.pdf.

I disagree with that law for the same reasons I explained above.

And this I find especially troubling (or perhaps I misunderstand): This applies to persons who were convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence at any time, even before the passage of the law in September 1996.

How does that not violate Article I, section 9?


An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians

 

[KittenKoder]

Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians

This is true, and thus why many are pushing for more gun control. Usually, anything the politicians want to take away from us, is a bad idea.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, mal.




Told ya so

i dont think they are extreem
even though i disagree

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.

Just catching up on this thread, but to me it seems that just because someone has been released from prison does not mean that they should automatically have their second amendment or their voting rights or any other rights restored. For the second amendment rights they should have to be deemed not to be a threat to society. For instance, a person convicted of a white collar crime, say embezzlement never was a threat to society's safety. It should not be as difficult for an embezzler to have such rights restored as it would for a person convicted of armed robbery.

Immie

 

[007]

Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians

This is true, and thus why many are pushing for more gun control. Usually, anything the politicians want to take away from us, is a bad idea.

And they've taken enough already.

I think the point was painfully obvious why these people carried their weapons to that rally.

"We're here... we're armed... and we're letting you know it. If you don't back off, we just might put these guns to use, as our FOUNDING FATHERS RECOMMENDED we should do."

 

[KittenKoder]

Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians

This is true, and thus why many are pushing for more gun control. Usually, anything the politicians want to take away from us, is a bad idea.

And they've taken enough already.

I think the point was painfully obvious why these people carried their weapons to that rally.

"We're here... we're armed... and we're letting you know it. If you don't back off, we just might put these guns to use, as our FOUNDING FATHERS RECOMMENDED we should do."

I would support them to if they did. I am just tired of the rights being whittled away like we don't matter anymore. Currently the government and it's blind supporters just want us "little" folk to be their fucking slaves.

 

[Emma]

Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians

This is true, and thus why many are pushing for more gun control. Usually, anything the politicians want to take away from us, is a bad idea.

And they've taken enough already.

I think the point was painfully obvious why these people carried their weapons to that rally.

"We're here... we're armed... and we're letting you know it. If you don't back off, we just might put these guns to use, as our FOUNDING FATHERS RECOMMENDED we should do."

Great job of making Immanuel's point.

 

[Emma]

i dont think they are extreem
even though i disagree

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.

Just catching up on this thread, but to me it seems that just because someone has been released from prison does not mean that they should automatically have their second amendment or their voting rights or any other rights restored. For the second amendment rights they should have to be deemed not to be a threat to society. For instance, a person convicted of a white collar crime, say embezzlement never was a threat to society's safety. It should not be as difficult for an embezzler to have such rights restored as it would for a person convicted of armed robbery.

Immie

If they are deemed a threat to society, then they need to remain in prison, or be monitored on parole.

But I'll ask you the same thing I asked DC...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1445340-post837.html

 

[jillian]

If they are deemed a threat to society, then they need to remain in prison, or be monitored on parole.

But I'll ask you the same thing I asked DC...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1445340-post837.html

there are statutory sentencing guidelines. judges can't sentence someone to more than the statutory...

divesting a felon of his/her right to own a gun isn't gun control. it's just one of the statutory sequellae of a felony conviction.

i'm still not understanding why this troubles you. But someone whose gun rights have been affected in this manner would be able to bring a case challenging it.

I don't know that such a case has ever been contemplated, not even by the gun organizations...

realistically, though, do you think that any judge is ever going to give a gun back to a felon and then have the felon, taking recidivist rates into account, go out and use it in a crime?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Just catching up on this thread, but to me it seems that just because someone has been released from prison does not mean that they should automatically have their second amendment or their voting rights or any other rights restored. For the second amendment rights they should have to be deemed not to be a threat to society. For instance, a person convicted of a white collar crime, say embezzlement never was a threat to society's safety. It should not be as difficult for an embezzler to have such rights restored as it would for a person convicted of armed robbery.

Immie

If they are deemed a threat to society, then they need to remain in prison, or be monitored on parole.

But I'll ask you the same thing I asked DC...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1445340-post837.html

If they are going to going to commit a crime nothing is going to stop them. If they have decided "screw the law, I'm going to get what I want and no one is going to stop me", then nothing will prevent them from doing it. However, if they have lost their right to bare arms and then before they have committed another crime, they are caught with a gun, they can be arrested which would stop that particular crime. However, the chances of that actually happening are slim.

Immie

 

[HUGGY]

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!

Oh don't be so shy..you know I refer to you and the traitors you are co - conspirators with.

Why don't you shitbags go and take over another country. You are not welcome any more.

You will never be part of the solution and we really cannot afford to tolorate your

subversion any longer.

 

[elvis]

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!

Oh don't be so shy..you know I refer to you and the traitors you are co - conspirators with.

Why don't you shitbags go and take over another country. You are not welcome any more.

You will never be part of the solution and we really cannot afford to tolorate your

subversion any longer.

he's not welcome in your socialist Utopia?

 

[HUGGY]

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

Oh don't be so shy..you know I refer to you and the traitors you are co - conspirators with.

Why don't you shitbags go and take over another country. You are not welcome any more.

You will never be part of the solution and we really cannot afford to tolorate your

subversion any longer.

he's not welcome in your socialist Utopia?

I know you are funny if anything. A real hoot.

No matter who the president is ..we still have serious problems to solve. A subversive cannot be tolorated. Remember giving Bush all those war powers and all that you are with us or against us during a time of war? Did you complain then? Is the war over? Has Bin Ladin ben killed or captured?

Beyond the "war" the Bush crime family has nearly destroyed the economy and turned the government over to the k street robbers and fascists.

There is too much work to do to babysit shitsacks like bigot peatie.

You are a little smarter...I suspect you will step back and let people do thier jobs.

One of the key elements to righting our sinking middle class and the entrapanures of small business is relieving them of most of the costs of health care. The birthers and deathers and the fat fucking paste tubes that show up at Becks beckoning to destroy the discussion shouldn't even be allowed the option to leave. I say shoot them down where they stand...whever they can be found. They are clearly traitors. They are clearly the enemies of our future.

 

[garyd]

All of what war powers jackass? The right to be rediculed and disparaged by evey leftist with an axe to grind in America? And they all have axes to grind.

Yeah we've got problems in this country and the blasted democrats with an occasional assist from various Republicans have spent the last 70 odd years creating them and passing them forward to the present and now when there little time bomb has finally blown up in our face here they are insisting that what we need are more damn time bombs and you think the rest of us should sit back and allow you to blow up what's left at some as yet undetermined future date? Give me a break.

 

[HUGGY]

All of what war powers jackass? The right to be rediculed and disparaged by evey leftist with an axe to grind in America? And they all have axes to grind.

Yeah we've got problems in this country and the blasted democrats with an occasional assist from various Republicans have spent the last 70 odd years creating them and passing them forward to the present and now when there little time bomb has finally blown up in our face here they are insisting that what we need are more damn time bombs and you think the rest of us should sit back and allow you to blow up what's left at some as yet undetermined future date? Give me a break.

OR... Obama could have done nothing like Bush. Where the fuck do you think we would be now if ALL the financial institutions failed at once like they nearly did?

Are you fucking totally brain dead or just a run of the mill traitor? You want america to fail because you don't like a nigga in da house. That would be your REAL truth wouldn't it?

Lets just get past all the hate and get down to reality. Do us here at USMB a prop and in as few words as you can explain your grand plan if you were the president and handed a steaming sack of shit like Bush handed off. Obviously you would have had the entire financial sector fall on its tits... take us forward of that little inconvenience.

 

[garyd]

History isn't your strong suit is it Huggy? Bush did TARP. Spent half of it in his last 3+ months in Office so the notion that Bush did nothing is so ludicrous as to defy logic. In fact our last presidential election was a referendum on Tarp. Your boy won largely because he pretended to dislike it.