Reckless Domestic abusers lose right to...

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS ruled yesterday that "reckless" domestic abusers lose their Second Amendment rights. I keep telling you the Left will use SCOTUS to take away our Second Amendment rights and here it is.

Voisine v. United States

So sick that it was 6-2 decision. Seriously WTF

What other rights should "reckless domestic abusers" lose, Right to vote, no? Do we want people with a misdemeanor voting? I think not

Slippery Slope and we're on it

I don't see the issue. When you are convicted of a crime, you can have your rights restricted

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? Clearly there is a direct correlation between someone who committed a violent crime and having a gun.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vote Johnson, because Trump would destroy the court and Hilary would appoint hard lefties.

How would he destroy the court,the hysterical nonsense just keeps coming

The list Trump put out has nobody on there that would destroy the court.thats just ridiculous .

You are a very foolish person if you do not see Trump's megalomaniac narcissistic personality disorder. He will brook no resistance from anybody or any institution.

I agree, but then you look at the lying, hate filled, screaming, arrogant Hildabeast and don't see anything wrong. That is what's wrong with you, Jake

We are talking about Trump and his hatred of any opposition and his inability to live by common courtesy and decency

I am not voting for Hillary, but for Johnson, so bringing up Hillary is a disingenuous tactic and deception.

Regardless of who you claim to be voting for, you make the same point about Trump over and over with silence about Hillary and her extreme and constant hate in her speeches

Trump should be named and shamed over and over, and anyone voting for him should be outed as well.

Vote for Johnson.

 

[kaz]

SCOTUS ruled yesterday that "reckless" domestic abusers lose their Second Amendment rights. I keep telling you the Left will use SCOTUS to take away our Second Amendment rights and here it is.

Voisine v. United States

So sick that it was 6-2 decision. Seriously WTF

What other rights should "reckless domestic abusers" lose, Right to vote, no? Do we want people with a misdemeanor voting? I think not

Slippery Slope and we're on it

I don't see the issue. When you are convicted of a crime, you can have your rights restricted

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

If you are engaged in reckless violence, yes, goes the reasoning. SwimExpert is making boodles of sense on this.

Swish, he wasn't asking how you feel, Jake, it was a Constitutional question

 

[kaz]

SCOTUS ruled yesterday that "reckless" domestic abusers lose their Second Amendment rights. I keep telling you the Left will use SCOTUS to take away our Second Amendment rights and here it is.

Voisine v. United States

So sick that it was 6-2 decision. Seriously WTF

What other rights should "reckless domestic abusers" lose, Right to vote, no? Do we want people with a misdemeanor voting? I think not

Slippery Slope and we're on it

I don't see the issue. When you are convicted of a crime, you can have your rights restricted

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? Clearly there is a direct correlation between someone who committed a violent crime and having a gun.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years.

That's what I just said

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS ruled yesterday that "reckless" domestic abusers lose their Second Amendment rights. I keep telling you the Left will use SCOTUS to take away our Second Amendment rights and here it is.

Voisine v. United States

So sick that it was 6-2 decision. Seriously WTF

What other rights should "reckless domestic abusers" lose, Right to vote, no? Do we want people with a misdemeanor voting? I think not

Slippery Slope and we're on it

I don't see the issue. When you are convicted of a crime, you can have your rights restricted

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? Clearly there is a direct correlation between someone who committed a violent crime and having a gun.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years.

That's what I just said

Then you agree with a loosely worded ruling that threatens all of our rights if we engage in 'reckless violence'.

 

[kaz]

I don't see the issue. When you are convicted of a crime, you can have your rights restricted

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? Clearly there is a direct correlation between someone who committed a violent crime and having a gun.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years

That's what I just said

Then you agree with a loosely worded ruling that threatens all of our rights if we engage in 'reckless violence'.

So you made a point that repeated my point, now you're arguing with me about the point that you just agreed with? What is wrong with you, Jake. Seriously

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SCOTUS ruled yesterday that "reckless" domestic abusers lose their Second Amendment rights. I keep telling you the Left will use SCOTUS to take away our Second Amendment rights and here it is.

Voisine v. United States

So sick that it was 6-2 decision. Seriously WTF

What other rights should "reckless domestic abusers" lose, Right to vote, no? Do we want people with a misdemeanor voting? I think not

Slippery Slope and we're on it

I don't see the issue. When you are convicted of a crime, you can have your rights restricted

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? The fifth says due process. Clearly there is a direct connection between someone who committed a violent crime against their own family and having a gun. It's not random or arbitrary.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

Where does the Second say that either?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? Clearly there is a direct correlation between someone who committed a violent crime and having a gun.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years

That's what I just said

Then you agree with a loosely worded ruling that threatens all of our rights if we engage in 'reckless violence'.

So you made a point that repeated my point, now you're arguing with me about the point that you just agreed with? What is wrong with you, Jake. Seriously

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years.

Now you are arguing with yourself. Typical libertarian nonsense.

 

[kaz]

SCOTUS ruled yesterday that "reckless" domestic abusers lose their Second Amendment rights. I keep telling you the Left will use SCOTUS to take away our Second Amendment rights and here it is.

Voisine v. United States

So sick that it was 6-2 decision. Seriously WTF

What other rights should "reckless domestic abusers" lose, Right to vote, no? Do we want people with a misdemeanor voting? I think not

Slippery Slope and we're on it

I don't see the issue. When you are convicted of a crime, you can have your rights restricted

So, if you're convinced of a misdemeanor you can lose your right to property, speech and privacy as well?

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? The fifth says due process. Clearly there is a direct connection between someone who committed a violent crime against their own family and having a gun. It's not random or arbitrary.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

Where does the Second say that either?

The Bill of Rights lists our rights, then the fifth says those can only be restricted without due process of law. That's the point, Frank. You needed the fifth repeated in every other amendment? That's stupid. And clearly by your argument, prisoners can have guns too or it's violating the second. What a ridiculous argument

 

[kaz]

Yes. Where does the fifth say felony? Clearly there is a direct correlation between someone who committed a violent crime and having a gun.

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years

That's what I just said

Then you agree with a loosely worded ruling that threatens all of our rights if we engage in 'reckless violence'.

So you made a point that repeated my point, now you're arguing with me about the point that you just agreed with? What is wrong with you, Jake. Seriously

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years.

Now you are arguing with yourself. Typical libertarian nonsense.

Right Jake, when you agree with me and then start arguing with me about the point you just agreed with, I'm arguing with myself. I guess you think the voices in your head are actually real ...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years

That's what I just said

Then you agree with a loosely worded ruling that threatens all of our rights if we engage in 'reckless violence'.

So you made a point that repeated my point, now you're arguing with me about the point that you just agreed with? What is wrong with you, Jake. Seriously

And BTW, only leftists are stupid enough to think that is going to prevent him from getting a gun. The goal is to catch him with one and put him back in jail where he belongs

The goal is to catch him with one in violation of the law and put him in jail for twenty years.

Now you are arguing with yourself. Typical libertarian nonsense.

Right Jake, when you agree with me and then start arguing with me about the point you just agreed with, I'm arguing with myself. I guess you think the voices in your head are actually real ...

You agreed with me then started complaining.

 

[HappyJoy]

If you're convicted of a violent crime (such a domestic violence), why should you be able to keep your guns? It displays aggression, lack of empathy for others, and potentially a loss of the ability to keep one's cool.

It was a misdemeanor...it was "reckless" and not directed at anyone. Under this ruling a speeding ticket will one day cost you your Second Amendment right

That is ridiculous. You act as though domestic abuse was just a random crime they chose out of a hat.

Fun fact: Slamming the front door into the wall as you try to escape your abuser, putting a hole in it, can result in a domestic violence conviction.

Actually, no, that's not a fun fact at all, considering the immense power you want the government to wield upon the label of "domestic violence" being affixed to an act.

Fun fact: 'Your abuser' at the very least shouldn't be armed.

And should also lose his right to speech, privacy and vote too.

Nope.

 

[HappyJoy]

Fun fact: 'Your abuser' at the very least shouldn't be armed.

That is a relief. It's comforting to know that if someone wants to kill me, they'll be swayed by an aversion to violating gun laws. Meanwhile, your post fails to address the point.

Domestic abuse is often an impulsive crime.

If someone is convicted of domestic or spousal abuse that's good enough for me, if you want to point out the exception as the rule that's fine, I find it grasping at straws and unconvincing.

 

[SwimExpert]

Domestic abuse is often an impulsive crime.

Are you seriously this stupid?

 

[HappyJoy]

Domestic abuse is often an impulsive crime.

Are you seriously this stupid?

It's anger fueled and is often not preplanned.

 

[SwimExpert]

Domestic abuse is often an impulsive crime.

Are you seriously this stupid?

It's anger fueled and is often not preplanned.

So then there is no justification for denying someone's second amendment rights from them!



God damn, you are one stupid mother fucking mouth breather of a trailer trash inbreeding experiment!

 

[HappyJoy]

Domestic abuse is often an impulsive crime.

Are you seriously this stupid?

It's anger fueled and is often not preplanned.

So then there is no justification for denying someone's second amendment rights from them!



God damn, you are one stupid mother fucking mouth breather of a trailer trash inbreeding experiment!

People who abuse their spouses tend to be volatile and commit unplanned acts of aggression, I'd prefer they not have easy access to guns where in a fit of anger they may use them. That is my point. I have no idea what you are jerking yourself off over.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If you're convicted of a violent crime (such a domestic violence), why should you be able to keep your guns? It displays aggression, lack of empathy for others, and potentially a loss of the ability to keep one's cool.

they should lose the privilege to drive as well

cars can be very dangerous to those who lose their cool

This is the problem right here. I'm not for banning guns. I'm not for banning "assault weapons". I'm not for gun-free zones. I'm not for not allowing teachers to arm themselves in school.

However you can't say with straight face that somebody convicted (not just arrested) with a violent felony should still be able to own guns. There's not reasonable. So you deflect into cars/driving.

i guess with a straight face i can

once a person has paid his due

his rights need to be restored

in fact that is the case out here for the most part

why is a convicted felon who cant be trusted out in the public anyway

and not still behind bars

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What other Rights should they lose? Speech? Vote?

Did you even read my post? I oppose the stripping of rights.

But you said that "the ruling was correct "?

 

[SwimExpert]

What other Rights should they lose? Speech? Vote?

Did you even read my post? I oppose the stripping of rights.

But you said that "the ruling was correct "?

Yes, the ruling is correct because the constitution allows for rights to be deprived with due process of the law. The courts have always recognized that where due process is provided the government has quite a bit of power to deprive a person of their rights. Even your very life can be taken from you by the government if you are given due process of the law first. Your fundamental rights can be denied to you for the rest of your life for a great many crimes, even when your sentence is otherwise complete. Whether it is right or wrong to do so as this particular law prescribes is a political question for the people to address through the normal political process. This decision is entirely consistent with precedents spanning our entire history. However the case going the opposite direction would have been inconsistent and would have created a whole new world.

Like I said, while the act may be constitutional and the ruling is correct legally speaking, it is quite undesirable for the government to have so much power.