Second amendment, should felons be allowed to own guns?

[Levant]

Last I checked it doesn't say that you should be permitted to have internet access...

Actually, it does. Check the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If you could point out the words "internet access", that'd be just swell...

No need; it is explicitly included by it's exclusion. You clearly haven't read, or don't understand, the two amendments so I'll post them here for you. If there's some part of them that's not clear, let me know and I'll help you understand.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Levant]

I agree that the measures taken by government are almost invariably to strengthen it. However, with regard to a felon. You know the line. We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights...
If you accost me, you are robbing me of those precious rights which I cannot sell away. Therefore, society (government) has determined that you must forgo some of yours permanently.
I don't disagree with it completely.

Rights that government can take away are not rights. The fundamental principle of our Constitution and that the Founders worked for was a government that could NOT take away rights. Rights that the government can take are not rights at all; they're privileges.

I do not disagree with this. But I think there are limits.

I also think Jitsie, as evidenced by his fantasies, should not be armed. For the safety of anyone who disagrees with him.

In the United States, at least how it is supposed to be, we punish for crimes committed rather than for the psychological inclination to commit a crime. There are limits, though, you're correct. They're defined in the Constitution as limits on government, not limits on people's rights.

Think of it this way. You are, or at least I am, by nature free and no man has any natural authority over us. By consent of our forefathers, government was created to provide for those things we cannot reasonably accomplish as individuals and that government was created by our Constitution. Similar to covenants on a home or property, their agreement on the Constitution binds their descendants. Others, who came later, voluntarily accepted the same covenants that now binds their own descendants. So now we have a government that has some authority - as created and limited by the Constitution.

If you think government has some authority to restrict a person's liberty then you should be able to define from where in the Constitution that authority comes. Otherwise, you must accept that they have some power simply by being "government"; that they have some natural power, by birth perhaps, over you.

I accept the role of government, as defined and limited by the Constitution, and accept the authority that grants to the Government. I do not accept any other authority, not traceable to the Constitution, or any natural right of any man to rule over me. No doubt, there are those who, unjustly, exercise authority over me by the power of their guns and prisons, and I succumb to it while I must, but I do not accept it as their right or just authority.

All those who exercise power by threat or by any means other than the authority of the United States Constitution, or State Constitutions where they are compliant with the United States Constitution, do so only through tyranny and are, themselves, tyrants.

So, if you think the Federal Government has the authority to strip convicted felons from any of the rights, privileges, or immunities of the United States, please provide the constitutional authority to back it up.

I did not say his constitutional rights should be stripped or abridged. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has made his purchase or possession of a modern firearm illegal.

What I did say is that Jitsie should not be armed because of his violent fantasies and tendency to threaten those who disagree with him. That is a personal opinion of his nature, nothing more.

You said there are limits... Please explain what limits, constitutionally, there are to him owning a gun.

 

[Levant]

I live in a democratic run city which is over oppressive I have many felonies and I have more to come because of how they treat the citizens.. I want a gun to protect my self but can’t.

No one is stopping you from owning a gun but what is stopping you is that you would never own it legally.

If what you write is true and you have many felonies then no you should never be allow to own a firearm and why?

You are a prime example of a mass shooter in the making and why would I write that?

Simple, your thread calling for acts of violence in Boston, so no you shouldn't be allow to own one legally...

Where have a called for acts of violence in Boston?

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/i-will-be-calling-for-a-federal-coup-of-all-democrats-in-boston-massachusetts.784806/

Try not to pretend you never made asinine threats!

Where do you see violence? I never mention violence moron

Dude you lie all the time and have said you would use violence against Democrats, so just shut up for once!

You shouldn't even be allow in society but as long as you have no broken any law society will let you walk freely...

In the end you have a violent side and should not ever own a firearm legally...

Use a baseball bat for protection if you can lift one...

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Last I checked it doesn't say that you should be permitted to have internet access...

Actually, it does. Check the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If you could point out the words "internet access", that'd be just swell...

Internet access is not a constitutional right. But it is considered part of the public utilities

If it's not a right then show the government's authority to restrict it.

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree that the measures taken by government are almost invariably to strengthen it. However, with regard to a felon. You know the line. We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights...
If you accost me, you are robbing me of those precious rights which I cannot sell away. Therefore, society (government) has determined that you must forgo some of yours permanently.
I don't disagree with it completely.

Rights that government can take away are not rights. The fundamental principle of our Constitution and that the Founders worked for was a government that could NOT take away rights. Rights that the government can take are not rights at all; they're privileges.

I do not disagree with this. But I think there are limits.

I also think Jitsie, as evidenced by his fantasies, should not be armed. For the safety of anyone who disagrees with him.

In the United States, at least how it is supposed to be, we punish for crimes committed rather than for the psychological inclination to commit a crime. There are limits, though, you're correct. They're defined in the Constitution as limits on government, not limits on people's rights.

Think of it this way. You are, or at least I am, by nature free and no man has any natural authority over us. By consent of our forefathers, government was created to provide for those things we cannot reasonably accomplish as individuals and that government was created by our Constitution. Similar to covenants on a home or property, their agreement on the Constitution binds their descendants. Others, who came later, voluntarily accepted the same covenants that now binds their own descendants. So now we have a government that has some authority - as created and limited by the Constitution.

If you think government has some authority to restrict a person's liberty then you should be able to define from where in the Constitution that authority comes. Otherwise, you must accept that they have some power simply by being "government"; that they have some natural power, by birth perhaps, over you.

I accept the role of government, as defined and limited by the Constitution, and accept the authority that grants to the Government. I do not accept any other authority, not traceable to the Constitution, or any natural right of any man to rule over me. No doubt, there are those who, unjustly, exercise authority over me by the power of their guns and prisons, and I succumb to it while I must, but I do not accept it as their right or just authority.

All those who exercise power by threat or by any means other than the authority of the United States Constitution, or State Constitutions where they are compliant with the United States Constitution, do so only through tyranny and are, themselves, tyrants.

So, if you think the Federal Government has the authority to strip convicted felons from any of the rights, privileges, or immunities of the United States, please provide the constitutional authority to back it up.

I did not say his constitutional rights should be stripped or abridged. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has made his purchase or possession of a modern firearm illegal.

What I did say is that Jitsie should not be armed because of his violent fantasies and tendency to threaten those who disagree with him. That is a personal opinion of his nature, nothing more.

You said there are limits... Please explain what limits, constitutionally, there are to him owning a gun.

A simple one would be that he is not allowed to own a gun while incarcerated.

A more complex one would be not allowing the seriously mentally ill to own a gun.

 

[Canon Shooter]

If it's not a right then show the government's authority to restrict it.

Okay, so you can't show where the Constitution says you have a right to internet access.

That's good, because it doesn't say that. Now, maybe you pay for said access wit' yo' gub'mint check every month, but that doesn;t mean you have a right to it...

 

[WinterBorn]

I live in a democratic run city which is over oppressive I have many felonies and I have more to come because of how they treat the citizens.. I want a gun to protect my self but can’t.

No one is stopping you from owning a gun but what is stopping you is that you would never own it legally.

If what you write is true and you have many felonies then no you should never be allow to own a firearm and why?

You are a prime example of a mass shooter in the making and why would I write that?

Simple, your thread calling for acts of violence in Boston, so no you shouldn't be allow to own one legally...

Where have a called for acts of violence in Boston?

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/i-will-be-calling-for-a-federal-coup-of-all-democrats-in-boston-massachusetts.784806/

Try not to pretend you never made asinine threats!

Where do you see violence? I never mention violence moron

Dude you lie all the time and have said you would use violence against Democrats, so just shut up for once!

You shouldn't even be allow in society but as long as you have no broken any law society will let you walk freely...

In the end you have a violent side and should not ever own a firearm legally...

Use a baseball bat for protection if you can lift one...

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Last I checked it doesn't say that you should be permitted to have internet access...

Actually, it does. Check the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If you could point out the words "internet access", that'd be just swell...

Internet access is not a constitutional right. But it is considered part of the public utilities

If it's not a right then show the government's authority to restrict it.

While there are a few that are publically owned (by cities or states), most are privately owned. The interstate commerce clause would provide the constitutional basis for some of the regulation. Also, the fact that the utilities are placed on public lands (public right-of-way) gives them another method of regulating.

 

[toobfreak]

You would certainly use it against minorities while claiming self defense when it was you that started the fight.

I’m a minority where I am.. and what’s wrong with confronting things in my community that see as bad?

Because what you consider bad is just the fact that you do not want anyone that is non-white in your neighborhood...

Fact is if you have a felony based on a violent crime then no you should not own a gun...

Not true I see kids walking around with there pants hanging down why can’t I confront them with a equalizer .

What business is it of yours if they wear their pants hanging down? You don't like it? Look away. You should not be able to confront them with a gun just because you don't like the way their wear their clothes?

It’s offensive to my daughter it’s offensive to my grandmother is offensive to my mother and I have a right to say what I want

Actually, you don't have that right.

Localities have the right to set local standards, and if walking around with half your ass hanging out is deemed a violation of local decency standards, you have every right to complain and the offender his every right to face a judge and be fined in a courtroom.

A sad fact that you even have to have this discussion in America defending a person's right to indecent behavior but not a person's right not to have themselves or their children forced to accept it.

 

[toobfreak]

You would certainly use it against minorities while claiming self defense when it was you that started the fight.

I’m a minority where I am.. and what’s wrong with confronting things in my community that see as bad?

Because what you consider bad is just the fact that you do not want anyone that is non-white in your neighborhood...

Fact is if you have a felony based on a violent crime then no you should not own a gun...

Not true I see kids walking around with there pants hanging down why can’t I confront them with a equalizer .

What business is it of yours if they wear their pants hanging down? You don't like it? Look away. You should not be able to confront them with a gun just because you don't like the way their wear their clothes?

It’s offensive to my daughter it’s offensive to my grandmother is offensive to my mother and I have a right to say what I want

The way you talk to women (and about women) on this forum should be offensive to your daughter.

And I hate that you and your daughter are offended. But there is nothing in the US Constitution or the US legal code that says you have to be free from being offended.

Maybe if you were less of a snowflake, you wouldn't be offended.

All I’m doing is asking them to pull their pants up they might become violent usually people that have their pants hanging down are most likely going to be violent and now they’re going to meet their maker

I started out on your side in this topic.

So, your views are wishy-washy and subject to whim and change? It doesn't sound like you really know what you're talking about!

Although I certainly do support the right of released felons to possess a gun, you're an argument against it. A lot of gun banners will look to you and people like you to counter my arguments - as we've already seen on this thread.

Why is that? Because you have taken a mere statement that a person has a right to own a gun in a situation where he expects another person to be carrying a gun and be a likely potential threat or violent case?

If you ever do shoot someone in self-defense, these posts here will, hopefully, be reviewed and your intent to look for trouble and to shoot someone when that trouble comes will be part of the case against you. When you are looking for trouble, there's no self defense case to make. Maybe then, Massachusetts will lock you away forever... but, unfortunately for Massachusets, those liberals you hate so much keep letting people like you out of prison.

Why do you constantly try to turn everything into an ad hominem attack? I see no one here proposing looking for trouble, only common sense, and a desire of upholding moral standards in their community that they feel safe their children being out in. And the ability to defend oneself if need be. Bottom line is simple COMMON SENSE: upstanding citizens of the community don't walk around with their pants down their ass. That is gangsta dress, it sends a message, and invites trouble and crime into the neighborhood. Funny that you should DEFEND THAT.

 

[toobfreak]

I agree that the measures taken by government are almost invariably to strengthen it. However, with regard to a felon. You know the line. We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights...
If you accost me, you are robbing me of those precious rights which I cannot sell away. Therefore, society (government) has determined that you must forgo some of yours permanently.
I don't disagree with it completely.

Rights that government can take away are not rights. The fundamental principle of our Constitution and that the Founders worked for was a government that could NOT take away rights. Rights that the government can take are not rights at all; they're privileges.

I do not disagree with this. But I think there are limits.

I also think Jitsie, as evidenced by his fantasies, should not be armed. For the safety of anyone who disagrees with him.

You are, or at least I am, by nature free and no man has any natural authority over us.

You think you are free? That no one has any natural authority over you? You are very naive, aren't you? I see you spend too much time in books rather out in the real world.

If you think government has some authority to restrict a person's liberty then you should be able to define from where in the Constitution that authority comes.

80-90% of the laws out there now restricting your life have no basis or place found in the Constitution, in fact, stand in bold contrast to it.

I accept the role of government, as defined and limited by the Constitution, and accept the authority that grants to the Government. I do not accept any other authority, not traceable to the Constitution, or any natural right of any man to rule over me.

HaHa! Doesn't matter SQUAT what you "accept," Natural boy! You have no natural or allodial rights. You own nothing, including your own body. It has all been taken away from you while you were in the library reading all about history and idealism.

No doubt, there are those who, unjustly, exercise authority over me by the power of their guns and prisons, and I succumb to it while I must, but I do not accept it as their right or just authority.

That and a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Tell that to your inmates while you are rotting away.

All those who exercise power by threat or by any means other than the authority of the United States Constitution, or State Constitutions where they are compliant with the United States Constitution, do so only through tyranny and are, themselves, tyrants.

So, WE THE PEOPLE means nothing to you, and no one but the government has the authority to exercise any power over you no matter what you do to them without being a tyrant? Interesting.

 

[toobfreak]

I live in a democratic run city which is over oppressive I have many felonies and I have more to come because of how they treat the citizens.. I want a gun to protect my self but can’t.

No one is stopping you from owning a gun but what is stopping you is that you would never own it legally.

If what you write is true and you have many felonies then no you should never be allow to own a firearm and why?

You are a prime example of a mass shooter in the making and why would I write that?

Simple, your thread calling for acts of violence in Boston, so no you shouldn't be allow to own one legally...

Where have a called for acts of violence in Boston?

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/i-will-be-calling-for-a-federal-coup-of-all-democrats-in-boston-massachusetts.784806/

Try not to pretend you never made asinine threats!

Where do you see violence? I never mention violence moron

Dude you lie all the time and have said you would use violence against Democrats, so just shut up for once!

You shouldn't even be allow in society but as long as you have no broken any law society will let you walk freely...

In the end you have a violent side and should not ever own a firearm legally...

Use a baseball bat for protection if you can lift one...

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Last I checked it doesn't say that you should be permitted to have internet access...

Actually, it does. Check the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If you could point out the words "internet access", that'd be just swell...

Internet access is not a constitutional right. But it is considered part of the public utilities

If it's not a right then show the government's authority to restrict it.

Isn't that a question better asked of the government?

 

[Levant]

I agree that the measures taken by government are almost invariably to strengthen it. However, with regard to a felon. You know the line. We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights...
If you accost me, you are robbing me of those precious rights which I cannot sell away. Therefore, society (government) has determined that you must forgo some of yours permanently.
I don't disagree with it completely.

Rights that government can take away are not rights. The fundamental principle of our Constitution and that the Founders worked for was a government that could NOT take away rights. Rights that the government can take are not rights at all; they're privileges.

I do not disagree with this. But I think there are limits.

I also think Jitsie, as evidenced by his fantasies, should not be armed. For the safety of anyone who disagrees with him.

In the United States, at least how it is supposed to be, we punish for crimes committed rather than for the psychological inclination to commit a crime. There are limits, though, you're correct. They're defined in the Constitution as limits on government, not limits on people's rights.

Think of it this way. You are, or at least I am, by nature free and no man has any natural authority over us. By consent of our forefathers, government was created to provide for those things we cannot reasonably accomplish as individuals and that government was created by our Constitution. Similar to covenants on a home or property, their agreement on the Constitution binds their descendants. Others, who came later, voluntarily accepted the same covenants that now binds their own descendants. So now we have a government that has some authority - as created and limited by the Constitution.

If you think government has some authority to restrict a person's liberty then you should be able to define from where in the Constitution that authority comes. Otherwise, you must accept that they have some power simply by being "government"; that they have some natural power, by birth perhaps, over you.

I accept the role of government, as defined and limited by the Constitution, and accept the authority that grants to the Government. I do not accept any other authority, not traceable to the Constitution, or any natural right of any man to rule over me. No doubt, there are those who, unjustly, exercise authority over me by the power of their guns and prisons, and I succumb to it while I must, but I do not accept it as their right or just authority.

All those who exercise power by threat or by any means other than the authority of the United States Constitution, or State Constitutions where they are compliant with the United States Constitution, do so only through tyranny and are, themselves, tyrants.

So, if you think the Federal Government has the authority to strip convicted felons from any of the rights, privileges, or immunities of the United States, please provide the constitutional authority to back it up.

I did not say his constitutional rights should be stripped or abridged. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has made his purchase or possession of a modern firearm illegal.

What I did say is that Jitsie should not be armed because of his violent fantasies and tendency to threaten those who disagree with him. That is a personal opinion of his nature, nothing more.

You said there are limits... Please explain what limits, constitutionally, there are to him owning a gun.

A simple one would be that he is not allowed to own a gun while incarcerated.

A more complex one would be not allowing the seriously mentally ill to own a gun.

You gave limits but not constitutional limits. You didn't read, or at least didn't answer, the question that was asked. Neither condition you mentioned are allowed for in the Constitution.

 

[Levant]

If it's not a right then show the government's authority to restrict it.

Okay, so you can't show where the Constitution says you have a right to internet access.

That's good, because it doesn't say that. Now, maybe you pay for said access wit' yo' gub'mint check every month, but that doesn;t mean you have a right to it...

I showed it. You just refuse to accept it. The government doesn't buy my guns but that doesn't mean they have the right to take them away.

 

[Levant]

I live in a democratic run city which is over oppressive I have many felonies and I have more to come because of how they treat the citizens.. I want a gun to protect my self but can’t.

No one is stopping you from owning a gun but what is stopping you is that you would never own it legally.

If what you write is true and you have many felonies then no you should never be allow to own a firearm and why?

You are a prime example of a mass shooter in the making and why would I write that?

Simple, your thread calling for acts of violence in Boston, so no you shouldn't be allow to own one legally...

Where have a called for acts of violence in Boston?

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/i-will-be-calling-for-a-federal-coup-of-all-democrats-in-boston-massachusetts.784806/

Try not to pretend you never made asinine threats!

Where do you see violence? I never mention violence moron

Dude you lie all the time and have said you would use violence against Democrats, so just shut up for once!

You shouldn't even be allow in society but as long as you have no broken any law society will let you walk freely...

In the end you have a violent side and should not ever own a firearm legally...

Use a baseball bat for protection if you can lift one...

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Last I checked it doesn't say that you should be permitted to have internet access...

Actually, it does. Check the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If you could point out the words "internet access", that'd be just swell...

Internet access is not a constitutional right. But it is considered part of the public utilities

If it's not a right then show the government's authority to restrict it.

While there are a few that are publically owned (by cities or states), most are privately owned. The interstate commerce clause would provide the constitutional basis for some of the regulation. Also, the fact that the utilities are placed on public lands (public right-of-way) gives them another method of regulating.

You don't understand the Internet. There are no "few" that are owned by cities or states. The Internet is nothing more than a bunch of connected computers and the backbone that connects them. You mistake Internet Service Providers with the Internet. Two different things.

For the Government to strip a person of the right to access the Internet is the same as to strip them of the right to read the newspaper. Regardless of the law, regardless of the Courts, it would be, and is, unconstitutional.

 

[Levant]

You would certainly use it against minorities while claiming self defense when it was you that started the fight.

I’m a minority where I am.. and what’s wrong with confronting things in my community that see as bad?

Because what you consider bad is just the fact that you do not want anyone that is non-white in your neighborhood...

Fact is if you have a felony based on a violent crime then no you should not own a gun...

Not true I see kids walking around with there pants hanging down why can’t I confront them with a equalizer .

What business is it of yours if they wear their pants hanging down? You don't like it? Look away. You should not be able to confront them with a gun just because you don't like the way their wear their clothes?

It’s offensive to my daughter it’s offensive to my grandmother is offensive to my mother and I have a right to say what I want

Actually, you don't have that right.

Localities have the right to set local standards, and if walking around with half your ass hanging out is deemed a violation of local decency standards, you have every right to complain and the offender his every right to face a judge and be fined in a courtroom.

A sad fact that you even have to have this discussion in America defending a person's right to indecent behavior but not a person's right not to have themselves or their children forced to accept it.

If you see someone violating local decency laws, then feel free to say something to them. I didn't say you don't have the right. Feel free, if your state has provisions, to place them under citizens arrest. Go for it. But if your courage to say something comes from a gun then you're a pussy and you've become an almost insurmountable argument against me in my attempt to defend the right to keep and bear arms.

And the discussion was about pants sagging, not ass showing. 90+ per cent of saggers I see are showing boxers more expensive than I would ever buy rather than their ass. The bigger question is, who are you to tell someone else how to dress? Your children are not harmed by seeing someone sagging, even if their ass is showing - in case you haven't noticed, you and your children have asses, too. It is the reaction of adults, in front of their children, that causes the harm.

 

[Levant]

You would certainly use it against minorities while claiming self defense when it was you that started the fight.

I’m a minority where I am.. and what’s wrong with confronting things in my community that see as bad?

Because what you consider bad is just the fact that you do not want anyone that is non-white in your neighborhood...

Fact is if you have a felony based on a violent crime then no you should not own a gun...

Not true I see kids walking around with there pants hanging down why can’t I confront them with a equalizer .

What business is it of yours if they wear their pants hanging down? You don't like it? Look away. You should not be able to confront them with a gun just because you don't like the way their wear their clothes?

It’s offensive to my daughter it’s offensive to my grandmother is offensive to my mother and I have a right to say what I want

The way you talk to women (and about women) on this forum should be offensive to your daughter.

And I hate that you and your daughter are offended. But there is nothing in the US Constitution or the US legal code that says you have to be free from being offended.

Maybe if you were less of a snowflake, you wouldn't be offended.

All I’m doing is asking them to pull their pants up they might become violent usually people that have their pants hanging down are most likely going to be violent and now they’re going to meet their maker

I started out on your side in this topic.

So, your views are wishy-washy and subject to whim and change? It doesn't sound like you really know what you're talking about!

Although I certainly do support the right of released felons to possess a gun, you're an argument against it. A lot of gun banners will look to you and people like you to counter my arguments - as we've already seen on this thread.

Why is that? Because you have taken a mere statement that a person has a right to own a gun in a situation where he expects another person to be carrying a gun and be a likely potential threat or violent case?

If you ever do shoot someone in self-defense, these posts here will, hopefully, be reviewed and your intent to look for trouble and to shoot someone when that trouble comes will be part of the case against you. When you are looking for trouble, there's no self defense case to make. Maybe then, Massachusetts will lock you away forever... but, unfortunately for Massachusets, those liberals you hate so much keep letting people like you out of prison.

Why do you constantly try to turn everything into an ad hominem attack? I see no one here proposing looking for trouble, only common sense, and a desire of upholding moral standards in their community that they feel safe their children being out in. And the ability to defend oneself if need be. Bottom line is simple COMMON SENSE: upstanding citizens of the community don't walk around with their pants down their ass. That is gangsta dress, it sends a message, and invites trouble and crime into the neighborhood. Funny that you should DEFEND THAT.

What's wishy-washy in anything I said? Being on the OP's side? Did I ever say I wasn't on his side? No; I said I started out on his side and then I said he is an argument against felons owning guns but I never said, even then, that I didn't support his right. Have you ever seen me say his rights should be violated? Did I vary even a little bit on the absolute support for felons owning guns? Of course not.. You took me out of context and formed a lie to suggest that I was anything but absolute in my support for gun rights for felons.

You accused me of ad hominem attacks. Was that in response to me pointing out to the OP that his posts here that he's looking for courage in a gun would be used against him? Or was the ad hominem attack you made in regards to me suggesting that a person admittedly guilty of several felonies might get life in prison for killing a person after starting a fight after posting online that he intended to take actions that he expected to result in violence and to react to that violence with lethal force? Is that what your ad hominem attack is pointing to? Please be more precise.

You mention that no one here is looking for trouble - but you and the OP want to take on people that you are so afraid of that you're shaking in your boots unless you have a gun, and that's without having any knowledge of whether or not that person that terrifies you so completely is armed. And you want your courage to come from your gun since there's none in your spineless, yellow, back. And, after you try to force YOUR view of style on someone who's not hurting you at all, if they want to punch your lights out, you want the means to take their life... And all that's avoidable by you just averting your eyes.. or minding your own business.... but, no... you're not looking for trouble, are you? You're a coward, pussy, liar. Just like I have to support AOC's right to free speech, I have to support your right, and the OP's right, to own a gun... And I do support her rights and your rights.. Doesn't make you any less of a coward whose only brush with courage comes from a gun.

Between you and the OP, you could almost make me join the Bradys. You both are the justifications for the arguments on the left suggesting shootouts in the streets because of people carrying guns. But, just like with free speech, true conservatives, like me, defend the rights of even those with whom we disagree. So, I defend the OP's right to a gun even though it likely means him or someone else is going to die.. and then I support his right to a speedy and fair trial, and then I support the State's right to jail him for the rest of his natural life and, if it so chooses, to chemically shorten his natural life.

No, you're totally wrong. If there's one thing I am not, it's wishy-washy.

 

[Levant]

I agree that the measures taken by government are almost invariably to strengthen it. However, with regard to a felon. You know the line. We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights...
If you accost me, you are robbing me of those precious rights which I cannot sell away. Therefore, society (government) has determined that you must forgo some of yours permanently.
I don't disagree with it completely.

Rights that government can take away are not rights. The fundamental principle of our Constitution and that the Founders worked for was a government that could NOT take away rights. Rights that the government can take are not rights at all; they're privileges.

I do not disagree with this. But I think there are limits.

I also think Jitsie, as evidenced by his fantasies, should not be armed. For the safety of anyone who disagrees with him.

You are, or at least I am, by nature free and no man has any natural authority over us.

You think you are free? That no one has any natural authority over you? You are very naive, aren't you? I see you spend too much time in books rather out in the real world.

If you think government has some authority to restrict a person's liberty then you should be able to define from where in the Constitution that authority comes.

80-90% of the laws out there now restricting your life have no basis or place found in the Constitution, in fact, stand in bold contrast to it.

I accept the role of government, as defined and limited by the Constitution, and accept the authority that grants to the Government. I do not accept any other authority, not traceable to the Constitution, or any natural right of any man to rule over me.

HaHa! Doesn't matter SQUAT what you "accept," Natural boy! You have no natural or allodial rights. You own nothing, including your own body. It has all been taken away from you while you were in the library reading all about history and idealism.

No doubt, there are those who, unjustly, exercise authority over me by the power of their guns and prisons, and I succumb to it while I must, but I do not accept it as their right or just authority.

That and a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Tell that to your inmates while you are rotting away.

All those who exercise power by threat or by any means other than the authority of the United States Constitution, or State Constitutions where they are compliant with the United States Constitution, do so only through tyranny and are, themselves, tyrants.

So, WE THE PEOPLE means nothing to you, and no one but the government has the authority to exercise any power over you no matter what you do to them without being a tyrant? Interesting.

That's about the most bizarre post I've seen on this site. Not one word of it is reflective of anything I actually said. Every bit of it shows complete failure in reading comprehension and writing skill.. Well, except that and the $1.50 for a cup of coffee part. That was actually logically correct. But if you know where I can get a cup of coffee for $1.50,. please share because I can't find even plain coffee for under $2.50 and usually closer to $3.50.

If you think there's someone who has natural rights over me, and I assume you as well, who is that? Who is your King?

If you think 80 to 90% of laws have no basis or place found in the Constitution, and in fact stand in bold contrast to it, tell me what they are and how they impact you other than tyranny? Tell me what those laws are and I'll prove they have no meaning to you other than at the tyrannical end of a tyrant's gun.

If ownership of my body and all other things are stripped from me, how is that supported by the Constitution? How is it not tyranny? Please give examples.

I have no idea what your reference to "WE THE PEOPLE is about. but, no, no one has authority to exercise any power over me. If you think someone does, please give an example.

What your rant, totally unsupported by logical argument, really suggests is that you've surrendered your rights and willingly accept any burden placed upon you. I can only leave you with the words of Samuel Adams:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

 

[Levant]

I live in a democratic run city which is over oppressive I have many felonies and I have more to come because of how they treat the citizens.. I want a gun to protect my self but can’t.

No one is stopping you from owning a gun but what is stopping you is that you would never own it legally.

If what you write is true and you have many felonies then no you should never be allow to own a firearm and why?

You are a prime example of a mass shooter in the making and why would I write that?

Simple, your thread calling for acts of violence in Boston, so no you shouldn't be allow to own one legally...

Where have a called for acts of violence in Boston?

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/i-will-be-calling-for-a-federal-coup-of-all-democrats-in-boston-massachusetts.784806/

Try not to pretend you never made asinine threats!

Where do you see violence? I never mention violence moron

Dude you lie all the time and have said you would use violence against Democrats, so just shut up for once!

You shouldn't even be allow in society but as long as you have no broken any law society will let you walk freely...

In the end you have a violent side and should not ever own a firearm legally...

Use a baseball bat for protection if you can lift one...

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Last I checked it doesn't say that you should be permitted to have internet access...

Actually, it does. Check the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If you could point out the words "internet access", that'd be just swell...

Internet access is not a constitutional right. But it is considered part of the public utilities

If it's not a right then show the government's authority to restrict it.

Isn't that a question better asked of the government?

If the government comes in here and posts the message I responded to then, yes, I'll ask the government. But it was Canon Shooter who said it's not a right so I asked Canon Shooter - show where the government has the authority to restrict one's access to the Internet. He didn't, of course, because he can't. Unenumerated rights are still rights and are explicitly protected by the Constitution.

 

[toobfreak]

You would certainly use it against minorities while claiming self defense when it was you that started the fight.

I’m a minority where I am.. and what’s wrong with confronting things in my community that see as bad?

Because what you consider bad is just the fact that you do not want anyone that is non-white in your neighborhood...

Fact is if you have a felony based on a violent crime then no you should not own a gun...

Not true I see kids walking around with there pants hanging down why can’t I confront them with a equalizer .

What business is it of yours if they wear their pants hanging down? You don't like it? Look away. You should not be able to confront them with a gun just because you don't like the way their wear their clothes?

It’s offensive to my daughter it’s offensive to my grandmother is offensive to my mother and I have a right to say what I want

Actually, you don't have that right.

Localities have the right to set local standards, and if walking around with half your ass hanging out is deemed a violation of local decency standards, you have every right to complain and the offender his every right to face a judge and be fined in a courtroom.

A sad fact that you even have to have this discussion in America defending a person's right to indecent behavior but not a person's right not to have themselves or their children forced to accept it.

If you see someone violating local decency laws, then feel free to say something to them. I didn't say you don't have the right. Feel free, if your state has provisions, to place them under citizens arrest. Go for it. But if your courage to say something comes from a gun then you're a pussy and you've become an almost insurmountable argument against me in my attempt to defend the right to keep and bear arms.

And the discussion was about pants sagging, not ass showing. 90+ per cent of saggers I see are showing boxers more expensive than I would ever buy rather than their ass. The bigger question is, who are you to tell someone else how to dress? Your children are not harmed by seeing someone sagging, even if their ass is showing - in case you haven't noticed, you and your children have asses, too. It is the reaction of adults, in front of their children, that causes the harm.

SO LESSEE:

1. YOU'RE to judge whether someone carries out their 2A right to self protect because you'd rather see them beat up badly, stabbed or shot?
2. If someone carries for self-protection, you cannot defend the Bill of Rights. Civil rights are OK to you so long as they are not actually USED.
3. You have so many ass waggers in your community, you have them categorized by brand of underwear. You have three on every corner.
4. YOU decide whether other people's children are harmed or not by the behavior of others.
5. You feel everyone has the right to impose their offensive behavior on others but not the right to object to it.
6. Me and my children have dicks too, so by your sagging, convoluted logic, we should all just walk around with our dicks out.
7. No harm is done to kids if they see gangsta hood behavior, but they are harmed if anyone tells them they shouldn't dress like that.

 

[toobfreak]

You mention that no one here is looking for trouble - but you and the OP want to take on people that you are so afraid of that you're shaking in your boots

LOOK pinbrain, WHERE did I ever say I wanted to "take on" anyone? Don't you dare put words in my mouth. You're an idiot who runs his mouth too much and seems to think his opinion matters more than other people. You just love to stereotype people and claim you're a conservative but sure talk like a bigass liberal. You think you have the right to hold everyone else to YOUR standard of behavior, but not you held to theirs, and think you sre the last word on the Constitution. So far, I've seen you on the WRONG side of every issue, liking some of the most leftist people and stereotyping all whom disagree with you.

Mortality is like an asteroid, easiest to carve in youth or when it gets just a little off track just as a rock is easier to deflect farther out in space. Your kind of neanderthal thinking is what has led us to the problems we have today. You have a strange mix of permissiveness for poor social behavior yet at the same time a rather militant dislike for those willing to be pro-active in trying to resist sagging standards!

 

[toobfreak]

That's about the most bizarre post I've seen on this site. Not one word of it is reflective of anything I actually said.

So, in other words, pinbrain, when you have no answer for anything, just claim another's opinion is "bizarre?" You argue more and more like a Progressive! My comments were abstractions taken from things you said and implied, sorry if that flies right over your anvil head. I can see you really don't like guns, do you? Have you ever even shot or owned one? So far, I've seen you come up with every reason for taking them away from people rather than owning one.