Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[DiveCon]

BTW

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

they HAD due process when the right was revoked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

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

My point flew completely over your head.

no, your point flopped at my feet

 

[jillian]

Well, I agree and disagree lol.

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

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

heh...

i think the concept of inherant rights is interesting as a philosophical construct but not as an actual reality. japanese americans thought they had rights here during WWII. And Jews in Germany thought they had inherant rights at the same time. Both groups turned out to be wrong.

We can at least agree that if someone has an issue with a right not being enforced, they can sue.

 

[Emma]

its PART of the punishment
you keep missing that fact

Read the last sentence in my post again. Slowly.

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

What part of "after they have satisfied what the state had deemed their punishment to be for that particular crime and has allowed them to return into society otherwise unencumbered or monitored" do you not understand?

If you want to argue that the state should continue to monitor them, fine.

 

[Emma]

Well, I agree and disagree lol.

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

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

heh...

i think the concept of inherant rights is interesting as a philosophical construct but not as an actual reality. japanese americans thought they had rights here during WWII. And Jews in Germany thought they had inherant rights at the same time. Both groups turned out to be wrong.

We can at least agree that if someone has an issue with a right not being enforced, they can sue.

I see your point; but IMO, just because the State deprives one of their rights doesn't equate to that person not having them in the first place. (did that make sense LOL)

 

[Emma]

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

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

My point flew completely over your head.

no, your point flopped at my feet

Where it landed after soaring over your head.

 

[Emma]

Well, mal.

Well, we've done threads *elsewhere* where liberals overwhelmingly supported the 2nd. Some agreed with registration (I don't) and such, but it was clear the "liberals hate guns" was a unfair and incorrect generalization. Hell, my views on the 2nd were deemed too extreme by some of the cons.

Told ya so

 

[DiveCon]

My point flew completely over your head.

no, your point flopped at my feet

Where it landed after soaring over your head.

nope, never even got close

 

[jillian]

I see your point; but IMO, just because the State deprives one of their rights doesn't equate to that person not having them in the first place. (did that make sense LOL)

lol...it makes sense. i guess i'm just cynical about it because of how minority populations historically have their rights impaired.

 

[DiveCon]

Well, mal.

Well, we've done threads *elsewhere* where liberals overwhelmingly supported the 2nd. Some agreed with registration (I don't) and such, but it was clear the "liberals hate guns" was a unfair and incorrect generalization. Hell, my views on the 2nd were deemed too extreme by some of the cons.

Told ya so

i dont think they are extreem
even though i disagree

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Well, mal.

Well, we've done threads *elsewhere* where liberals overwhelmingly supported the 2nd. Some agreed with registration (I don't) and such, but it was clear the "liberals hate guns" was a unfair and incorrect generalization. Hell, my views on the 2nd were deemed too extreme by some of the cons.

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.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Well, I agree and disagree lol.

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

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

heh...

i think the concept of inherant rights is interesting as a philosophical construct but not as an actual reality. japanese americans thought they had rights here during WWII. And Jews in Germany thought they had inherant rights at the same time. Both groups turned out to be wrong.

We can at least agree that if someone has an issue with a right not being enforced, they can sue.

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?

 

[DiveCon]

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.

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

 

[Emma]

I see your point; but IMO, just because the State deprives one of their rights doesn't equate to that person not having them in the first place. (did that make sense LOL)

lol...it makes sense. i guess i'm just cynical about it because of how minority populations historically have their rights impaired.

True. (not that you're a cynic, btw lol)

How 'bout this? The rights are inherent and do exist independent of the State... but without restrictions placed and enforced on the State, they might not be fully realized. Exercised. Whatever.


Nevermind LOL.

God, please bring me some sleep

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

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.

 

[Emma]

Well, mal.

Well, we've done threads *elsewhere* where liberals overwhelmingly supported the 2nd. Some agreed with registration (I don't) and such, but it was clear the "liberals hate guns" was a unfair and incorrect generalization. Hell, my views on the 2nd were deemed too extreme by some of the cons.

Told ya so

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.

 

[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

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

 

[DiveCon]

Well, mal.




Told ya so

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"

 

[Emma]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

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.