Second time I must commend the Biden administration today...

[Missourian]

They're not. Not legally, not constitutionally. That we often refer to them using the word law because that's how the government sees them, does not mean I accept them as law or that you should, Elmer.

Should prisoners have guns?

 

[woodwork201]

Should prisoners have guns?

Answer my questions first. Can the government strip the right to a jury trial for a second felony if someone has been convicted of a first felony?

Will you proudly and obediently turn in your guns, ammunition, and magazines?

I asked first so you answer first.

 

[Missourian]

At least you're not trying to deny that you'll be turning in your guns, ammunition, and magazines, on demand. When the law requires you to walk into that big block building with the smoke stacks on top, you'll walk in with a proud smile on your face; you're obedient.

I ignore the b.s.

The hyperbole and hypotheticals that folks throw out there when they can't make an decent argument on point.

 

[woodwork201]

I ignore the b.s.

The hyperbole and hypotheticals that folks throw out there when they can't make an decent argument on point.

It's neither hypothetical nor hyperbole. If the government can strip the right to keep and bear arms then why can't they strip the right to free speech? Or the right to trial by jury of peers? This is a very related question. Either they can strip any or all of these or they can strip none of them. Which is it?

Defend your logic by applying the same logic to other rights. Come on, Elmer, answer the question or admit that your logic doesn't hold water but that you don't care about the Constitution; you want what you want from government.

 

[Missourian]

Answer my questions first. Can the government strip the right to a jury trial for a second felony if someone has been convicted of a first felony?

Will you proudly and obediently turn in your guns, ammunition, and magazines?

I asked first so you answer first.

Totally irrelevant to the argument. Try sticking to the topic. We are talking about the power to make convicted felons prohibited owners... nothing else.

You're an absolutist.

Good for you.

I'm not upset by that...

But...if you believe that the government has no power to deny a firearm to convicted felons...why does it have that power while they are incarcerated...or on parole...or probation?

The prohibition to own firearms is a part of the punishment.

I'd be willing to amend it.

But if the government has the power to infringe as part of the sentence while incarcerated...they have the power to prohibit after the incarceration as part of the punishment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's my point exactly. Why own these scary looking guns because you can?

Why -not- own them? We do, after all, have every right to do so, and have no need to demonstrate a need to exercise said right.

You don't get it. The place is awash with your toys...

Indeed.
20,000,000 AR15s in the US
Over the last 40 years, 17 of them have been used to kill 266 people in mass shootings.

US mass shootings, 1982–2024: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

That's 0.425 AR15s per year, killing 6.65 people per year.
Out of 20,000,000 guns.

But hey - don't let facts, logic and reason bother you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes I did notice...

Thank you for your admission that you choose to not discuss the issue honestly, rationally, and in good faith.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It doesn't matter how he got it who who he shot to get it.

YOU believe the NRA is at fault because of their opposition to background checks - so, it DOES matter hoiw he got it.
How did Adam Lanza get the gun he used to shoot up that school?

 

[Missourian]

It's neither hypothetical nor hyperbole. If the government can strip the right to keep and bear arms then why can't they strip the right to free speech? Or the right to trial by jury of peers? This is a very related question. Either they can strip any or all of these or they can strip none of them. Which is it?

This 'slippery slope' argument really doesn't hold water.

What crime could you commit that denying free speech would be considered a prudent punishment?

We are talking about denying a person adjudicated a criminal from owning a firearm because that person is no longer a trusted member of society...due to their own illegal actions.

What parallel can you draw between that and free speech?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You defended the stripping of gun rights for 200,000+ veterans. You're as much a gun controller as is Missourian and as is David Chipman.

See, that's a lie. Stop fucking lying.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes I did notice and I don't care if it drives insane. That's my choice and I'll do it as I chose and there's nothing can do to stop me but whine like a child.
Is that clear now?

Yes, quite clear: you're dishonest and dumb as rat shit.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Answer my questions first. Can the government strip the right to a jury trial for a second felony if someone has been convicted of a first felony?

Will you proudly and obediently turn in your guns, ammunition, and magazines?

I asked first so you answer first.

Put down the club, your straw man is dead.

 

[Colin norris]

Yes, quite clear: you're dishonest and dumb as rat shit.

Why -not- own them? We do, after all, have every right to do so, and have no need to demonstrate a need to exercise said right.

Indeed.
20,000,000 AR15s in the US
Over the last 40 years, 17 of them have been used to kill 266 people in mass shootings.

US mass shootings, 1982–2024: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

That's 0.425 AR15s per year, killing 6.65 people per year.
Out of 20,000,000 guns.

But hey - don't let facts, logic and reason bother you.

20 million of them!!!
What are they used for? Protection?
Hunting?
Don't make me laugh.

 

[Colin norris]

YOU believe the NRA is at fault because of their opposition to background checks - so, it DOES matter hoiw he got it.
How did Adam Lanza get the gun he used to shoot up that school?

Again I don't care. The fact is there are far too many guns circulating under the guise you need them for protection.
Any ratbag can have one. You've probably got guns you rarely use because you want them. Why?
Yet you argue the point about how some nut got a gun. There's too many. Fuck your 2nd amendment. Explain that to your precious founders.

 

[Colin norris]

Thank you for your admission that you choose to not discuss the issue honestly, rationally, and in good faith.

Good faith?
You have to be kidding.
Buying assault rifles because you can u see the 2nd, they get into the wrong hands and kids are slaughtered needlessly then you bleat about good faith and honesty.
You hypocrite.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you a real person or a sock?

 

[woodwork201]

Totally irrelevant to the argument. Try sticking to the topic. We are talking about the power to make convicted felons prohibited owners... nothing else.

You're an absolutist.

Good for you.

I'm not upset by that...

But...if you believe that the government has no power to deny a firearm to convicted felons...why does it have that power while they are incarcerated...or on parole...or probation?

The prohibition to own firearms is a part of the punishment.

I'd be willing to amend it.

But if the government has the power to infringe as part of the sentence while incarcerated...they have the power to prohibit after the incarceration as part of the punishment.

It's absolutely relevant. If the government has the power to restrict constitutionally protected rights for convicted felons then it must apply to all constitutionally protected rights. How would the right to keep and bear arms differ from the right to a jury trial?

Incarceration doesn't remove their right to own a gun; it simply removes their access to it. For the first 149 years of our nation's history, no convicted felon was denied his guns when he got out of jail. As a gun controlling leftist, you certainly must love FDR.

So you admit you're willing to amend the 2nd Amendment out of existence. Now, usmb'ers, the faux conservative, the sheep in wolf's clothing, the gun controller pretending to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, has finally, publicly, admitted he's against the 2nd Amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

This 'slippery slope' argument really doesn't hold water.

What crime could you commit that denying free speech would be considered a prudent punishment?

We are talking about denying a person adjudicated a criminal from owning a firearm because that person is no longer a trusted member of society...due to their own illegal actions.

What parallel can you draw between that and free speech?

It's not a question of whether a gun ban is a punishment related to the crime or even appropriate to the crime. It's a question of whether the government has the right to impose it in violation of the Constitution.

Since felony litterers get their gun rights stripped, how is that relevant to the the crime? How would the right to a jury trial be any less related to the crime than would a gun ban? Why would we let a litterer have free speech? They should be shunned and never heard from.

 

[Missourian]

It's absolutely relevant. If the government has the power to restrict constitutionally protected rights for convicted felons then it must apply to all constitutionally protected rights. How would the right to keep and bear arms differ from the right to a jury trial?

Incarceration doesn't remove their right to own a gun; it simply removes their access to it. For the first 149 years of our nation's history, no convicted felon was denied his guns when he got out of jail. As a gun controlling leftist, you certainly must love FDR.

So you admit you're willing to amend the 2nd Amendment out of existence. Now, usmb'ers, the faux conservative, the sheep in wolf's clothing, the gun controller pretending to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, has finally, publicly, admitted he's against the 2nd Amendment.

You realize your increase in bloviation correspondes with a decrease in actual substance.

IOW... peripheral rhetoric you add to artificially bolster your post doesn't increase the strength of your argument...it decreases it.

Where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to infringe on a prisoners second amendment right to bear arms?

 

[woodwork201]

See, that's a lie. Stop fucking lying.

Post 94. You said it's a strawman. That it doesn't matter in this discussion of government deciding who can own a gun. Liar.

Second time I must commend the Biden administration today...

You call it emotions, I call it facts. Facts or not, you know you can only push your agenda ny preying upon the emotions of the ignorant. Rational, reasoned people will not be swayed by your fallacions appeals to emotions -- and you know it.

www.usmessageboard.com