What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[jon_berzerk]

The fifth says that if you are convicted of a crime with "due process" where your rights (no illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, ...) are respected,

You left one out: The right to keep and bear arms. As unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just as those others are unconditionally guaranteed, and can't be arbitrarily removed or restricted by legislation.

then and only then can your other rights be violated.

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

But if you want to keep wasting your time arguing convicted felons should have the right to buy guns, you go right ahead. Of all the things we'd want to change in our fucked up political system, I sure as hell don't know why that's the one you want

if the felon has fulfilled his debt to society in full

all of his rights should be restored

or they shouldnt be on the street

 

[kaz]

The fifth says that if you are convicted of a crime with "due process" where your rights (no illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, ...) are respected,

You left one out: The right to keep and bear arms. As unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just as those others are unconditionally guaranteed, and can't be arbitrarily removed or restricted by legislation.

then and only then can your other rights be violated.

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

But if you want to keep wasting your time arguing convicted felons should have the right to buy guns, you go right ahead. Of all the things we'd want to change in our fucked up political system, I sure as hell don't know why that's the one you want

if the felon has fulfilled his debt to society in full

all of his rights should be restored

or they shouldnt be on the street

So, if your parent grounds you for a week and takes away your TV privileges for a month, in a week you can watch TV because you paid your debt. Bull, they were two punishments, not one punishment. You commit certain crimes, you go to prison for X, lose your vote for Y, lose the ability to buy guns for Z, ...

You only lose your right to buy guns if you committed certain violent acts. That all penalties have to cover the same time period is ridiculous

 

[jon_berzerk]

The fifth says that if you are convicted of a crime with "due process" where your rights (no illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, ...) are respected,

You left one out: The right to keep and bear arms. As unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just as those others are unconditionally guaranteed, and can't be arbitrarily removed or restricted by legislation.

then and only then can your other rights be violated.

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

But if you want to keep wasting your time arguing convicted felons should have the right to buy guns, you go right ahead. Of all the things we'd want to change in our fucked up political system, I sure as hell don't know why that's the one you want

if the felon has fulfilled his debt to society in full

all of his rights should be restored

or they shouldnt be on the street

So, if your parent grounds you for a week and takes away your TV privileges for a month, in a week you can watch TV because you paid your debt. Bull, they were two punishments, not one punishment. You commit certain crimes, you go to prison for X, lose your vote for Y, lose the ability to buy guns for Z, ...

You only lose your right to buy guns if you committed certain violent acts. That all penalties have to cover the same time period is ridiculous

no the debt is grounding and loss of tv for one month not life

i also do not believe it is constitutional to ban a person from having a firearm

for a misdemeanor

 

[kaz]

The fifth says that if you are convicted of a crime with "due process" where your rights (no illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, ...) are respected,

You left one out: The right to keep and bear arms. As unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just as those others are unconditionally guaranteed, and can't be arbitrarily removed or restricted by legislation.

then and only then can your other rights be violated.

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

But if you want to keep wasting your time arguing convicted felons should have the right to buy guns, you go right ahead. Of all the things we'd want to change in our fucked up political system, I sure as hell don't know why that's the one you want

if the felon has fulfilled his debt to society in full

all of his rights should be restored

or they shouldnt be on the street

So, if your parent grounds you for a week and takes away your TV privileges for a month, in a week you can watch TV because you paid your debt. Bull, they were two punishments, not one punishment. You commit certain crimes, you go to prison for X, lose your vote for Y, lose the ability to buy guns for Z, ...

You only lose your right to buy guns if you committed certain violent acts. That all penalties have to cover the same time period is ridiculous

no the debt is grounding and loss of tv for one month not life

i also do not believe it is constitutional to ban a person from having a firearm

for a misdemeanor

It's State by State, but what State takes away gun rights for misdemeanors? I never heard of that. Most States remove gun rights only for violent felonies.

What does it matter that you lose TV for a month, "not life?" If you committed a violent felony, what is unreasonable about losing your gun rights as part of your punishment for life?

Also, I'm not sure why they would take away gun rights for misdemeanors, I"m not arguing I disagree with your view on that, but what makes you say it's "Unconstitutional?" The Constitutional standard is due process of law, not felony versus misdomeanor

 

[Uncensored2008]

Man you keep reading more and more into the 2nd .

No, he simply read it, which you have not.

The constitution on you leftists is like salt on a slug, so you avoid it at all costs.

Do u think guns should be avialble out of vending machines ? Cause that's what u are advocating .

Do you advocate abortions from a vending machine?

Moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's State by State, but what State takes away gun rights for misdemeanors? I never heard of that. Most States remove gun rights only for violent felonies.

What does it matter that you lose TV for a month, "not life?" If you committed a violent felony, what is unreasonable about losing your gun rights as part of your punishment for life?

Also, I'm not sure why they would take away gun rights for misdemeanors, I"m not arguing I disagree with your view on that, but what makes you say it's "Unconstitutional?" The Constitutional standard is due process of law, not felony versus misdomeanor

California will take away your rights for not paying child support, which is a civil matter and not even a misdemeanor.

 

[kaz]

It's State by State, but what State takes away gun rights for misdemeanors? I never heard of that. Most States remove gun rights only for violent felonies.

What does it matter that you lose TV for a month, "not life?" If you committed a violent felony, what is unreasonable about losing your gun rights as part of your punishment for life?

Also, I'm not sure why they would take away gun rights for misdemeanors, I"m not arguing I disagree with your view on that, but what makes you say it's "Unconstitutional?" The Constitutional standard is due process of law, not felony versus misdomeanor

California will take away your rights for not paying child support, which is a civil matter and not even a misdemeanor.

Wow, now that's screwed up. I lived in California a while about 15 years ago, glad I moved on

 

[Little-Acorn]

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

You'd do better to actually support your own theories, or disprove my references to written law, rather than simply screaming, "No it isn't, no, it isn't, everybody already thinks so so it must be true, people have made laws that disagree with the written 2nd so the laws must be superior...."

I've disproven each, and all you've done is respond with is rage and repetitions of your debunked wishful thinking.

Stop and ask yourself WHY you can find no actual disproof of what I keep pointing out.

 

[kaz]

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

You'd do better to actually support your own theories, or disprove my references to written law, rather than simply screaming, "No it isn't, no, it isn't, everybody already thinks so so it must be true, people have made laws that disagree with the written 2nd so the laws must be superior...."

I've disproven each, and all you've done is respond with is rage and repetitions of your debunked wishful thinking.

Stop and ask yourself WHY you can find no actual disproof of what I keep pointing out.

As little as I respect the courts overall, they clearly and consistently say that Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of law. So it's on you to prove them wrong. The government does remove your right to buy a gun when you are convicted of certain felonies (depending on the State), and no one is fighting that, not the courts, liberals, conservatives or even libertarians.

When you come in and say out of the blue that contradicts our government laws for the last two centuries and no political group in this country agrees you on that, how do you get a prove you wrong moment out of it?

Good luck with your fight to arm criminals, quite a life work there. Law and order conservatives and libertarians want criminals in jail and disarmed. We want guns to protect ourselves from criminals. You want to arm criminals.

Tell me you're not a gun owner, you just went off the deep end on this and don't really know what you're actually saying

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's State by State, but what State takes away gun rights for misdemeanors? I never heard of that. Most States remove gun rights only for violent felonies.

The Fed govt takes them away for no crime or "offense" at all. Welcome to liberal government.

When a couple are getting divorced, even if the divorce is amicable and both people assure the judge that there has never been any violence, threat, etc. from either toward the other, the judge will usually issue what they call "routine restraining orders" against both parties, telling them not to threaten, harass, commit "domestic violence", injure, endanger etc. the other. No big deal the judge assures the parties.

But, a Federal provision enacted in 1997 (the "Lautenberg Amendment") mandates that anyone who is under a restraining order for "domestic violence", must lose his right to keep and bear arms, and must turn in all his guns if he owns any. Doesn't matter if he's never committed a crime, never hurt or assaulted or even scared anyone.

I am in a position to know.

My original tenet remains true: If you give government even the slightest power to decide who can own a gun and who can't, they will gradually take more and more power, until they are disarming anyone they want for even the most arbitrary excuses. The Framers knew it very well, having studied the progress of governments all over the world. And they wrote an ironclad Constitution for this country, forbidding government from EVER having any say in who could own and carry a gun. They put in two exceptions to this rule:
(a) A jury could find "not guilty", a person accused of denying someone his right on a case by case basis if they thought the act was justified, and they cannot be overruled later. (Count on liberals to start trying to chip away at this rule next.)
(b) 3/4 of the states can modify the Constitution to reduce or eliminate that ironclad protection of the right to keep and bear arms, any time they want. For 200+ years, they have chosen never to do so.

Until either of those happen, the only way the gun-rights-haters can deprive people of their right, is to directly and deliberately violate the Constitution.

Lots of people have done that.

And the funniest part is when people then scream, "Since so many people have gone against what the Constitution says, that means the Constitution is wrong, not the violaters!"

Such loons keep the debate entertaining. At least they are good for something.

And who can blame them for becoming so angry when people who actually read the Constitution, refute them? The screamers know they haven't a leg to stand on. All they can do is keep repeating the points that have already been refuted.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

You'd do better to actually support your own theories, or disprove my references to written law, rather than simply screaming, "No it isn't, no, it isn't, everybody already thinks so so it must be true, people have made laws that disagree with the written 2nd so the laws must be superior...."

I've disproven each, and all you've done is respond with is rage and repetitions of your debunked wishful thinking.

Stop and ask yourself WHY you can find no actual disproof of what I keep pointing out.

As little as I respect the courts overall, they clearly and consistently say that Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of law. So it's on you to prove them wrong. The government does remove your right to buy a gun when you are convicted of certain felonies (depending on the State), and no one is fighting that, not the courts, liberals, conservatives or even libertarians.

When you come in and say out of the blue that contradicts our government laws for the last two centuries and no political group in this country agrees you on that, how do you get a prove you wrong moment out of it?

Good luck with your fight to arm criminals, quite a life work there. Law and order conservatives and libertarians want criminals in jail and disarmed. We want guns to protect ourselves from criminals. You want to arm criminals.

Tell me you're not a gun owner, you just went off the deep end on this and don't really know what you're actually saying

I have pointed out that you can't claim the RKBA can be taken away by simple congressional laws, without agreeing that the right to trial by jury can also be. And the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. And the right to be protected from cruel or unusual punishment. And every other right unconditionally protected by the Constitution.

Are you going to answer that? Or just keep on repeating your wishful thinking and claims that since people have already taken our gun rights away, that somehow makes it OK?

 

[kaz]

It's State by State, but what State takes away gun rights for misdemeanors? I never heard of that. Most States remove gun rights only for violent felonies.

The Fed govt takes them away for no crime or "offense" at all. Welcome to liberal government.

When a couple are getting divorced, even if the divorce is amicable and both people assure the judge that there has never been any violence, threat, etc. from either toward the other, the judge will usually issue what they call "routine restraining orders" against both parties, telling them not to threaten, harass, commit "domestic violence", injure, endanger etc. the other. No big deal the judge assures the parties.

But, a Federal provision enacted in 1997 (the "Lautenberg Amendment") mandates that anyone who is under a restraining order for "domestic violence", must lose his right to keep and bear arms, and must turn in all his guns if he owns any. Doesn't matter if he's never committed a crime, never hurt or assaulted or even scared anyone.

I am in a position to know.

My original tenet remains true: If you give government even the slightest power to decide who can own a gun and who can't, they will gradually take more and more power, until they are disarming anyone they want for even the most arbitrary excuses. The Framers knew it very well, having studied the progress of governments all over the world. And they wrote an ironclad Constitution for this country, forbidding government from EVER having any say in who could own and carry a gun. They put in two exceptions to this rule:
(a) A jury could find "not guilty", a person accused of denying someone his right on a case by case basis if they thought the act was justified, and they cannot be overruled later. (Count on liberals to start trying to chip away at this rule next.)
(b) 3/4 of the states can modify the Constitution to reduce or eliminate that ironclad protection of the right to keep and bear arms, any time they want. For 200+ years, they have chosen never to do so.

Until either of those happen, the only way the gun-rights-haters can deprive people of their right, is to directly and deliberately violate the Constitution.

Lots of people have done that.

And the funniest part is when people then scream, "Since so many people have gone against what the Constitution says, that means the Constitution is wrong, not the violaters!"

Such loons keep the debate entertaining. At least they are good for something.

And who can blame them for becoming so angry when people who actually read the Constitution, refute them? The screamers know they haven't a leg to stand on. All they can do is keep repeating the points that have already been refuted.

There's just such a difference between government being able to just pass a law and government needing to limit your rights with due process of law. No one can legitimately lose their right to own a gun without having a jury of their peers convict them. Government can't do it on it's own. I want protection from criminals. Your ridiculous quest to arm violent criminals in no way expands my liberty, which is why even law and order conservatives and libertarians reject your crap that convicted criminals should freely be able to arm themselves

Again, you're not a gun owner, are you? You sound like someone who doesn't know what you're talking about in reality and is just lost in ideology. In this case, a bizarre ideology that criminals don't lose their rights even after being convicted with due process of law. How do you put them in prison in your world?

 

[kaz]

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

You'd do better to actually support your own theories, or disprove my references to written law, rather than simply screaming, "No it isn't, no, it isn't, everybody already thinks so so it must be true, people have made laws that disagree with the written 2nd so the laws must be superior...."

I've disproven each, and all you've done is respond with is rage and repetitions of your debunked wishful thinking.

Stop and ask yourself WHY you can find no actual disproof of what I keep pointing out.

As little as I respect the courts overall, they clearly and consistently say that Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of law. So it's on you to prove them wrong. The government does remove your right to buy a gun when you are convicted of certain felonies (depending on the State), and no one is fighting that, not the courts, liberals, conservatives or even libertarians.

When you come in and say out of the blue that contradicts our government laws for the last two centuries and no political group in this country agrees you on that, how do you get a prove you wrong moment out of it?

Good luck with your fight to arm criminals, quite a life work there. Law and order conservatives and libertarians want criminals in jail and disarmed. We want guns to protect ourselves from criminals. You want to arm criminals.

Tell me you're not a gun owner, you just went off the deep end on this and don't really know what you're actually saying

I have pointed out that you can't claim the RKBA can be taken away by simple congressional laws

No shit, Dick Tracey. This is getting tired, I keep saying the same thing. You don't know what due process of law means. It is a judicial process, not a legislative one. Let's see if we can move past this canard.

THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN ON IT'S OWN.

Can you hear me now? Due process is NOT THE LEGISLATURE. It is being convicted of a crime with due process. Due process includes the right to a jury trial. Twelve citizens have to do it unless you WAIVE your right to a jury trial. Due process includes that right, as well as freedom from illegal search and seizure, ...

This will be a lot more interesting if you process what I'm saying instead of repeating points that are not in contention. Let me know how many times I have to repeat the same point.

The question is why you think the fifth amendment doesn't mean what it says. With due process, your rights can be removed.

, without agreeing that the right to trial by jury can also be. And the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. And the right to be protected from cruel or unusual punishment. And every other right unconditionally protected by the Constitution.

Are you going to answer that? Or just keep on repeating your wishful thinking and claims that since people have already taken our gun rights away, that somehow makes it OK?

I don't know what that means. But again due process means you have to be convicted with those rights. And you have the right to a jury trial as part of those rights. But then, the jury can take away your rights if the government proves to them you're guilty.

Seriously, Google due process and learn what it means

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

You'd do better to actually support your own theories, or disprove my references to written law, rather than simply screaming, "No it isn't, no, it isn't, everybody already thinks so so it must be true, people have made laws that disagree with the written 2nd so the laws must be superior...."

I've disproven each, and all you've done is respond with is rage and repetitions of your debunked wishful thinking.

Stop and ask yourself WHY you can find no actual disproof of what I keep pointing out.

As little as I respect the courts overall, they clearly and consistently say that Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of law. So it's on you to prove them wrong. The government does remove your right to buy a gun when you are convicted of certain felonies (depending on the State), and no one is fighting that, not the courts, liberals, conservatives or even libertarians.

When you come in and say out of the blue that contradicts our government laws for the last two centuries and no political group in this country agrees you on that, how do you get a prove you wrong moment out of it?

Good luck with your fight to arm criminals, quite a life work there. Law and order conservatives and libertarians want criminals in jail and disarmed. We want guns to protect ourselves from criminals. You want to arm criminals.

Tell me you're not a gun owner, you just went off the deep end on this and don't really know what you're actually saying

I have pointed out that you can't claim the RKBA can be taken away by simple congressional laws

No shit, Dick Tracey. This is getting tired, I keep saying the same thing. You don't know what due process of law means. It is a judicial process, not a legislative one. Let's see if we can move past this canard.

THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN ON IT'S OWN.

Can you hear me now? Due process is NOT THE LEGISLATURE. It is being convicted of a crime with due process. Due process includes the right to a jury trial. Twelve citizens have to do it unless you WAIVE your right to a jury trial. Due process includes that right, as well as freedom from illegal search and seizure, ...

This will be a lot more interesting if you process what I'm saying instead of repeating points that are not in contention. Let me know how many times I have to repeat the same point.

The question is why you think the fifth amendment doesn't mean what it says. With due process, your rights can be removed.

, without agreeing that the right to trial by jury can also be. And the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. And the right to be protected from cruel or unusual punishment. And every other right unconditionally protected by the Constitution.

Are you going to answer that? Or just keep on repeating your wishful thinking and claims that since people have already taken our gun rights away, that somehow makes it OK?

I don't know what that means. But again due process means you have to be convicted with those rights. And you have the right to a jury trial as part of those rights. But then, the jury can take away your rights if the government proves to them you're guilty.

Seriously, Google due process and learn what it means

May I remind you that Judicial Process, Article III Courts were abolished in 1935.


So we are on our own.

.

 

[kaz]

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

You'd do better to actually support your own theories, or disprove my references to written law, rather than simply screaming, "No it isn't, no, it isn't, everybody already thinks so so it must be true, people have made laws that disagree with the written 2nd so the laws must be superior...."

I've disproven each, and all you've done is respond with is rage and repetitions of your debunked wishful thinking.

Stop and ask yourself WHY you can find no actual disproof of what I keep pointing out.

As little as I respect the courts overall, they clearly and consistently say that Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of law. So it's on you to prove them wrong. The government does remove your right to buy a gun when you are convicted of certain felonies (depending on the State), and no one is fighting that, not the courts, liberals, conservatives or even libertarians.

When you come in and say out of the blue that contradicts our government laws for the last two centuries and no political group in this country agrees you on that, how do you get a prove you wrong moment out of it?

Good luck with your fight to arm criminals, quite a life work there. Law and order conservatives and libertarians want criminals in jail and disarmed. We want guns to protect ourselves from criminals. You want to arm criminals.

Tell me you're not a gun owner, you just went off the deep end on this and don't really know what you're actually saying

I have pointed out that you can't claim the RKBA can be taken away by simple congressional laws

No shit, Dick Tracey. This is getting tired, I keep saying the same thing. You don't know what due process of law means. It is a judicial process, not a legislative one. Let's see if we can move past this canard.

THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN ON IT'S OWN.

Can you hear me now? Due process is NOT THE LEGISLATURE. It is being convicted of a crime with due process. Due process includes the right to a jury trial. Twelve citizens have to do it unless you WAIVE your right to a jury trial. Due process includes that right, as well as freedom from illegal search and seizure, ...

This will be a lot more interesting if you process what I'm saying instead of repeating points that are not in contention. Let me know how many times I have to repeat the same point.

The question is why you think the fifth amendment doesn't mean what it says. With due process, your rights can be removed.

, without agreeing that the right to trial by jury can also be. And the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. And the right to be protected from cruel or unusual punishment. And every other right unconditionally protected by the Constitution.

Are you going to answer that? Or just keep on repeating your wishful thinking and claims that since people have already taken our gun rights away, that somehow makes it OK?

I don't know what that means. But again due process means you have to be convicted with those rights. And you have the right to a jury trial as part of those rights. But then, the jury can take away your rights if the government proves to them you're guilty.

Seriously, Google due process and learn what it means

May I remind you that Judicial Process, Article III Courts were abolished in 1935.


So we are on our own.

.

Yes, of course the courts have ignored due process and supported the legislature bypassing due process. I'm not arguing it doesn't happen. Not at all. I'm saying the Constitution says in the fifth amendment your rights cannot be removed without due process. Or in other words, they can be with due process. Since the right to a jury trial is part of due process, the government if we followed the Constitution could never remove your rights on it's own, it would have to convince a jury of citizens that your rights should be restricted

 

[Contumacious]

You'd do better to actually support your own theories, or disprove my references to written law, rather than simply screaming, "No it isn't, no, it isn't, everybody already thinks so so it must be true, people have made laws that disagree with the written 2nd so the laws must be superior...."

I've disproven each, and all you've done is respond with is rage and repetitions of your debunked wishful thinking.

Stop and ask yourself WHY you can find no actual disproof of what I keep pointing out.

As little as I respect the courts overall, they clearly and consistently say that Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of law. So it's on you to prove them wrong. The government does remove your right to buy a gun when you are convicted of certain felonies (depending on the State), and no one is fighting that, not the courts, liberals, conservatives or even libertarians.

When you come in and say out of the blue that contradicts our government laws for the last two centuries and no political group in this country agrees you on that, how do you get a prove you wrong moment out of it?

Good luck with your fight to arm criminals, quite a life work there. Law and order conservatives and libertarians want criminals in jail and disarmed. We want guns to protect ourselves from criminals. You want to arm criminals.

Tell me you're not a gun owner, you just went off the deep end on this and don't really know what you're actually saying

I have pointed out that you can't claim the RKBA can be taken away by simple congressional laws

No shit, Dick Tracey. This is getting tired, I keep saying the same thing. You don't know what due process of law means. It is a judicial process, not a legislative one. Let's see if we can move past this canard.

THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN ON IT'S OWN.

Can you hear me now? Due process is NOT THE LEGISLATURE. It is being convicted of a crime with due process. Due process includes the right to a jury trial. Twelve citizens have to do it unless you WAIVE your right to a jury trial. Due process includes that right, as well as freedom from illegal search and seizure, ...

This will be a lot more interesting if you process what I'm saying instead of repeating points that are not in contention. Let me know how many times I have to repeat the same point.

The question is why you think the fifth amendment doesn't mean what it says. With due process, your rights can be removed.

, without agreeing that the right to trial by jury can also be. And the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. And the right to be protected from cruel or unusual punishment. And every other right unconditionally protected by the Constitution.

Are you going to answer that? Or just keep on repeating your wishful thinking and claims that since people have already taken our gun rights away, that somehow makes it OK?

I don't know what that means. But again due process means you have to be convicted with those rights. And you have the right to a jury trial as part of those rights. But then, the jury can take away your rights if the government proves to them you're guilty.

Seriously, Google due process and learn what it means

May I remind you that Judicial Process, Article III Courts were abolished in 1935.


So we are on our own.

.

Yes, of course the courts have ignored due process and supported the legislature bypassing due process. I'm not arguing it doesn't happen. Not at all. I'm saying the Constitution says in the fifth amendment your rights cannot be removed without due process. Or in other words, they can be with due process. Since the right to a jury trial is part of due process, the government if we followed the Constitution could never remove your rights on it's own, it would have to convince a jury of citizens that your rights should be restricted

I agree.

But we have no one who will address our grievances.

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

, without agreeing that the right to trial by jury can also be. And the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. And the right to be protected from cruel or unusual punishment. And every other right unconditionally protected by the Constitution.
Are you going to answer that? Or just keep on repeating your wishful thinking and claims that since people have already taken our gun rights away, that somehow makes it OK?

I don't know what that means.

If I were in your position, trying to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't clear and absolute, I'd carefully "not know what it means" either. But I explained it clearly and straightforwardly here: What should the end goal of our gun policy be? .

If I'm convicted of a crime, the govt still can't take away my right to a jury trial. And it still can't take away my right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. And it can't take away my right to keep and bear arms. And it can't take away my right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. And it's so for the same reason every time: Each of those rights are explicitly spelled out in the Constitution... and thus are excepted from the language of the 5th amendment saying that certain rights can be taken away with due process of law. Otherwise there would have been no point in even bothering to include the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments in the Constitution at all, if "due process" could simply overrule them.

Are you saying that I can lose my right to a jury trial, with this "due process"? Or that the government can perform an unreasonable search and seizure with "due process"? Or that it can impose a cruel and unusual punishment with "due process"?

You still haven't answered.

I don't blame you. Admitting you're wrong can be difficult for some people.

 

[kaz]

, without agreeing that the right to trial by jury can also be. And the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. And the right to be protected from cruel or unusual punishment. And every other right unconditionally protected by the Constitution.
Are you going to answer that? Or just keep on repeating your wishful thinking and claims that since people have already taken our gun rights away, that somehow makes it OK?

I don't know what that means.

If I were in your position, trying to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't clear and absolute, I'd carefully "not know what it means" either. But I explained it clearly and straightforwardly here: What should the end goal of our gun policy be? .

If I'm convicted of a crime, the govt still can't take away my right to a jury trial. And it still can't take away my right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. And it can't take away my right to keep and bear arms. And it can't take away my right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. And it's so for the same reason every time: Each of those rights are explicitly spelled out in the Constitution... and thus are excepted from the language of the 5th amendment saying that certain rights can be taken away with due process of law. Otherwise there would have been no point in even bothering to include the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments in the Constitution at all, if "due process" could simply overrule them.

Are you saying that I can lose my right to a jury trial, with this "due process"? Or that the government can perform an unreasonable search and seizure with "due process"? Or that it can impose a cruel and unusual punishment with "due process"?

You still haven't answered.

I don't blame you. Admitting you're wrong can be difficult for some people.

So when you're in prison, tell me how they can't search your crib without a warrant, good luck with that. Let me know how your freedom of speech works out for you too.

Oh, and note the ... bars ...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you saying that I can lose my right to a jury trial, with this "due process"? Or that the government can perform an unreasonable search and seizure with "due process"? Or that it can impose a cruel and unusual punishment with "due process"?

Just curious...
"Life" is pretty clear, but....what liberties and properties does the due process clause of the 5th Amendment refer to?

 

[jon_berzerk]

You left one out: The right to keep and bear arms. As unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just as those others are unconditionally guaranteed, and can't be arbitrarily removed or restricted by legislation.

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

But if you want to keep wasting your time arguing convicted felons should have the right to buy guns, you go right ahead. Of all the things we'd want to change in our fucked up political system, I sure as hell don't know why that's the one you want

if the felon has fulfilled his debt to society in full

all of his rights should be restored

or they shouldnt be on the street

So, if your parent grounds you for a week and takes away your TV privileges for a month, in a week you can watch TV because you paid your debt. Bull, they were two punishments, not one punishment. You commit certain crimes, you go to prison for X, lose your vote for Y, lose the ability to buy guns for Z, ...

You only lose your right to buy guns if you committed certain violent acts. That all penalties have to cover the same time period is ridiculous

no the debt is grounding and loss of tv for one month not life

i also do not believe it is constitutional to ban a person from having a firearm

for a misdemeanor

It's State by State, but what State takes away gun rights for misdemeanors? I never heard of that. Most States remove gun rights only for violent felonies.

What does it matter that you lose TV for a month, "not life?" If you committed a violent felony, what is unreasonable about losing your gun rights as part of your punishment for life?

Also, I'm not sure why they would take away gun rights for misdemeanors, I"m not arguing I disagree with your view on that, but what makes you say it's "Unconstitutional?" The Constitutional standard is due process of law, not felony versus misdomeanor

of course you have

misdemeanor domestic assault for one

in fact Justice Thomas asked that specific question

asking

“Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?”

Voisine v. United States