What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[kaz]

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

You know I'm not arguing with you on this, right? I agree that a misdemeanor should not cause you to lose your gun rights, particularly permanenetly. The only point I disagreed with was it's not "Constitutional" to take your gun rights for a misdemeanor. The only Constitutional process I know to take them is 'due process of law," I don't see misdemeanors or felony specified. It would require a jury conviction though if you demand your right to a jury since that's part of due process

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only Constitutional process I know to take them is 'due process of law,"

And even that one is actually unconstitutional when it comes to your gun rights and a few others. The only exception is if some official takes your gun away, you sue him for violating your 2nd amendment rights, and the jury lets him walk even though the 2nd says he can't do that. Because the jury takes into account that you just shot a bunch of innocent people and decided that the officer did the right thing.

They can only do that you your case alone. But it leaves intact any other case... such as when government officials who try to restrict your gun rights through so-called "gun control" laws - you can still sue them for doing so, and the jury probably won't them them walk.

The 5th amendment says that certain rights can be restricted or taken away "with due process of law", but other simultaneous amendments make exceptions to that rule. Right to trial by jury, right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms, plus others. All of those are specifically called out by the Constitution as being unconditional - govt cannot violate them, period.

See here: What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

And here: What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

 

[kaz]

The only Constitutional process I know to take them is 'due process of law,"

And even that one is actually unconstitutional when it comes to your gun rights and a few others. The only exception is if some official takes your gun away, you sue him for violating your 2nd amendment rights, and the jury lets him walk even though the 2nd says he can't do that. Because the jury takes into account that you just shot a bunch of innocent people and decided that the officer did the right thing.

They can only do that you your case alone. But it leaves intact any other case... such as when government officials who try to restrict your gun rights through so-called "gun control" laws - you can still sue them for doing so, and the jury probably won't them them walk.

The 5th amendment says that certain rights can be restricted or taken away "with due process of law", but other simultaneous amendments make exceptions to that rule. Right to trial by jury, right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms, plus others. All of those are specifically called out by the Constitution as being unconditional - govt cannot violate them, period.

See here: What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

And here: What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

The Constitution is Unconstitutional. Got it. Your quest to arm criminals is admirable. If you're a criminal

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution is Unconstitutional. Got it.

You're the one who called a method of infringing the right to own and carry a gun, "constitutional".

Nice try at projecting your error onto someone else who didn't commit it.

 

[bornright]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnPrxbYARJg&feature=youtu.be

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, to answer the question asked in the OP (again), the end goal of our gun policy should be to let all responsible adults carry if they want to.

Most still won't bother, but a few will. And a criminal looking to do a mass shooting or robbery etc., will know that there are probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack... and he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect a bullet from an unknown direction, before he can rack up his wished-for gruesome body count, or make his getaway or whatever.

And so, maybe he will decide he doesn't want to commit his crime after all.

So in many cases, lives will be saved, without a shot being fired.

That's a better result than any liberals have ever achieved by making laws restricting the guns of people who obey laws.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution is Unconstitutional. Got it.

You're the one who called a method of infringing the right to own and carry a gun, "constitutional".

Nice try at projecting your error onto someone else who didn't commit it.

Your desire to help crime and murder innocent people is admirable. Fight on, sailor

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution is Unconstitutional. Got it.

Your desire to help crime and murder innocent people is admirable. Fight on, sailor

It's typical of a liberal who has lost the debate, to start spouting lies and smears like those.

It's been happening a lot lately.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution is Unconstitutional. Got it.

Your desire to help crime and murder innocent people is admirable. Fight on, sailor

It's typical of a liberal who has lost the debate, to start spouting lies and smears like those.

It's been happening a lot lately.

Seriously, dude, learn what due process of law means. Your love of criminals and desire to help them murder innocent victims is sick.

And again, please tell me you aren't an actual gun owner, you're just lost in your idiotic ideology. Do you notice even ... anarchists, don't agree with you? ...

So did you accept my challenge? Get arrested, convicted of a felony. Then explain how your demand for a warrant to search your cell resulted in them producing a warrant or not searching your cell ... Oh, and how your right to free speech, religious freedom and how if you decided to leave your jailed cell they let you go.

The country you want where criminals rule I'll pass on

 

[Jarlaxle]

What you wrote, not what you said. Such minor mistakes are an example of a mind cluttered by self interest and ego, vis a vis a sagacious and panoptic weltanschauung . It doesn't make you stupid, but it does define you as one of the flock. Any pretense is simply fooling yourself and no one else.

This is a perfect example of five-dollar words from a five-cent mind.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's typical of a liberal who has lost the debate, to start spouting lies and smears like those.

It's been happening a lot lately.

Your love of criminals and desire to help them murder innocent victims is sick.

See?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What you wrote, not what you said. Such minor mistakes are an example of a mind cluttered by self interest and ego, vis a vis a sagacious and panoptic weltanschauung . It doesn't make you stupid, but it does define you as one of the flock. Any pretense is simply fooling yourself and no one else.

This is a perfect example of five-dollar words from a five-cent mind.

This ^^^ is a comment from someone who believes, "Let's make America great again" is a policy statement and a course correction. I suppose I need to talk down to him/her: "how bout dem cowboys?"

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

You know I'm not arguing with you on this, right? I agree that a misdemeanor should not cause you to lose your gun rights, particularly permanenetly. The only point I disagreed with was it's not "Constitutional" to take your gun rights for a misdemeanor. The only Constitutional process I know to take them is 'due process of law," I don't see misdemeanors or felony specified. It would require a jury conviction though if you demand your right to a jury since that's part of due process

can you think of any misdemeanor by jury or by pleading that suspends any other constitutional right

 

[kaz]

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

You know I'm not arguing with you on this, right? I agree that a misdemeanor should not cause you to lose your gun rights, particularly permanenetly. The only point I disagreed with was it's not "Constitutional" to take your gun rights for a misdemeanor. The only Constitutional process I know to take them is 'due process of law," I don't see misdemeanors or felony specified. It would require a jury conviction though if you demand your right to a jury since that's part of due process

can you think of any misdemeanor by jury or by pleading that suspends any other constitutional right

No. You realize I keep agreeing with you that misdemeanors should not suspend Constitutional rights, right?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

You know I'm not arguing with you on this, right? I agree that a misdemeanor should not cause you to lose your gun rights, particularly permanenetly. The only point I disagreed with was it's not "Constitutional" to take your gun rights for a misdemeanor. The only Constitutional process I know to take them is 'due process of law," I don't see misdemeanors or felony specified. It would require a jury conviction though if you demand your right to a jury since that's part of due process

can you think of any misdemeanor by jury or by pleading that suspends any other constitutional right

No. You realize I keep agreeing with you that misdemeanors should not suspend Constitutional rights, right?

good

 

[SmokeALib]

Read the 2nd amendment. That spells out the end goal of our gun policy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A conviction of a misdemeanor is generally adjudicated by a jail sentence and or a fine; both are imposed under the terms and conditions of probation. They are offered to the defendant who can reject them, and in doing so s/he risks being sentence to the longest term possible in the CJ.

I used to go into the jail and do a Q&A with offenders convicted of Domestic Violence. One such person rejected probation against the advice of his attorney. As a consequence he was sentenced to five years county jail, one year on each count he was found guilty of, to be served consecutively. Had he accepted probation and other Terms and Conditions he would most likely serve 30 days CJ, concurrently with credit for time served, and required to attend a Batterer's Treatment program as an outpatient for one year, not own, possess or have in his custody and control a gun, agree to S&S whereby any guns he owned would be confiscated, and other T's&C's he felt were too severe for violating a protective order, beating his wife, killing her cat, threatening her parents and resisting arrest.

IMO he should never be allowed to own, possess or have a gun in his control or possession, nor should anyone convicted of a crime of violence be it a misdemeanor or a felony.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I agree.

But we have no one who will address our grievances.

.

What about those two gentlemen Smith, & Wesson?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What you wrote, not what you said. Such minor mistakes are an example of a mind cluttered by self interest and ego, vis a vis a sagacious and panoptic weltanschauung . It doesn't make you stupid, but it does define you as one of the flock. Any pretense is simply fooling yourself and no one else.

This is a perfect example of five-dollar words from a five-cent mind.

This ^^^ is a comment from someone who believes, "Let's make America great again" is a policy statement and a course correction. I suppose I need to talk down to him/her: "how bout dem cowboys?"

Says he who is forced to lie in order to make his points.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What you wrote, not what you said. Such minor mistakes are an example of a mind cluttered by self interest and ego, vis a vis a sagacious and panoptic weltanschauung . It doesn't make you stupid, but it does define you as one of the flock. Any pretense is simply fooling yourself and no one else.

This is a perfect example of five-dollar words from a five-cent mind.

This ^^^ is a comment from someone who believes, "Let's make America great again" is a policy statement and a course correction. I suppose I need to talk down to him/her: "how bout dem cowboys?"

Says he who is forced to lie in order to make his points.

FU - why not take a break blue your guns.