-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
You are the threat,...
- Thread starter Gunfighter14e2
- Start date
Believe me I get it.
Why is it that the protected can post YouTube videos of them brandishing firearms and pounds of weed, at the same time call themselves artist?
My point is you have the underbelly of society grouped in with a God fearing man.
You'd think that five years of hard labor back in the 40's would just about break anyone's beliefs,or at least make you doubt yourself.
Which once again kind of proves the point that the prohibition is pointless as if someone actually wants to be a criminal there isn't usually any problem with them getting a gun, maybe even a better one depending on the state than the local law abiding citizens.
Part of the problem is two fold
Part 1 (And this is a big part)
"Felony" that big bad scary word some people are all up in arms about is these days practically anything, including things that shouldn't be a crime and normal people wouldn't think would be a crime (like selling your unused disneyworld tickets on ebay because you couldn't make it there due to a family emergency). It's being used for practically anything these days because the government wants more power, once they say you are 'felon' then they have you under their boot and can make everybody else be fine with your rights being permanently gone for no actual good reason.
So before one starts chanting their unthinking mantra "but felony" stop and look at what is actually a felony these days.
Part 2 (More government)
You used to be able to petition the ATF and the courts to restore your second amendment rights after completing your sentence if you could show you were no longer a threat to others. Then the government did an executive order forbidding the government from spending any money hearing your cases (so in effect saying we won't bother).
So in the end, try giving the government a bit less power and you'll probably come out better than before.
Ok, been thinking today, what are your guys thoughts on this idea;
When violent felons who were convicted of a crime using a gun get sentenced for, say for example
10-15 years. If they serve the full sentence, they re-enter society with full rights.
If they qualify for anything less then their full sentence, they agree to voluntarily relinquish some rights (2a) in lieu of serving their maximum sentence.
This could solve the problem of having violent offenders exercising rights that they abused in the past.
I think it would be constitutional in that they would otherwise (full sentence) have almost zero rights if they were to instead choose to remain incarcerated.
Then, their prohibition from owning guns is on them. Their choice.
Thoughts?......
When violent felons who were convicted of a crime using a gun get sentenced for, say for example
10-15 years. If they serve the full sentence, they re-enter society with full rights.
If they qualify for anything less then their full sentence, they agree to voluntarily relinquish some rights (2a) in lieu of serving their maximum sentence.
This could solve the problem of having violent offenders exercising rights that they abused in the past.
I think it would be constitutional in that they would otherwise (full sentence) have almost zero rights if they were to instead choose to remain incarcerated.
Then, their prohibition from owning guns is on them. Their choice.
Thoughts?......
meh, if I trusted a government not to abuse that idea I would go along with it but the Constitution forbids it so its a moot point,,, lock them up til they can be trusted to be amongst their fellow citizens,,, the Democrats invented this shit using your exact same logic in an racist people control effort,, them not you...
no free man should be denied any right of any free man, its simple really..
no free man should be denied any right of any free man, its simple really..
Not to sound like a lawyer, but define free?
When someone is paroled it’s a conditional release. It could easily be a condition of parol.
So, instead of an early release, certain classifications of felons would be paroled instead.
The elephant in the room is we all know that there are some people who have proven
themselves to be unworthy of 2a. And I’m talking about convicted felons, not John Q. Public.
But 2a says otherwise so they get a gun. Then they kill/rob/rape. And when this happens, the same
2a that guaranteed their freedom takes another hit. These hits are one of the things that erodes peoples
belief in the 2a. So ultimately, it hamstrings itself.
I’m just thinking of some common sense measures that would work within the framework of the constitution. Not to limit it, but to safeguard it.
well if we disarmed the government then I would consider this but as of now they cant be trusted so if a person is not in jail they should be free.
Did you ever consider that we have too many laws and too many people in jail, its bullshit and un American, especially since most are incarcerated by armed agents of the state using unconstitutional methods.
This all started when they made dueling against the law, which I might point out there is no constitutional authority allowing the government to bad dueling...
Did you ever consider that we have too many laws and too many people in jail, its bullshit and un American, especially since most are incarcerated by armed agents of the state using unconstitutional methods.
This all started when they made dueling against the law, which I might point out there is no constitutional authority allowing the government to bad dueling...
Pretty much what all those who think the second amendment shouldn't exist preface their next nibble at liberty with.
The tools are not the problem, the problem is the criminals.
Stop making crimes out of things that shouldn't be crimes
Start dealing with criminals that harm other people directly.
The actual reality is that in places with more "common sense" gun control, the crime is worse and the citizens are in more fear for their lives.
All these crimes based on "Possession" of an object are at the root cause of the problem of freedom being destroyed.
If you really want to solve the problem, then just order everyone to carry guns like it or not & everyone is obligated to attempt to stop crimes against another party.
Ex criminals not in jail can have them too, it won't matter, because the moment they try, they die.
If the law would get out of the way, those guys would this country on their own accord.
The only thing keeping them alive is the Law.
Leaving a known violent element in possession of firearms ensures job security for a segment chosen by the elite to separate the wheat from the chaff, so they can make bread and feed it to the serfs at the circus.
Certain serfs get privileges allowing them to send "other" serfs into the Coliseum arena, and tend the beasts. Them one day, oops, servant serf is walking into the arena and ......
Up in the hills, the uneducated, unwanted barbarian savages enjoy the free life, waiting on the elite to send up the next grocery and supply run, that was supposed to show them the error of their savage ways and accept serfdom....
Life is really good in the hills. Just a thought.
Certain serfs get privileges allowing them to send "other" serfs into the Coliseum arena, and tend the beasts. Them one day, oops, servant serf is walking into the arena and ......
Up in the hills, the uneducated, unwanted barbarian savages enjoy the free life, waiting on the elite to send up the next grocery and supply run, that was supposed to show them the error of their savage ways and accept serfdom....
Life is really good in the hills. Just a thought.
J you are sounding like someone I know,,, stop.
All you dumb ************ers. Who want prohibiting offenses. What good do they do when the real criminals don't give a f and it only affects the law abiding citizens?
Hmm I'm going to go rape rob and or distribute large amounts of CDS. Better not have a gun cause that would be against the law.
Hmm I'm going to go rape rob and or distribute large amounts of CDS. Better not have a gun cause that would be against the law.
I would say we should implode all government not specifically allowed in the Constitution,,, that is all.
Ever since 1963 (when they lost their favorite President to a deranged assassin), the Democrats have been incessantly and intolerably endeavoring to render everyone but the government (and them, as government, by by means necessary) utterly incapable of rendering them harmless. They flood the media and universities with a mishmash of weak logic and unconstitutional gobbledygook insisting that no, the founders did not want the peons armed, and yes, the Democrats, and Democrats only, have a lock on wisdom and right thinking.
They are a party which has outlived its usefulness to the American people.
Their deranged excess is very close to invalidating both democracy (small 'd') from relevance, and themselves from participation in polite politics. Now, their Antifa wing has taken on the mantle of Hitler's Brown Shirt Storm Troopers, and their leadership is impersonating both Hitler and Stalin in their headlong blundering toward a totalitarian state.
I will do nothing to change this. I don't represent middle class America. I won't survive this insanity whether I participate or not;
my age is great, and my health is not. My presence is hardly even relevant anymore.
But yours isn't. Get your asses in gear, America, while there still is an America.
Greg
They are a party which has outlived its usefulness to the American people.
Their deranged excess is very close to invalidating both democracy (small 'd') from relevance, and themselves from participation in polite politics. Now, their Antifa wing has taken on the mantle of Hitler's Brown Shirt Storm Troopers, and their leadership is impersonating both Hitler and Stalin in their headlong blundering toward a totalitarian state.
I will do nothing to change this. I don't represent middle class America. I won't survive this insanity whether I participate or not;
my age is great, and my health is not. My presence is hardly even relevant anymore.
But yours isn't. Get your asses in gear, America, while there still is an America.
Greg
Last edited:
I don't want my government disarmed. I want it purged of Socialists, Communists, and ComSymps.
Someday, when I'm in the ground, and you're all in reeducation camps; it'll finally dawn on you just exactly what Khrushchev meant when he said, "We will bury you". Look around, you're already in it up to your elbows. Putin is laughing so hard, he's rolling on the floor in front of his personal painting of Lenin.
Greg
Someday, when I'm in the ground, and you're all in reeducation camps; it'll finally dawn on you just exactly what Khrushchev meant when he said, "We will bury you". Look around, you're already in it up to your elbows. Putin is laughing so hard, he's rolling on the floor in front of his personal painting of Lenin.
Greg
They learned during the election of that "favorite" President that they could steal elections....
After that the guy in front didnt matter.
He was only the ends to the means but he wasnt needed and they didnt need to pick candidates that were not 100 percent invested in their platform.
@greg Langelius*
As long as you vote and steer others in the right direction you sir are still very relevant.
Your oath to defend the constitution is not up!
As long as you vote and steer others in the right direction you sir are still very relevant.
Your oath to defend the constitution is not up!
Putin is honest about rigging the elections to make sure he wins every time.
And at least your relatives don't have to wonder if you killed yourself or if it was arkancide.
Either their debt to society has been payed or it has not either they pose a danger to society or they do not. If they can't be trusted to own a firearm then they shouldn't be free either. Just my opinion.
If they're such a danger to society, why are they free?
Your argument fails every single logical test I can think of. And any constitutional test too, BTW.
Depending on what crime was committed they probably shouldn't be free. Home burglary should be punished by death. These guys shouldnt own guns or be able to vote. They should be dead. Vehicle theft. Death. Aiding illegal immigration. Death.
Every logical test you can think of? I guess that is a pretty low standard. I've spent a reasonable amount of time studying and pondering the words and intent of the founding fathers. I've never seen a single thing indicating that they wished to arm thugs, muggers or rapists. Be careful not to make your self into some fringe anarchist or nihilist.
If you truly believe that felons retain their right to own arms then you are no friend of mine.
You're confusing your ignorance and your biases with intelligent thought.
Answer the fucking question will ya: If someone is too dangerous to have his RTBA restored, why in the fuck is he/she free?
Simple question, do you have an answer or are you going to spout more deflective bullshit?
In many cases cases they should not be out of prison. You need only look at the carnage wrecked by gangs of released convicts in our major cities in order to see this if you have even ordinary intelligence.
There are procedures in place by which felons can have their RTBA restored. Fortunately those procedures involve a bit more than simply serving enough of the sentance to get out on parole. It is also fortunate that fruitcakes like you are not in charge of those procedures.
I have to wonder where you are coming from. How many criminals do you have in your immediate family and among your close friends?
There are no more insane asylums and criminals are not held to reform because the gang running the show want to expand the reach of the prison everywhere.
Perhaps that was uncalled for. I just can't see where you got the dumb idea criminals should be lawfully allowed to have guns. I guarantee you that expressing a fringe idea like that to that average American will cause them to wonder if it might be better if no one had guns.
Because the criminal justice system is currently inadequate to manage rehabilitation/reward for non repeating offenders who should be restored,
and the repeat offenders/habitual offenders overwhelm the system that was not designed to handle them, federal judges order them freed to prevent overcrowding or "cruel and unusual punishments". Ad nauseum...
Our form of government and the evolving culture does not take the hard line cleansing methodology, rather it is based on, "it is better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent suffer" 'Blackstone'. .
And the founding fathers never foresaw the levels of crime and violence running amok in cities like Chicago today. Their cultural level of personal responsibility and belief that that standard would hold, failed to stand the journey to where incompetent politicians and citizen apathy have us today.
Our present government is not prepared to spend the huge amount of $ long term incarceration of non rehabilitative offenders would cost, nor, will the population go along with wholesale executions of any class of non rehabilitative repeat offenders.
That's not the whole answer. But it's one answer based on "looking at the systems failures and asking why..."
Last edited:
If I may, perhaps I can try to explain it from the standpoint of those that see how the world actually works and value freedom very highly, highly enough that they are not willing to toss away their freedom because "security" or "it would make things better".
Through the history of the world and this country etc. Have criminals ever had a significant problem getting the weapons or tools they need to commit crimes against others? NO If you are going to go commit Rape, Murder, Muggings and such, are you going to be bothered by a little add on that you stole a weapon or bought one illegally, again NO as proven over and over. Do terrorists have any problem getting the stuff they want in Europe where there is tons of "Gun Control?", Again NO
So it would be very logical to assume that someone who is a criminal is not going to bother following the law and saying... well they say I can't have a gun so I'll just not get one... sorry they can get guns easier and cheaper than most law abiding citizens.
Now that you have that part understood, here comes the next part.
The politicans are more than happy to listen to your pleas that "somebody should do something" to get these "thugs, muggers, rapists" and OMG these evil "felons" to not have guns.... just sign away your freedom here please and they will be happy to write some feel good law that you can go home all smug and contented about....
So you are all up about "Felons"
Well guess what, you are falling exactly into their trap to destroy freedom. You think "Felony" means like raping or murdering someone...
Guess how it actually plays out when it comes to gun charges....
You threw your keys angrily on the kitchen counter
You told the FBI what you saw and it wasn't the same version as what they told you that you are supposed to say
You sold your unused Disneyworld tickets on craigslist because your trip was cancelled.
You shipped a bottle of wine to someone in the wrong state
The list goes on and on.
And no, unfortunately good people that get stuck on that find it near impossible to get their rights restored thanks to an executive order never rescinded that prohibits the correct department from spending money to follow the law to give you a hearing to restore your rights.
Meanwhile if you are an actual criminal every virtue signaling fool wants to fix your problems.
So in the end what you wind up with is:
Criminals still get guns as easy as ever before, just like criminals get all the drugs they want.
Laws are not enforced for criminals
Laws ARE enforced against law abiding citizens that accidentally step in some government trap or try to stand up to the government.
That is why those of us who are really into the whole freedom thing don't care much about laws blocking criminals from having guns.
They will have them anyways, law or no law, we just want to be able to kill them promptly on the spot when they do a crime to someone else.
There was MUCH less crime back in the days before laws were on the books banning everything, and it was simply you attacked someone, you got killed by them.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. While is contains a lot of sound reasoning I disagree with the conclusion if that conclusion is that convicted felons should be allowed to lawfully own arms.
It is true that criminals will not obey the laws against them having guns, yet the very fact that it is unlawful for them to have them differentiates them from us. The simple fact that is that if I am in Lowes and you are their with your concealed handgun, I am not at great risk from you. However if a felon who just got out (after serving the NY average 5 years and three month) for armed robbery/murder is there I am at much greater personal risk. So while I support your right he has no right, by his past conduct he has forfeited his right.
Yes he can still get the gun by breaking the law, but hopefully he will be restrained by the possibility of punishment.
---------------------
a) Throwing your keys angrily on the kitchen counter is not a felony.
b) If you talk to the FBI with out an attorney you are too stupid to own a gun.
c) Don't buy tickets to Disney in the first place then you will not have to sell them
d) Drink your wine and beer in your own house
My replies are a little tongue in cheek, simple fact most people being convicted of things like you mention pleaded down from something more serious.
That only actually works on law abiding people, once you have nothing to loose and just get to go back for another semester in Gang University, to learn how to get away with it better next time.....
Just look at places like Chicago.... "possibility of punishment"... right so all the decent law abiding folks are unarmed and all the violent criminals / gangs / really bad guys are armed to the teeth and shooting it out every day.
It comes down to, nice idea, but not likely to do anything other than be used against you.
And be a bit careful about dismissing my examples, a bit of searching might just show it's not a joke.
I'm with you 110 percent.
But if someone is free they should be free.
This BS give an inch they take a mile doesn't work.
Prohibiting offenses are bull shit.
That process isn't being funded for the most part
And do you know how many non crimes are prohibiting offenses?
Your line of reasoning gets us "protective orders" and "red flag" laws.
What he said. ^. It's already been gone over in this theeas
Anti gunners all up in SH
SMFH
Your tag line is a lie
And you are a ignorant statist.
I hope you unwittingly piss off some cop or prosecuter. It's the only way some people learn. Telling them the stove is hot isn't good enough.
Yes because that is what everyone is talking about here.
It is not.
Once again you reveal the true depth of your intellect.
The Constitution does not say what you want it to say. It says what it says.
Second Amendment said:
Criminals were not considered by the founding fathers to be part of the Militia. The Militia was those citizens who could be depended on, any who were responsible.
I am truly amazed at the depth of ignorance some members have shown on this thread. To believe that criminal felons upon release from prison should have their Second Amendment rights restored is dumb. Why not let them have guns while they are in prison? Once you add that they should have their voting rights restored then you will have become Democrats.
You have either paid your debt or you haven't, there is no middle ground there at all. The catch an release program the Just-Us system uses is just a cash cow for them all the while demanding(aka stealing) more tax base to "Keep You Safe" from those they have made in the first place.
How about the thousands of misdemeanors that are prohibiting offenses?
The statist .gov worshipping idiots let the camels nose under the tent with the "we will only take guns from felons"
"We will only use these searches for drugs"
"We will only steal cash from drug dealers"
Etc
Etc
Etc
Idiots give .gov more power
The statist .gov worshipping idiots let the camels nose under the tent with the "we will only take guns from felons"
"We will only use these searches for drugs"
"We will only steal cash from drug dealers"
Etc
Etc
Etc
Idiots give .gov more power
Here is just the latest example of why you want to be careful about being all gung ho about well those "criminals" shouldn't have rights:
There is a decent chance you might wind up being "criminaled" despite doing nothing wrong.
thehill.com
So here we have a police officer finally caught after a long career of planting drugs on people that he couldn't find a good excuse on..
So police just happen to get upset they can't give you a ticket and well... there go your rights....
It's also why I'm against this war on drugs, it's become a free for all on a war on our remaining rights.
There is a decent chance you might wind up being "criminaled" despite doing nothing wrong.
Florida deputy arrested on charges he planted drugs on drivers during traffic stops
Authorities in Florida have arrested a former sheriff’s deputy after an investigation found he routinely pulled over drivers for minor traffic infractions and then arrested them after planting drug…
thehill.com
So here we have a police officer finally caught after a long career of planting drugs on people that he couldn't find a good excuse on..
So police just happen to get upset they can't give you a ticket and well... there go your rights....
It's also why I'm against this war on drugs, it's become a free for all on a war on our remaining rights.
Apparently, you have no idea how it works. Law enforcement has nothing to do with convictions. The majority of time, on felon in possession, it is one of several charges. They plead to one, the others are dropped. Sometimes, charges are dropped for no particular reason. Sometimes they are dropped because there were issues with the arrest.
Please specify. Show me a list "thousands of misdemeanor prohibiting offenses".
Similar threads
