Will you actively protect my rights? - Page 3

Will you actively protect my rights?

This is a discussion on Will you actively protect my rights? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m I do not see why any person should be afraid to voice their opinion. Thats how we discussions work, listening to ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Will you actively protect my rights?

  1. #31
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I do not see why any person should be afraid to voice their opinion. Thats how we discussions work, listening to views other than our own.

    Michael
    Your thread reminded me of this:
    Obama calls for measures against gun violence.
    and this:
    Unpopular or Not: For Open Minds This May Make You Think:


  2. #32
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    If they would be a danger to anyone why should they be released? If they are not a danger why not allow them full freedom? Why not give them lifetime parole after being released? After all isn't being released but being restricted in what you do any different than being out on parole?

    Violent felons are released on a daily basis through time served, parole or simply prison overcrowding it is a common and frightening occurence. Who is to say if they are a danger to society? A person convicted of child porn is deemed a non violent felon under most sentencing guidelines. Would he pick up a gun and commit a violent act? Probably not. Do I think he should be able to legally own a gun? Absolutely not.
    Lifetime parole could/would only be funded through massive tax hikes and paid for by the people. Who would monitor these guys? The manpower alone would not be cost efficient. Probation and Parole officers already have massive case loads and can't keep up with what they have now. What if they violated there lifetime parole then what? Send them back to an already overcrowded prison system? You would have to have 24/7 courts to handle just those cases and that is if they plead guilty to what they did.

    I understand the question you are asking and yes I would support gun rights UNTIL it came to something that violated my own moral or ethical code, like the above, then I could and would not support it. Now with that being said I have a feeling something like this would be attached to a bigger agenda like, "You either pass the bill to allow all released felons to regain their right to own a firearm or give up your own right to own one". Obviously this is way overexaggerated but you see my point. Tit for Tat, you scratch my back I scratch yours.

    This is beyond a CC/OC issue. As I have stated before both sides have their points and also their idiots and they don't change their views very often. Overall we need to stick together in this fight, but will we that is the question.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,104
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    BTW, I didn't throw the gay rights thing in there for political reasons... But to illustrate the point, where does support end?

    Is it my job to support your rights as you see them, or THE general right... or the right as I see it?
    I would submit that it is your "job" to support the exercise of genuine rights, whatever they may be. There is an easy definition for your rights too, which is, your exercise of said rights does not harm or rob another person. By that logic, most laws we have on the books now, federal and state, trample your rights. There are very few things which are in the purview of your neighbors to try to stop you from doing, whether directly or through the power of their vote. Therefore, getting back to guns specifically, I think people should be able to own whatever type of armament they can afford and want. If they're a proven, violent threat to society they have no business being anywhere but jail. I do not support the "prohibited persons" list in the GCA of 1968, and I don't believe in the Class III designation or the existence of the ATF. At the founding, there were even privately owned warships, complete with cannons and everything. Somehow we survived it, and I believe it is because the mere existence of private warships did not harm anyone. Focus on negative liberties only (which means, freedom from coercion), and we can have a society that is about as "on track" as it gets.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    A person convicted of child porn is deemed a non violent felon under most sentencing guidelines. Would he pick up a gun and commit a violent act? Probably not. Do I think he should be able to legally own a gun? Absolutely not.
    Don't you think that a person released from a conviction of "possessing child porn" is much more likely to encounter self-defense scenarios than average people? It seems to me that they're at greater risk of suffering future illegal violence, especially if their conviction becomes advertised. If we think of guns as self-defense tools and a protected right, then the released felon has greater need of having that right protected than the average bear.
    suntzu likes this.
    Consider matching your Thanksgiving dinner spending to DwB donations. It's a rare for investment and charity to converge.

    As well, there are millions in potential patents possible for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell.. (and gumption) It's an untapped technology.


  5. #35
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by DrahtDog View Post
    I fight this war everyday. Winning hearts and minds. If your a hunting buddy that owns rifles shotguns and pistols, Ill convince you why you need semi auto "assualt" style weapons. Also explain there is no harm in machineguns and suppressors. If your a coworker that doesnt own guns Ill tell you the facts constantly and bombard you will violent news stories of criminals attacking people and tell you why you need firearms to protect your self and family. Im always offering to teach people how to safely use and store their firearms also.
    Really. I think that is frankly annoying and rude. Make your point, then leave it up to the guy to decide. By constantly bombarding someone with anything could push them the other way more.

    How would you like it if a co-worker kept bombarding you with info to vote for a certain candidate, or kept hounding you everyday about going to his church. You sound like ceertain gun organizations at an individual level. I am pro 2A and left gun organizations because they kept bombarding me with information I already knew.

    Did it occur to you some folks know the facts and just do not want to carry. It is someones right to avail themselves of a right also.

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    Don't you think that a person released from a conviction of "possessing child porn" is much more likely to encounter self-defense scenarios than average people? It seems to me that they're at greater risk of suffering future illegal violence, especially if their conviction becomes advertised. If we think of guns as self-defense tools and a protected right, then the released felon has greater need of having that right protected than the average bear.
    Our liberal friend from up north makes a valid point.

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,605
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Our liberal friend from up north makes a valid point.
    I have to disagree, child porn is sick on all levels. IMO an individual like that does not deserve their rights restored. That kind of thinking IMO has caused a lot of problems all over the world. Not arguing with you Sun, just throwing my .02 out there...

    In short, I would not support there petition for rights.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  8. #38
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Our liberal friend from up north makes a valid point.

    LOL well not really.

    So using that logic a person convicted of stealing dozens of elderly peoples life savings, committing a series of major burglaries stealing tens of thousands of dollars, let say including your gun collection, or convicted of fondling of your child, has done his time and is released, should have the right to purchase and carry a firearm because they are labeled none violent offenders and the family (you) may come after them? Your kidding right?

    I guess you will have to have your views and support the gun rights you want to support and I will have mine cause I don't think we will meet in the middle on this one.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Our liberal friend from up north makes a valid point.

    LOL well not really.

    So using that logic a person convicted of stealing dozens of elderly peoples life savings, committing a series of major burglaries stealing tens of thousands of dollars, let say including your gun collection, or convicted of fondling of your child, has done his time and is released, should have the right to purchase and carry a firearm because they are labeled none violent offenders and the family (you) may come after them? Your kidding right?

    I guess you will have to have your views and support the gun rights you want to support and I will have mine cause I don't think we will meet in the middle on this one.
    First of all you do understand that most sex offenders IMO should never be let out of jail. And let us stay with one example instead of segueing ff into different analogies. But, since you already did, a person released from prison for a sex crime, especially heinous ones, can be at risk of assualt from neighbors, or the family. They are listed in the sex offender registry and people know where they are.
    A person convicted of a Ponzi scheme is a bit harder to find.

    Point is by denying them the right to bear arms in their home you are possibly putting them at risk.

  10. #40
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,316
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Our liberal friend from up north makes a valid point.
    He has no valid point. A released felon absolutely does not have a greater need to have his right to bear arms protected than a law-abiding member of society does.

    Only one view, but felons should lose rights including the right to bear arms. Perhaps our friendly child porn convict should have considered what he stood to lose when he didn't exercise self-control to the point of breaking the law. The law should induce consequences and fear of retribution as one of its provisions, for the consideration of those who contemplate breaking it.

    He may well be at greater risk but he brought that increased risk down on his own head. Personally, I can't be concerned with the self-defense risks a person may bring upon himself because of lawless decisions that he has made. In a word, tough!

    We have turned tolerance from a virtue into a vice. We tolerate absolutely everything the aberrance within our society throws at us. We won't tolerate intolerance though. Mustn't dare be intolerant!

    We will have just as much crime as we are willing to tolerate.
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,605
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    First of all you do understand that most sex offenders IMO should never be let out of jail. And let us stay with one example instead of segueing ff into different analogies. But, since you already did, a person released from prison for a sex crime, especially heinous ones, can be at risk of assualt from neighbors, or the family. They are listed in the sex offender registry and people know where they are.
    A person convicted of a Ponzi scheme is a bit harder to find.

    Point is by denying them the right to bear arms in their home you are possibly putting them at risk.
    To be honest, if they get what they have coming to them, then justice is served. We both know that 3 squares, a cot, cable TV, free Meds and the list goes on, is not justice...One way or another they will pay, either in this life, or the next.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  12. #42
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,575
    I routinely write, email and call my US Representative and Senators on a varity of issues some of which members of the forum might not agree with. But I consider the issues I present to my representatives in Congress to be worth fighting for and that they are for the good of our nation.

    I am also aware that those who are on opposite sides of issues that I am also believe that their side (even if it is misguided) is for the good of the country.
    A real man loves his wife, and places his family as the most important thing in life. Nothing has brought me more peace and content in life than simply being a good husband and father.

  13. #43
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    To be honest, if they get what they have coming to them, then justice is served. We both know that 3 squares, a cot, cable TV, free Meds and the list goes on, is not justice...One way or another they will pay, either in this life, or the next.
    That is called lynch mob mentality and it has caused folks to be harmed and/or killed in the name of mob justice. A society comes down to the level of a criminal when they do that. That is not a liberal thought but an unemotional fact. Some folks here are forgetting that not everyone in jail actually did the crime. Many folks have been found out later to be innocent of all charges, not on a technicality but on real proof. How many guys have been convicted of rape when there have been hundreds later on exonerated. How many have been thrown in jail based on the he said she said and got a sympathetic jury that believed the woman.

    No, it is easy to say I don't and they deserve what they get. Unfortunately that mob mentality spills over and kills innocent folks. That is not the society I want to live in.

    The justice system is screwed up. If convicted they need to do the 25 years for rape, not 2.

    We talk about felons like they can never be productive in society. Bull. Many will always be repeat offenders, no doubt. But many do realize there mistakes and can contribute back to society.

  14. #44
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,146
    Ah, neat. To me, the post-release restrictions of rights can have two motivations: further punishment or to protect society.

    We don't want release violent felons to own firearms, because they've shown propensity already to using criminal violence. We don't trust them. Likewise with drunk drivers losing their licenses and sex offenders being barred from being near children. These, to me, have to 'intent' of 'protecting society' from people deemed too immature to handle themselves in specific ways.

    On the other hand, there can be the idea of permanent punishment. This is when it can get strange, because it can be arbitrary. The sex offender can lose his right to bear arms. The violent felon can lose his right to vote. What else? The drunk driver can have soldiers quartered in his house? People convicted of Ponzi schemes lose their future right to retain counsel and face their accusers?

    Now, there're a lot of restrictions that are internally consistent. The most common justification I see for 'the right to bear arms' is self-defense. But, if it's a privilege that can be taken away for thematically unrelated reasons, then the term 'privilege' seems to be more appropriate than 'right'. As a Northern liberal (though we might be using the word differently), the idea is to restrict freedoms as little as possible and to do so only with a goal. So, it's likely a cultural issue, but taking away a drunk driver's license to drive makes a lot more sense, policy-wise, than taking away his right to vote (or any other right people wish to take away as punishment).

    In conclusion, if you're willing to take away the right to bear arms, why not lose the right to refuse to quarter soldiers? If neither are thematically related to the crime, it's just punishment, and post-release punishment could take an endless variety of forms. IF the right to bear arms is linked to the unwritten right to self-defense, why limit the loss of this right only to people who're more powerful than you (i.e., the people against whom a gun might be reasonable)? Why not lose the right to self-defense entirely? "Oh, you snatched the granny's cane when she was clubbing you. Normally, this would be self-defense, but with you it's robbery". IF the right to bear arms is NOT linked to the unwritten right to self-defense, then never mind.
    Consider matching your Thanksgiving dinner spending to DwB donations. It's a rare for investment and charity to converge.

    As well, there are millions in potential patents possible for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell.. (and gumption) It's an untapped technology.


  15. #45
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,559
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    I would submit that it is your "job" to support the exercise of genuine rights, whatever they may be. There is an easy definition for your rights too, which is, your exercise of said rights does not harm or rob another person. By that logic, most laws we have on the books now, federal and state, trample your rights...
    Do these rights which it is my "job to support" have to be enumerated (listed) in the constitution? If not, then when was the last time you marched in a gay rights parade, signed their petitions for equal treatment under the law (arguably an un-enumerated right) ... or conversely... actively stood with the folks from the Westboro Baptist church exercising their right to speech and religion at the funeral of a fallen soldier (an enumerated right)?

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Therefore, getting back to guns specifically, I think people should be able to own whatever type of armament they can afford and want. If they're a proven, violent threat to society they have no business being anywhere but jail. ...
    The people who are entitled to the right to keep and bear arms are not limited to citizens of the USA. These are the enumerated rights of those who LIVE in the United States:
    ▪ freedom of expression
    ▪ freedom of speech
    ▪ freedom of assembly
    ▪ freedom to petition the government
    ▪ freedom of worship
    ▪ the right to bear arms

    A felon lives in the United States... Even if he has some or all of his citizenship rights revoked... he still lives in the United States. He can lose his right to vote, a citizenship right.. But not his right to petition the government (for his citizenship rights, if nothing else) and he need not petition for the right to bear arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    At the founding, there were even privately owned warships, complete with cannons and everything. Somehow we survived it, and I believe it is because the mere existence of private warships did not harm anyone. Focus on negative liberties only (which means, freedom from coercion), and we can have a society that is about as "on track" as it gets.
    I've heard there were privately owned canons (but cannot find a corroborated source)... but not ships with canons... though there may not have been corporations (as we know them today) that owned these things... and possibly not true warships, but cargo ships with plenty of armament to protect itself from privateers... And, as I have said, I have no problem with you owning a canon or a Ma Deuce...

    I might git a little twitchy if you insist on having a ricin bomb... or a nuke (suitcase or otherwise)... After all, we've seen and heard of plenty of well trained , expert gun folk, inadvertently shooting themselves or another... And while that's a rare occurrence... it would only take one negligent discharge with a nuke or chemical bomb.... to affect scores of people (not just the idiot that just "Had to have one, 'cause it's sooo tacticool")

    So where do we draw the line in support of one another? or do we? And if we don't draw a line in our "job to support" rights, how can we find the time for our "job to support" ourselves, and our families... we'd be out marching all the time...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

arkansas machine gun shoot
,
it is a rare occasion that i point my finger and today i do it and call you a coward.
,
protect my rights
,

what steps does an ex felon need to take to get back second amendment rights

Click on a term to search for related topics.