It's Coming

#227
#227
Enki_Amenra said:
This is absolutely silly. Giving a convicted firearm murderer the right to conceal/carry in the future is asinine.

There are checks and balances made to protect the rights of individuals who pose no threat to society, while also limiting the potential threat from a known community threat.
Click to expand...

Save your time, you’ll never convince me that all rights shouldn’t be restored once a sentence is complete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#229
#229
Enki_Amenra said:
No thanks.

Someone kills your brother by shooting him in the head during an attempted robbery. He pleas down to 25yrs on murder 2 and serves 15. He gets out and moves next door to your family, should he be allowed to carry a firearm?
Click to expand...
In this forum you’re going to get a lot of libertarian replies. In your example I can understand your apprehension however our system must also understand the concept of redemption. And most of us here just wish people would leave each other alone.

As an example did you read about the parole case for Sirhan Sirhan recently? RFK’s two living children advocated for his parole even. That is a example of redemption in the eyes of the people he directly wronged.
 
#231
#231
VolRage said:
I can agree with that. We don’t have a gun problem. We a have a people problem.
Click to expand...
Always look on the bright side. We're really good at identifying people after they do their mass murdering. We catch nearly 100% of them and have almost eliminated repeat offenders.
 
#232
#232
Enki_Amenra said:
This is absolutely silly. Giving a convicted firearm murderer the right to conceal/carry in the future is asinine.

There are checks and balances made to protect the rights of individuals who pose no threat to society, while also limiting the potential threat from a known community threat.
Click to expand...
You’re actually arguing a specific case. Hogg still advocates for restoration even in that case. However currently a convicted felon for ANY felony has little recourse for restoration of rights. That’s a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#234
#234
RobertPellitt said:
Do you know what a militia is? Do you know how different a militia is now from what the Framers considered? Then if there no limits why can’t you own any type of firearm? How does the government limit citizens from owning any type of weapon? It’s because the Second Amendment is not an absolute right for individuals!
Click to expand...
What makes you think we view that as constitutional. After you’ve read up on Heller then go read up on Miller which was the kangaroo court case which defended NFA 1934.

BTW since you’re light on reading comprehension in Scalia’s opinion on Heller he absolutely shredded the logic used in Miller which was the backdrop for establishing NFA 1934 as the law of the land. Heller’s interpretation of 2a is currently the law of the land. I still have issues with Heller as I think Scalia got twisted from his originalist roots but Heller’s function was not to reinterpret Miller or question NFA 1934
 
Last edited:
#235
#235
hog88 said:
Yes. Once he’s paid his debt all rights should be restored.
Click to expand...

Enki_Amenra said:
This is absolutely silly. Giving a convicted firearm murderer the right to conceal/carry in the future is asinine.

There are checks and balances made to protect the rights of individuals who pose no threat to society, while also limiting the potential threat from a known community threat.
Click to expand...

If you think that's silly, I am assuming you feel the same for the right to vote, Traveling abroad, Employment (in certain fields), Public social benefits and housing, and Parental benefits? Those are some examples. Some are Federal, and some by state. I just want to be sure I understand you right. That felons should not get their rights back after time served.
 
#236
#236
Hunerwadel said:
Always look on the bright side. We're really good at identifying people after they do their mass murdering. We catch nearly 100% of them and have almost eliminated repeat offenders.
Click to expand...
Please don’t confuse these interlopers. We have our own back and forths on this topic.
 
#238
#238
Enki_Amenra said:
No thanks.

Someone kills your brother by shooting him in the head during an attempted robbery. He pleas down to 25yrs on murder 2 and serves 15. He gets out and moves next door to your family, should he be allowed to carry a firearm?
Click to expand...

He did what the law required , you don’t like the law change it . I noticed you stayed away from the voting rights , more people have been killed by voters than ex cons with guns but we don’t complain because we all have a right to vote . You can’t take away a persons rights if they have served what society has deemed an appropriate debt . You have one example , I’ll give one … an 18 year old boy goes with his buddy to in a store , while they are there they decide to steal some chips , on the way out the owner try’s to stop them , the buddy pulls out a gun and kills the owner . Both are charged with murder . That kid does 15 years and never has never owned a gun , never will legally . You ever do anything as a kid that you were punished the rest of your life for ? Think bigger .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#239
#239
Enki_Amenra said:
This is absolutely silly. Giving a convicted firearm murderer the right to conceal/carry in the future is asinine.

There are checks and balances made to protect the rights of individuals who pose no threat to society, while also limiting the potential threat from a known community threat.
Click to expand...

How do you know the people that pass background checks pose no threat to society ? They also don’t limit anything to someone that doesnt follow the laws of people who do . I can pass a background check and buy a firearm , I can also buy one without a background in about 30 mins if I so desire . 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and NorthDallas40
#240
#240
Hunerwadel said:
LOL. I've pretty much given up on this topic. Guns are clearly legal and any consequences are just part of being free.
Click to expand...
Yep. On that we agree. And I saw your trolling a mile away but our visitors to seem to not be equipped to properly identify nuance 😂
 
Last edited:
#241
#241
0nelilreb said:
How do you know the people that pass background checks pose no threat to society ? They also don’t limit anything to someone that doesnt follow the laws of people who do . I can pass a background check and buy a firearm , I can also buy one without a background in about 30 mins if I so desire . 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t sell you one of mine. I can see what a seedy character you are and I’d bet there’s a felony or ten in there somewhere!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#242
#242
0nelilreb said:
He did what the law required , you don’t like the law change it . I noticed you stayed away from the voting rights , more people have been killed by voters than ex cons with guns but we don’t complain because we all have a right to vote . You can’t take away a persons rights if they have served what society has deemed an appropriate debt . You have one example , I’ll give one … an 18 year old boy goes with his buddy to in a store , while they are there they decide to steal some chips , on the way out the owner try’s to stop them , the buddy pulls out a gun and kills the owner . Both are charged with murder . That kid does 15 years and never has never owned a gun , never will legally . You ever do anything as a kid that you were punished the rest of your life for ? Think bigger .
Click to expand...
You are wrong and this opinion of yours is dumb. If the kid is charged ad an adult, then he should lose specific rights. In your scenario, this unarmed juvenile would not be charged as an adult. At some point, adults have to make choices and they have accept the consequences.

Think bigger, something you should try. Fewer ex-cons possess guns because they are not allowed to and failing to do so carries huge penalties. Society changes over periods of time and laws have to adapt to keep public safety as the best interest.

Convicted felons can not own firearms, nor should they be allowed to.
 
#243
#243
0nelilreb said:
How do you know the people that pass background checks pose no threat to society ? They also don’t limit anything to someone that doesnt follow the laws of people who do . I can pass a background check and buy a firearm , I can also buy one without a background in about 30 mins if I so desire . 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Think bigger. . . those are commonly known facts.

Checks and balances for convicted violent crime offenders. You can not legally and in good social graces purchase or own a firearm as related to these checks & balances.
 
#244
#244
Enki_Amenra said:
You are wrong and this opinion of yours is dumb. If the kid is charged ad an adult, then he should lose specific rights. In your scenario, this unarmed juvenile would not be charged as an adult. At some point, adults have to make choices and they have accept the consequences.

Think bigger, something you should try. Fewer ex-cons possess guns because they are not allowed to and failing to do so carries huge penalties. Society changes over periods of time and laws have to adapt to keep public safety as the best interest.

Convicted felons can not own firearms, nor should they be allowed to.
Click to expand...
You’re painting in very broad terms with the justification being that is the way the law is currently written. Our argument back to you is the current law is unjust and have given examples why.
 
#245
#245
Enki_Amenra said:
Think bigger. . . those are commonly known facts.

Checks and balances for convicted violent crime offenders. You can not legally and in good social graces purchase or own a firearm as related to these checks & balances.
Click to expand...

That was what we were saying … if you’ve done your time for the crime , your debt is paid . PERIOD
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#246
#246
Enki_Amenra said:
You are wrong and this opinion of yours is dumb. If the kid is charged ad an adult, then he should lose specific rights. In your scenario, this unarmed juvenile would not be charged as an adult. At some point, adults have to make choices and they have accept the consequences.

Think bigger, something you should try. Fewer ex-cons possess guns because they are not allowed to and failing to do so carries huge penalties. Society changes over periods of time and laws have to adapt to keep public safety as the best interest.

Convicted felons can not own firearms, nor should they be allowed to.
Click to expand...

Fewer Ex cons have guns because they chose not to . Buying a firearm legally vs buying a firearm. The only difference is who knows that you bought it and the extra you pay . Do you live in a bubble ? Lol
 
#250
#250
0nelilreb said:
Fewer Ex cons have guns because they chose not to . Buying a firearm legally vs buying a firearm , the only difference is who knows that you bought it and the extra you pay . Do you live in a bubble ? Lol
Click to expand...
My bubble must not be as small as yours. How do you not understand the legality aspect of your own point? It is not a hypothetical argument based on who does or doesn't know what the felon has done, it is a fact that owning is illegal. They choose not to own because it is illegal for them and they want to avoid more jail time.

You guys make terrible arguments.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top