Where do you stand?

#129
#129
KB5252 said:
I plead guilty to an ag assault. I used no weapons, I was in a fight that started in a bar. We traded a few good shots and the guy decided he couldn't take me so he pulled out a knife. Between that and the alcohol I lost it, I literally saw red and blacked out.

When I came back to my senses i was on top of the guy, he was knocked out. I left went back in the bar. A couple of officers took me into custody about 15 minutes later. I found out at court this guy had to have his jaw wired shut, had about 35 stitches at various places around his head and he had a broken wrist.

I couldn't prove a knife was present, they charged me with ag assault and I took a plea because I was guilty. I have been clean ever since.

The point of this story is today I work, pay my taxes and contribute to society. If I feel like I need to have a gun to protect my family it is a right I feel I more than deserve today. 8 years ago.....probably not, but today...yes!
Click to expand...

Do you believe that a teacher convicted of Child pornography, not actual molestation, who then spent the next 8 years working, paying taxes and contributing to society be automatically allowed to teach at an elementary school?
 
#130
#130
SURFSIDEBEACHVOL said:
Do you believe that a teacher convicted of Child pornography, not actual molestation, who then spent the next 8 years working, paying taxes and contributing to society be automatically allowed to teach at an elementary school?
Click to expand...
It is amazing how one does not face these "moral conflicts" when one does not believe in public education. I sure do love my outlook on the world.
 
#131
#131
SURFSIDEBEACHVOL said:
Do you believe that a teacher convicted of Child pornography, not actual molestation, who then spent the next 8 years working, paying taxes and contributing to society be automatically allowed to teach at an elementary school?
Click to expand...

no. there are a lot of sick things that people do in the world. getting your rocks off while looking at naked 9 year olds is one of the sickest.
 
#135
#135
SURFSIDEBEACHVOL said:
Do you believe that a teacher convicted of Child pornography, not actual molestation, who then spent the next 8 years working, paying taxes and contributing to society be automatically allowed to teach at an elementary school?
Click to expand...

No, but mutual combat is another issue all together.

Comparing the two is a pretty weak case IMO. If the question was should I ever be allowed to be a Police Officer? It would have been a better question given the comparison, and to that I would answer no.

Not to mention that those who are addicted to child porn have deep seated emotional issues and are very, very likely to act out in real life, the fantasies that draw them to porn.

I was simply caught in a mutual combat situation a weapon was brought into the mix and I lost my cool. Two men fighting deserve to be hurt, a child never does!
 
#136
#136
BigPapaVol said:
I'm saying that the government loosening mortgage underwriting standards, via Fannie, for whatever the reasons, is at the very heart of the problem.

Dig in a little and find out what has destroyed the capital of all of these financial institutions. Almost every dime of it is tied to bad mortgage debt writedowns.
Click to expand...

This isn't quite right. It would be naive to say that Fannie/Freddie did not loosen mortgage guidelines but they were not even close to the main culprits of bad lending. The GSE's barely ventured outside the full documentation loan (only allowing stated income for some time). That's not to say they didn't perform masterfully in the lower FICO (620 range), high LTV, and high DTI stuff.

However, you need to look at the real losses here: the worst loans were the stated income/stated asset, no ratio, no doc, no asset verification loans. These loans were allowed to be ARM's, interest only, and up to 100% financing. Let's not forget the wonderful Option ARM loans that negatively amortized and were mainly held by Wachovia, Countrywide, and Washington Mutual (gone, gone and gone). The GSE's had nothing to do with these loans. You have to also remember, that the GSE's only did the conforming money -- all the exotic jumbo loans were housed by the banks -- particularly investment banks. As I've stated before -- the IB's lent the wildest money on the streets and purchased the most risky assets.

Fannie/Freddie is a victim of size, poor accounting, and poor management, and loose capital requirements. However, when it comes to underwriting -- they were one of the safest players in the game.
 
#137
#137
SURFSIDEBEACHVOL said:
Then I guess you agree that KB shouldn't be allowed to own a gun
Click to expand...

hmmm, it appears that you're equating child porn to aggravated assault (in a bar, where both alcohol and a knife were involved).

fail

KB should be allowed to own a gun, although I understand that if the law allowed for every circumstance, it wouldn't be much of a law.
 
#138
#138
I'm gonna keep teaching my all female, bikini only CPR / Massage classes even though I've been known to like the naked female form.

Anybody got a problem with that?
 
#141
#141
BigPapaVol said:
I'm gonna keep teaching my all female, bikini only CPR / Massage classes even though I've been known to like the naked female form.

Anybody got a problem with that?
Click to expand...

As long as you don't shoot anybody and look at child porn....
 
#144
#144
MG1968 said:
hmmm, it appears that you're equating child porn to aggravated assault (in a bar, where both alcohol and a knife were involved).

fail

KB should be allowed to own a gun, although I understand that if the law allowed for every circumstance, it wouldn't be much of a law.
Click to expand...

Let me add to this that I would understand some peoples reservation about it. I think anyone convicted of a crime where a weapon was used should never see their rights to owning a weapon restored.
 
#145
#145
MG1968 said:
hmmm, it appears that you're equating child porn to aggravated assault (in a bar, where both alcohol and a knife were involved).

fail

KB should be allowed to own a gun, although I understand that if the law allowed for every circumstance, it wouldn't be much of a law.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to equate the 2 and maybe I picked a bad example, but I believe that any person who is convicted of any FELONY involving violence has forfeited his right to own a gun.
 
Last edited:
#146
#146
VolByBirth said:
This isn't quite right. It would be naive to say that Fannie/Freddie did not loosen mortgage guidelines but they were not even close to the main culprits of bad lending. The GSE's barely ventured outside the full documentation loan (only allowing stated income for some time). That's not to say they didn't perform masterfully in the lower FICO (620 range), high LTV, and high DTI stuff.

However, you need to look at the real losses here: the worst loans were the stated income/stated asset, no ratio, no doc, no asset verification loans. These loans were allowed to be ARM's, interest only, and up to 100% financing. Let's not forget the wonderful Option ARM loans that negatively amortized and were mainly held by Wachovia, Countrywide, and Washington Mutual (gone, gone and gone). The GSE's had nothing to do with these loans. You have to also remember, that the GSE's only did the conforming money -- all the exotic jumbo loans were housed by the banks -- particularly investment banks. As I've stated before -- the IB's lent the wildest money on the streets and purchased the most risky assets.

Fannie/Freddie is a victim of size, poor accounting, and poor management, and loose capital requirements. However, when it comes to underwriting -- they were one of the safest players in the game.
Click to expand...
so what I'm hearing is that the folks insuring and buying the MBS were complete idiots. Doesn't that make Ambac and folks like that look like complete idiots?

Who was watching the henhouse for the buyers, or were they just buying willy nilly?
 
#147
#147
SURFSIDEBEACHVOL said:
I wasn't trying to compare the 2 and maybe I picked a bad example, but I believe that any person who is convicted of any FELONY involving violence has forfeited his right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

So should a person convicted of an accident where alcohol was involved lose their right to drive?

Should a person convicted of trespassing lose their right to own land?

Should a person who steals money from their job never be allowed to hold another job?

I understand your point of view but if you mess up, do the time, learn your lesson and pay your debt to society should you not get another chance after showing you deserve it?
 
#148
#148
KB5252 said:
So should a person convicted of an accident where alcohol was involved lose their right to drive?

Should a person convicted of trespassing lose their right to own land?

Should a person who steals money from their job never be allowed to hold another job?

I understand your point of view but if you mess up, do the time, learn your lesson and pay your debt to society should you not get another chance after showing you deserve it?
Click to expand...


except where minors are in the mix
 
#149
#149
KB5252 said:
I understand your point of view but if you mess up, do the time, learn your lesson and pay your debt to society should you not get another chance after showing you deserve it?
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say the molester doesn't deserve a second chance?


I understand where you are coming from and I think in your situation maybe you should have only been convicted of Misdemeanor assault not Felony.Maybe it was the application of the law and not the law that was wrong.

I just think as a general rule it is not a good idea for people with Felony convictions (involving violence)to own guns.
 
#150
#150
BigPapaVol said:
so what I'm hearing is that the folks insuring and buying the MBS were complete idiots. Doesn't that make Ambac and folks like that look like complete idiots?

Who was watching the henhouse for the buyers, or were they just buying willy nilly?
Click to expand...

Idiots? Possibly. I have no idea how they had a clue what they were actually insuring. The way these MBS's were structured there was zero transparency. With the way they were built into tranches, split amongst multiple funds, and otherwise cut into pieces it had to be nearly impossible to assess the true risk and give a path for recourse. I'm not sure I would insure something like that -- but I guess they just took the ratings agencies word for it when they would drop AAA bond ratings on junk loan securities. It was a failure up and down the chain and the reason was absolute profit.

As for the buyers -- no one was watching the hen house. Wall Street basically was screaming for more collateralized debt and demanding the higher returns of subprime. Lenders fed the frenzy by disregarding the fundmental of lending -- borrowers ability to repay -- in turn receiving immediate and large profits of SRP's. Wall Street claiming ignorance is false though -- the fundamentals of higher return is a higher risk loan. There is no innocent party, but I believe the underwriting guidelines approach to Fannie/Freddie is a little off target. It was bad and they certainly stepped away from fundamentals -- but not even in the same ballpark as what banks and IB's were allowing. The idea that you could do 100% financing with ZERO documentation (only need a name, SSN, and credit score) is mind-boggling. Fannie/Freddie never did this -- this was a bank/shadow bank creation.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top