My thoughts

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
And it is sure to piss someone off - that's what freedom of speech does ---

In my church, at Christmastime, during the service, candles are handed out to everyone. At one point, the church lights are dimmed or turned off, and the candles are lit throughout the sanctuary, and we sing "Silent Night". It's a church tradition that goes back long before I ever came to Southern Maryland.

Not EVERYONE gets a candle. We don't give them to toddlers and infants, and it's my guess that any elderly person not in full command of their senses or any ADHD child their parent deems a risk - they don't get to hold a FLAME.

Why is that? Because out of 300 members in attendance, SOME PEOPLE can't be trusted to be responsible with it. Thankfully, there's been no instances of hair or clothes catching on fire, because people act responsibly.

At home, my parents were very very careful to make sure we, as young kids, were kept away from lighters and matches and the gas stove. That worked for about twenty years - until when I was away in college, and my brother burned the house down and my family narrowly escaped with their lives.

So the moral of the story is - you should outright ban all forms of fire, matches, lighters, gas stoves and the like, because somebody, somewhere might start a dangerous fire who shouldn't be trusted with it.

Ditto sharp edge razors, cars and the like - a child, a disturbed teen, a mentally ill person - they MIGHT drive over people with a car, a child might cut himself with dad's razor, a toddler might use Dad's circular saw and cut off a finger - maybe part of his sibling.

Do you see where I am going with this? It ought to be obvious by now.

The problem is not that we HAVE GUNS. There are over 300 million guns in this country. Out of those, easily 98-99% of them have never been pointed at a person, much less FIRED at one. Those that have - many have been used in law enforcement, and we in general TRUST they are used - RESPONSIBLY.

The problem is NOT that we have matches - or knives - or cars - or rat poison -
Or guns. The tragedy happens when they are handled irresponsibly or allowed into the hands of those who should never ever be trusted with them.
YOU know that you would never allow pesticide in the hands of your toddler or aged feeble parent - but really don't have a problem with other members of your family. You would never hand a firecracker, even unlit, to a child.

But protesters have been USING fireworks and fireworks type explosives at protests - in addition to rocks, bricks, baseball bats and - for reasons I don't get - water bottles which have been frozen.

We do NOT ban matches, lighters, CARS, poisons, acids, lye and knives, and most can easily be acquired at a store.

It is not the ITEM - it is the perpetrator and the methods we use, to keep them from using them.

THAT should be obvious - not that we need to ban guns.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
And it is sure to piss someone off - that's what freedom of speech does ---

In my church, at Christmastime, during the service, candles are handed out to everyone. At one point, the church lights are dimmed or turned off, and the candles are lit throughout the sanctuary, and we sing "Silent Night". It's a church tradition that goes back long before I ever came to Southern Maryland.

Not EVERYONE gets a candle. We don't give them to toddlers and infants, and it's my guess that any elderly person not in full command of their senses or any ADHD child their parent deems a risk - they don't get to hold a FLAME.

Why is that? Because out of 300 members in attendance, SOME PEOPLE can't be trusted to be responsible with it. Thankfully, there's been no instances of hair or clothes catching on fire, because people act responsibly.

At home, my parents were very very careful to make sure we, as young kids, were kept away from lighters and matches and the gas stove. That worked for about twenty years - until when I was away in college, and my brother burned the house down and my family narrowly escaped with their lives.

So the moral of the story is - you should outright ban all forms of fire, matches, lighters, gas stoves and the like, because somebody, somewhere might start a dangerous fire who shouldn't be trusted with it.

Ditto sharp edge razors, cars and the like - a child, a disturbed teen, a mentally ill person - they MIGHT drive over people with a car, a child might cut himself with dad's razor, a toddler might use Dad's circular saw and cut off a finger - maybe part of his sibling.

Do you see where I am going with this? It ought to be obvious by now.

The problem is not that we HAVE GUNS. There are over 300 million guns in this country. Out of those, easily 98-99% of them have never been pointed at a person, much less FIRED at one. Those that have - many have been used in law enforcement, and we in general TRUST they are used - RESPONSIBLY.

The problem is NOT that we have matches - or knives - or cars - or rat poison -
Or guns. The tragedy happens when they are handled irresponsibly or allowed into the hands of those who should never ever be trusted with them.
YOU know that you would never allow pesticide in the hands of your toddler or aged feeble parent - but really don't have a problem with other members of your family. You would never hand a firecracker, even unlit, to a child.

But protesters have been USING fireworks and fireworks type explosives at protests - in addition to rocks, bricks, baseball bats and - for reasons I don't get - water bottles which have been frozen.

We do NOT ban matches, lighters, CARS, poisons, acids, lye and knives, and most can easily be acquired at a store.

It is not the ITEM - it is the perpetrator and the methods we use, to keep them from using them.

THAT should be obvious - not that we need to ban guns.
Yours is a message that we are all familiar with and agree with.
It's also a message ignored by gun grabbers.
Somehow they believe that all of these background check will solve their problem, and yet they have a lunatic Tranny that passed all of their checks and purchased at least 4 firearms and hid at home until she decided to commit suicide by cop and take 4 innocents with her.
The Cardinal rule is this.

Laws do not stop outlaws from getting guns it only makes it hard on decent citizens.

And then we see in New York and Baltimore where their Attorney generals take the laws that do work and ignore them for the criminals.
Turning them loose Noll Prosing, Probation, early parole, no bail, Turn the poor boy loose he has had a hard life and is just starting to get his life together. On the one hand we have crazed democrats passing un-Constitutional laws and we have those same Democrat Attorney's general failing to prosecute them for blatant outlawry.

Then we have Jaimie Hogan making her little political statement.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Somehow they believe that all of these background check will solve their problem, and yet they have a lunatic Tranny that passed all of their checks and purchased at least 4 firearms and hid at home until she decided to commit suicide by cop and take 4 innocents with her.

See, and what do you do when a child wants to drink the cleaning fluids? You lock them up, you keep them away from children.
You TEACH them to be responsible. I never have to worry that any of my teenagers, even one with a mental disability, is going to drink Drano.

But what do you do if these safeguards fail? What do you do when your kid becomes a pyro or starts torturing the neighbor's pets?
You lock the doors, you take the perp away from the danger.

To a liberal, this sounds stupid. "Just remove anything that can be used to kill people". Yep.
One, sorry, that's impossible. Take away a gun, they use a knife. Take away knives, they use bats. Take away bats, they use cars, light people on fire, push them into subway trains. You CANNOT REMOVE ALL WAYS a crazy person, a violent person can harm someone.

But you CAN identify and isolate - the PERSON.

A rabid dog attacks a person and they die -

Get rid of all dogs.

Or KILL THE RABID DOG the moment you see it is rabid. Make sure rabies doesn't spread. Kill sources of rabies.

Which makes more sense?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Clearly the goal is to disarm We the People so we can't fight back and not to make us safer. I mean, clearly. But if you try and walk a Democrat voter down the logic trail they short-circuit and start repeating their mantras over and over.
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Yea well, the ship has already sailed. Broad swathes of society believe it’s OK to proscribe legal gun ownership by convicted felons who have served their penalty to society, among other reasons. This is despite the language in the 2A: “… shall not be infringed…”.

Ergo, the right to legal firearm ownership, like voting, has long ago been deemed a privilege and not a right. Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
Ergo, the right to legal firearm ownership, like voting, has long ago been deemed a privilege and not a right.

Is the above true, or is the below statement true?


You have a right to own a legal firearm. However, if you have committed an offense, or if you do commit an offense that is deemed egregious enough, then you have or will forfeited that right.

The individual's actions, not someone else's, determine that.
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Is the above true, or is the below statement true?


You have a right to own a legal firearm. However, if you have committed an offense, or if you do commit an offense that is deemed egregious enough, then you have or will forfeited that right.

The individual's actions, not someone else's, determine that.
I’m going with what’s written into the 2nd Amendment: “shall not be infringed”
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Is the above true, or is the below statement true?


You have a right to own a legal firearm. However, if you have committed an offense, or if you do commit an offense that is deemed egregious enough, then you have or will forfeited that right.

The individual's actions, not someone else's, determine that.
The truth is that determining that any type of arms can be withheld from the populace or continued "additional" punishment of claiming they have lost the right because of their actions are both infringements of the only right that specifically states that it cannot be infringed.

If an act is so egregious then the person committing that act should be removed from society by incarceration or termination. If returned to society, return them whole.
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
The truth is that determining that any type of arms can be withheld from the populace or continued "additional" punishment of claiming they have lost the right because of their actions are both infringements of the only right that specifically states that it cannot be infringed.

If an act is so egregious then the person committing that act should be removed from society by incarceration or termination. If returned to society, return them whole.
I agree.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Isn't jail an infringement?
An infringement on Liberty.

If you can lock up a person for breaking a law you can infringe on their right to purchase and own a gun.

I don't know how that pertains to real law, but it's what i believe. If a person cannot own a gun without using it in a criminal manner they should not be allowed to have one . 2nd. Amendment or not. In the same manner that person who is a criminal should not be allowed to vote.

This is a post about my thoughts and those are mine.
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Isn't jail an infringement?
An infringement on Liberty.

If you can lock up a person for breaking a law you can infringe on their right to purchase and own a gun.

I don't know how that pertains to real law, but it's what i believe. If a person cannot own a gun without using it in a criminal manner they should not be allowed to have one . 2nd. Amendment or not. In the same manner that person who is a criminal should not be allowed to vote.

This is a post about my thoughts and those are mine.

Right.

So in other words, you already believe in gun control. The question is how much gun control?

The ideological problem here is that you lose any moral high ground when you support gun grabbing some but not others. Your position is transactional and not principled.

The language in the second A is clear.
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes. But rights cannot be taken away. Only privileges can. I am suggesting that our gun laws are de facto privileges and not rights besides we as a society have decided it’s OK for some not to be able to legally own them.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
For your consideration ...

Ergo, the right to legal firearm ownership, like voting, has long ago been deemed a privilege and not a right. Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.

WTAF? Regardless of, if the 2nd has been proscribed as being deemed a privilege, under color of law, it is in fact, of itself, part of the Supreme Law of the Land. That, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

Just because unjust laws have been passed, does not make them lawful or enforceable. That unconstitutional laws are passed, and the time to have them deemed unconstitutional, is antithetical to the founding, meanings, and intentions that is the US Constitution.

That people go along with this BS shows how far our education system has gone down the toilet.

1680194465039.png
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
For your consideration ...



WTAF? Regardless of, if the 2nd has been proscribed as being deemed a privilege, under color of law, it is in fact, of itself, part of the Supreme Law of the Land. That, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

Just because unjust laws have been passed, does not make them lawful or enforceable. That unconstitutional laws are passed, and the time to have them deemed unconstitutional, is antithetical to the founding, meanings, and intentions that is the US Constitution.

That people go along with this BS shows how far our education system has gone down the toilet.

View attachment 169659
I think you miss my point completely. We are in agreement. Try reading what I’ve written again and see if you can grasp the nuance of what I’m saying here.
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
Yes. But rights cannot be taken away. Only privileges can. I am suggesting that our gun laws are de facto privileges and not rights besides we as a society have decided it’s OK for some not to be able to legally own them.
Individual rights are forfeited every day as punishment for criminal behavior. Would you argue you can't forfeit your freedom, right to liberty, and pursuit of happiness if you commit a crime? Of course not, there are prisons full of individuals who have done just that.

Or do you consider imprisonment a loss of privilege?
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Individual rights are forfeited every day as punishment for criminal behavior. Would you argue you can't forfeit your freedom, right to liberty, and pursuit of happiness if you commit a crime? Of course not, there are prisons full of individuals who have done just that.

Or do you consider imprisonment a loss of privilege?
Incarceration and death are the only two ways in which government may legally separate us from our rights.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Isn't jail an infringement?
An infringement on Liberty.
Of course it is, jail is a punishment for committing a crime. At that point you are a possession of the "state". They are responsible for your protection, care, etc. for the duration of the sentence where you do not have liberty.
If you can lock up a person for breaking a law you can infringe on their right to purchase and own a gun.
Only for the period while they are in the "states" possession. Satisfaction of the sentence is all that should happen. Once freed and returned to society they should enjoy all the rights of the citizens.
I don't know how that pertains to real law, but it's what i believe. If a person cannot own a gun without using it in a criminal manner they should not be allowed to have one . 2nd. Amendment or not. In the same manner that person who is a criminal should not be allowed to vote.

This is a post about my thoughts and those are mine.
Couple of things here - If one uses a gun (or any arm) in a criminal manner they should face penalty for that. If it is a serious enough crime then they shouldn't be returned to society. I'll ask, what about those that commit non-violent felonies? You okay with them having arms?

As to voting, that has been left mostly to the states. Some states return voting rights upon completion of sentence, some states allow those serving terms to vote. There is no national standard on who can vote only on what can't be used to deny the vote (sex, age, race).
 
Top