Many Biker Gang Members Armed, Legally

[carebear]

Pinned,

You're doing the same thing in reverse.

Major premise: An organization with bad people makes the organization bad.
Minor premise: Daughter's of the American Revolution has some bad people.
Conclusion: DAR is a bad organization.

There's an even more precise definition necessary in this case because we aren't talking about broad strokes ethically or morally "good" or "bad". In the case of denying a person's civil rights (handgun possession and carry) it isn't enough that they be a "bad" person, they must be a convicted felon, a recognized domestic violence abuser or be adjuticated mentally defective.

Mere association with known convicted felons does not meet the legal standard.

There's a reason for that, when the net spreads that kind of wide there's no practical limit to who might be caught up in it.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

carebear, yours is the only logical argument in favor of allowing members of criminal enterprises to legally carry a firearm, viz., presumption of innocence.

You don't like my syllogism. So, let's restate it:

Major: Criminal enterprises are evil.
Minor: The Hell's Angels are a criminal enterprise.
Conc: Hell's Angels are evil.

I am willing to amend constitutional law in order to eliminate criminals and criminal behavior. After all, we have already denied 2nd amendment rights to convicted felons.

I would merely broaden the application to all members of any known criminal enterprises. Mere membership should be a felony.

You posit the inevitable slippery slope when we start violating the 2nd amendment rights of criminals.

And your argument is valid. There might not be a reasonable stopping point. However, we have already made some concessions here in our war on terror. Again, I might simply broaden the application.

As I stated earlier, my opinion carries no weight. I'm not law enforcement nor a judge. If I were I would not so easily espouse a radical position.

 

[Haymaker]

As I Understand the situation.......................

I FAIL to see a pronlem The keyword is LEGAL!

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

it isn't enough that they be a "bad" person, they must be a convicted felon, a recognized domestic violence abuser or be adjuticated mentally defective.

Or having been dishonorably discharged from the armed services.

Or having denounced one's citizenship.

Or using drugs.

See. The rights afforded by the second amendment are already limited. They are in no way absolute.

For example, in California, one cannot have a semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazine if said rifle has a threaded barrel or pistol grip.

In that case, state law trumps an absolute interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

In my scenario, I would merely expand it.

Of course, in my scenario, when one is convicted of a capital crime, he/she would be executed immediately. As in, within the hour.

 

[ugaarguy]

I would merely broaden the application to all members of any known criminal enterprises. Mere membership should be a felony.

Well PandR, lets look at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Were the soldiers who were convicted of abusing prisoners doing so in an organized and premeditated fashion? Yes, they were. So, they were engaged in crimial enterprise. The US Army by extension was engaged in criminal enterprise. By extension the entire DOD was engaged in criminal enterprise. Therefor, I, being a member of the DOD by way of my enlistment in the USAF am a member of a criminal enterprise. So according to your logic I should be tried and convicted of the felony of being a member of a known criminal enterprise. Is it clear now?

Edited to remove a personal attack, and to express my apologies for such attack.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Au contraire. The argument is quite sound.

In addition to the current restrictions on CCW, we include gangsters, aliens (legal or no), non property owning people and anyone with a negative net worth.

Oh, let's throw in all with a less than Bachelor's degree from an accredited university.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

BTW, it's argument, not arguement. I guess you forfeit your CCW.

Plus, yours is an ad hominem attack. It doesn't work.

 

[ugaarguy]

BTW, it's argument, not arguement. I guess you forfeit your CCW.

Forgive my spelling, but I already forfeited my CCW. Remember, I'm a member of the US Armed Forces, a criminal enterprise. Therfor I'm a felon for membership in such organization, and have already lost my CCW in your totalitarian world.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Therfor I'm a felon for membership in such organization, and have already lost my CCW in your totalitarian world.

No, you didn't conclude that from my syllogism. Yours was a logical fallacy. Remember, if any element in a logical proposition is false, the argument is false.

 

[Biker]

I would add to your list of citizens who have given up their right to carry, PAR, anyone pretentious enough to actually use the phrase "au contraire" with a straight face. Makes just about as much sense as your argument to deny 1%ers the right to CCW.

Biker

 

[ugaarguy]

No, you didn't conclude that from my syllogism. Yours was a logical fallacy. Remember, if any element in a logical proposition is false, the argument is false.

You have effectively shown the fallacy of your arguement. My "logical fallacy" is no more a fallacy than your original argument Mr. PandR. How is my arguement a fallacy? Were soldiers not convicted of criminal abuse of prisoners in Iraq? Were their activities not organized and premeditated in such fashion as to be a criminal enterprise? Was this criminal enterprise not part of the Department of Defense? Am I not a member of the Department of Defense, and, by extension, a member of a criminal enterprise? Am I not now as felon by membership in such criminal enterprise, according to your infallable logic?

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

That's not true. The United States Military is not a criminal enterprise.

Your argument is flawed.

 

[Biker]

Kindly define a criminal enterprise.

Biker

 

[ugaarguy]

That's not true. The United States Military is not a criminal enterprise.

Your argument is flawed.

By my interpretation of your arguement the US Military is a criminal enterprise. Once a law like you propose is passed it goes to the courts to interpret it, and you have no control over its interpreatation. If a judge interpreted your proposed law the way I do then the US Military becomes a criminal enterprise. By extension, I become a felon.

 

[sm]

Reminder

Great discussion, just attack the argument, not the person posting please.

 

[Geno]

I dare say--

I dare veture to say, that if an elderly woman were broken down on the road, or a young mother with a child, tire blown out, MOST and I do mean MOST bikers would stop, repair and protect, then send safely on their way whomever needed help. Perhaps someday we will learn that BS steroetypes don't pay. Most of the "bikers" I know are danged patriotic! Or it is about "the hair and leather". That possibility brings to mind statements about books' covers, and brings back memories of me happily riding my brother Harley. Ooops!!!!! Better not say that. Some folks might think that I shouldn't have a CCW either, even though it's legal.

By the way, does ANYONE here other than Biker know what the name "Illegal" / "Outlaw" bikers means? I mean, REALLY means? It refers to riding bikes that did not adhere to regulation. It had NOTHING to do with the people's ethics.

Stereotypes.

God save us please.

Doc2005

 

[sacp81170a]

Personally, I'll be working security at Bikes Blues and BBQ in Fayetteville, AR come September the 26th. The bikers (and half my department are bikers) will back us up with security details of their own. I feel far more secure at a bike rally with all the guys there than I do at the University of Arkansas football games. I can't begin to count the number of guys that have come up, shook my hand and thanked me for my service as an officer.

Most of 'em are the nicest people you ever want to meet, *lots* of 'em *are* cops, lots are vets and thank me again when they find out I'm a vet. Nah, except for that one percent, these are the folks I want packin' and watchin' my back. I know they won't crap out if the fecal matter meets the oscillating rotary device. Just my $.02 worth.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

By my interpretation of your arguement the US Military is a criminal enterprise.

No. Here's my argument.

Major premise: Criminal enterprises are evil.
Minor premise: The Outlaws motorcycle gang is a criminal enterprise.
Conclusion: The Outlaws are evil.

Your response:

Major premise: Criminal enterprises are evil.
Minor premise: The United States Military is a criminal enterprise.
Conclusion: The United States Military is evil.

Your argument fails because your minor premise is false, therefore your conclusion is false.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

except for that one percent

That's what this discussion is about. No reasonable human being would want these people armed.

 

[Lupinus]

PAR, there is no reason to really bother trying to reason with you. Your basless hate of bikers is right about up there on par with how we are hated by antis. Both just as strong, both just as baseless, both just as rock solid reguardless of what you are presented with.

For the most part, bikers are great guys. Some of them are bad, get over it, that doesn't mean that they are less entitled to their rights then anyone else.

You use the same exact reasoning and argument as antis use to label all gun owners as lunatics waiting for a reason to shoot someone.

 

[ugaarguy]

Kindly define a criminal enterprise.

Biker

We're still waiting PandR. Honestly, it won't matter how you define it. As I already stated once the law is passed all that matters is how the courts interpret your definition.

No. Here's my argument.

Major premise: Criminal enterprises are evil.
Minor premise: The Outlaws motorcycle gang is a criminal enterprise.
Conclusion: The Outlaws are evil.

Your response:

Major premise: Criminal enterprises are evil.
Minor premise: The United States Military is a criminal enterprise.
Conclusion: The United States Military is evil.

Your argument fails because your minor premise is false, therefore your conclusion is false.

As I said above you haven't defined criminal enterprise. Until you do my minor premise is just as true as yours. After that, as I also said above, it would then go to the courts to interpret your definition of criminal enterprise. Without such definition, I, the courts, or anyone else, may interpret criminal enterprise as they feel appropriate. That provides further evidence that my premises and arguments are just as valid as yours.

 

[MudPuppy]

Ahh, I see the game, high school debate class...how did that go again--oh yeah.

Anyhow, big word, big word, and big word. A lot of people that break laws do very good deeds for the needy--and some of the most law-abiding upstanding people around won't bother to help a Dad and his 4 year old daughter push his truck to the side of the road.

If the topic of discussion is truly the article and the fact that it makes a stink out of law abiding people with CCWs not causing trouble, that's fairly difficult to argue against. Unless you're arguing that maybe the government should have the authority to decline to issue based on whether or not you may or may not be breaking laws--despite not having been convicted.

I know how I feel about that, but being open minded, let's take this a bit further to the extreme--Law abiding KKK members, shall issue? Crips or Bloods, shall issue?

 

[sacp81170a]

That's what this discussion is about. No reasonable human being would want these people armed.

I think the real point is that these guys would be criminals if motorcycles didn't exist at all. There are bad apples in every group. Until they have been convicted of a felony in a court of law, they all have the same rights as you and me to be armed. If you can't make that distinction, then there's no point in further argument.

Having a CCW means they've passed an FBI background check, one that, as I recall, would be sufficient for a Secret Clearance in the military or as a civilian contractor. Good enough for me. Part of this being a free country is allowing other people to be free to dress and act as they please, as long as they do so within the law. If you see a grimy, road stained guy with a beard and long hair wearing leathers, treat him nice, he's probably had a hard day on the road. The odds are that he'll be nice to you.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

As I said above you haven't defined criminal enterprise.

Ok. Let's try this.

The FBI defines a criminal enterprise as a group of individuals with an identified hierarchy, or comparable structure, engaged in significant criminal activity.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/glossary.htm

(And don't suggest that the Outlaws do not collectively engage in criminal behavior. That's how they make their money. They are big business.)

 

[NewShooter]

I would add to your list of citizens who have given up their right to carry, PAR, anyone pretentious enough to actually use the phrase "au contraire" with a straight face.

PRICELESS

 

[XLMiguel]

+1 Lupinus

Booooshwa!! There's a lot of people who ride under some sort of "Outlaw" banner. P&R, you need to be much more specific in your damnation . . .

Over the years I have helped and been helped on the road by an assortment of biker types. All have been good experiences (though a couple were initially genuinely 'scary' to this candy-assed suburbanite). I figure the criminal % of scooter people is probably = to the criminal % of gun owners.

Eschew deceased equine flagelllion.

I miss my Yamaha (long story)