Who is responsible
- Thread starter Beav
- Start date
- Status
Responsible as opposed to being a felon. Yes its vague but I thought it was understood.
"So are all the felons that commited ridiculously minor offenses. Or committed no offense."
I guess you missed my other post, I meant violent felons.
"So are all the felons that commited ridiculously minor offenses. Or committed no offense."
I guess you missed my other post, I meant violent felons.
NO, not even then!!!
The ONLY time you might need "permission" to exercise a RIGHT is while you are in PRISON. (Or boot camp!
)Again, Beav, PLEASE answer me this:
If we are SO afraid of what a felon might do once released, WHY IS HE BEING RELEASED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Furthermore, why shouldn't we assume the same about you: that you might act irresponsibly with a gun?
Why are you ok with having to:
a) Prove you are "capable" or "responsible" enough to exercise your RIGHTS
b) Asking PERMISSION to exercise your rights
Why?
Again, you would support a "license" for speech?
NewShooter78
Member
I'll chime in again on this one. The BGC system doesn't work because it only can identify criminal that have been CONVICTED. I know there are plenty of gun owners who are in violation of both federal and local laws where they live all the time when it comes to gun ownership. If they ever get caught they'll be screwed. But whose to say those laws are even just? Most of us don't agree with many if any gun laws.
And if even a violent felon has been released from jail, especially if they were paroled, then that means that they have paid back society for their crimes according to legaleese. So why shouldn't they have their rights reinstated? The last time I checked most felons can't vote, but they sure as hell can pay taxes! So they are constantly paying for their crime. The same goes with gun ownership. Violent felons, especially those who perpetrated their felonious deeds while using a firearm, should have to pay harder dues to society. But instead they are let out of state prisons, while some unlucky dead head gets busted by the feds rots away for the rest of his life because he smoke a lot of weed and buys it in bulk. Its a bad example, but so is our criminal justice system.
Background checks don't work. They imply guilt on everyone. So does filling out a federal form which just equals an unofficial registration system. A background check means that we have to ask for our right to buy a firearm, when no right should need permision in order to exercise it. I don't remember being forced by law to ask permission to speak out in public. Now what I say might get me in trouble, but I'm free to say it first.
Gun registration, and background checks, and federal forms all amount to prior restraint. The gov't sees fit to make us ask for permission, and at a price a lot of times for BGC's, to purchase a firearm, which is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT.
And if even a violent felon has been released from jail, especially if they were paroled, then that means that they have paid back society for their crimes according to legaleese. So why shouldn't they have their rights reinstated? The last time I checked most felons can't vote, but they sure as hell can pay taxes! So they are constantly paying for their crime. The same goes with gun ownership. Violent felons, especially those who perpetrated their felonious deeds while using a firearm, should have to pay harder dues to society. But instead they are let out of state prisons, while some unlucky dead head gets busted by the feds rots away for the rest of his life because he smoke a lot of weed and buys it in bulk. Its a bad example, but so is our criminal justice system.
Background checks don't work. They imply guilt on everyone. So does filling out a federal form which just equals an unofficial registration system. A background check means that we have to ask for our right to buy a firearm, when no right should need permision in order to exercise it. I don't remember being forced by law to ask permission to speak out in public. Now what I say might get me in trouble, but I'm free to say it first.
Gun registration, and background checks, and federal forms all amount to prior restraint. The gov't sees fit to make us ask for permission, and at a price a lot of times for BGC's, to purchase a firearm, which is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT.
NewShooter78
Member
And just a side note:
If we all had the right to CCW, without the need of a permit, then a lot more criminals would think twice about what crimes they were going to commit. And we'd have a lot let violent criminals clogging up the prison system, and judicial system.
If we all had the right to CCW, without the need of a permit, then a lot more criminals would think twice about what crimes they were going to commit. And we'd have a lot let violent criminals clogging up the prison system, and judicial system.
The fact that you meant "violent felons" does not change the fact that millions of people are denied the right to protect themselves because they are labeled for life as a felon.
you seem to feel that you are better than them and safer because the government has torn their copy of the Constitution to shreds and discarded it. Your copy is no better protected than theirs.
Mr. James
Member
I love this place.
I was going to post vitriolic response to the Beav...
I don't have to.
Thank you, Oleg, ad infinitem, God bless you all.
Hey, Beav, hang around. Like me, you will learn much.
I was going to post vitriolic response to the Beav...
I don't have to.
Thank you, Oleg, ad infinitem, God bless you all.
Hey, Beav, hang around. Like me, you will learn much.
faustulus
Member
JPM70535
I assume you see the fault in that logic.
It is not society's place to protect you from you. Again follow the logic, because some people are addicted to videogames, caffine, sex, internet bulletin boards we should ban all of the above. Do you really believe that?
Either you don't have a very good imagination or you have never studied history. Or you are lucky enough to be white and not live in the delta country of Mississippi after the Civil War. Following that logic you wouldn't mind random searches of your house or person. After all if you've nothing to hide...
See Prohibition
If banning guns... If abolishing religion... If murdering children...
I assume you see the fault in that logic.
It is not society's place to protect you from you. Again follow the logic, because some people are addicted to videogames, caffine, sex, internet bulletin boards we should ban all of the above. Do you really believe that?
I'm not sure I agree with you there, Drjones.
The firearm greatly escalates the danger to the victim, and the criminal is deliberately doing that by bringing a gun into a crime.
Maybe it's like having a Chihuahua at the side of a mugger as opposed to a Pit Bull snarling at the victim with teeth bared and NO leash. I wouldn't be worried about the Taco seller attacking me, but the pit bull would really cause me some concern. I really would be madder about being threatened with a gun or a pit bull than a fist or a Chihuahua. At least in the latter case I've got a chance of escaping. So I'd definitely want any mugger using scary weapons on me punished harder.
And that wouldn't be blaming the dog or gun. It would be punishing the criminal for the greater assault of intimidation putting me in fear of my life. In addition to the robbery, I'd want the mugger punished for assault just for having those weapons present. If he used either one, I'd want him to suffer the same consequences he intended for me, but I'd be willing to settle for him receiving a lethal injection.
Well shoot...I had a fairly long reply and somehow got logged out and lost it all.
Anyway, I feel the BGCs are a necessary evil. I think they'll be here until the government can find an effective way to reform prisoners before letting them back on the streets. Its a work-around/stopgap for a failing system. There's no doubt that the root issue needs to be addressed and in the meantime BGCs and 1202a need to be refined.
I think I'm all done with this thread. I doubt my view will change much more but I have learned a few things and my perspective has changed.
Thanks for those who contributed and for keeping it civil.
Anyway, I feel the BGCs are a necessary evil. I think they'll be here until the government can find an effective way to reform prisoners before letting them back on the streets. Its a work-around/stopgap for a failing system. There's no doubt that the root issue needs to be addressed and in the meantime BGCs and 1202a need to be refined.
I think I'm all done with this thread. I doubt my view will change much more but I have learned a few things and my perspective has changed.
Thanks for those who contributed and for keeping it civil.
Tamara
Senior Member
Beav,
Thanks to you, too.
Stick around, I'm about to lay into young Drjones for having bought into the State's whole "Driving is a privilege" baloney.
Thanks to you, too.
Stick around, I'm about to lay into young Drjones for having bought into the State's whole "Driving is a privilege" baloney.
Who is Responsible?
Certainly not me.
If I spill hot coffee on my crotch, it's somebody else's fault
If I have an accident, it's somebody else's fault
If I didn't get the job, it's somebody else's fault
If I get fat eating McDonalds, it's somebody else's fault
If I go bankrupt, you got it, it's somebody else's fault
Certainly not me.
If I spill hot coffee on my crotch, it's somebody else's fault
If I have an accident, it's somebody else's fault
If I didn't get the job, it's somebody else's fault
If I get fat eating McDonalds, it's somebody else's fault
If I go bankrupt, you got it, it's somebody else's fault
- Status
Similar threads
