Originally posted by maryjane: Evidently you did not read the statement Williegoat made, even tho you quoted it in your reply.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: In many states, convicted felons cannot vote while serving sentence or on probation. Depending on the crime, a convicted felon can lose his 'freedom of movement' that is guaranteed under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US Constitution.
... there are other rights lost or prohibited as well.
Being locked up tends to restrict freedom of movement. Monitored freedom of movement while still 'under sentence' , probation/parole, is reasonable. Permission from a supervisory officer is limited freedom which is regained after sentence is complete.
Originally posted by Boondawg: See, you are this amazingly pathetic little dickhead, constantly complaining about how others don’t “measure up” to the magnificence that you delusionally think is you.
blah blah blah blah
That bothers you how ? Why ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-12-2019).]
Rams, isn't verbal assault, still a type of assault?
In what this "Politically Correct World" has become, a verbal assault may well be the same as a physical assault in some folks mind.
Then again, what's that old saying about Sticks and Stones? There are always those confrontations where a verbal disagreement result in a physical altercation. Not having the aforementioned authority to "Lock'em Up". I shall refrain from making such judgements until I have such authority.
When the family runs out of money to pay, and the lawyer quits due to non payment, you have the county of Spokane fork over $250,000 towards the defense. It is a scam. (A defense should be posted for all. I get this, but just taking a quarter of a million dollars to publicly defend what is a known killer is just beyond me.)
In what this "Politically Correct World" has become, a verbal assault may well be the same as a physical assault in some folks mind.
Then again, what's that old saying about Sticks and Stones? There are always those confrontations where a verbal disagreement result in a physical altercation. Not having the aforementioned authority to "Lock'em Up". I shall refrain from making such judgements until I have such authority.
BTW, what size handcuffs do you wear?
Rams
ROTFLMAO....
There are a few people walking the Earth who have been "victim" of my verbal assault. They wish I had just belted them one, it would have been less painful. 😀
Yes, I have an in-person talent for bringing snowflake to tears of impotent rage. Wanna really get one good, hand him 5 bucks and tell him it's for his mom from last night and I won't be back she wasn't that good. 😀
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Wanna really get one good, hand him 5 bucks and tell him it's for his mom from last night and I won't be back she wasn't that good. 😀
My, you are soft. I would have given him five bucks and asked him for $2.50 back.
Let's check our blood streams to see which one of us should be operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery? Heck, let's do this for the right to bear arms?
Interesting. I had those thoughts but I reject the premise. They do have merit though.
I don't recall any reports of toxicology in many of the headline shootings. I had wondered why. There are statistics for DWI arrests. People who operate planes, trains, automobiles, machinery are subject to toxicology testing should a mishap occur. I am good with that. I can agree the same should apply for gun mishaps.
Make it illegal to use a gun while "under an artificial limit" because something might happen ? Granted I have never had a need to go to a hunting camp I am sure most are well stocked with alcohol.
Yep. It's called 'intoxi-carry' here. Most states have laws prohibiting drinking while carrying even if the user has a CCW permit. Public polls nationwide, with some limits, support it too.
POLLING Americans broadly support laws to keep guns away from dangerous individuals. A national poll conducted for the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2013 found that strong majorities of Americans support a 10-year prohibition on gun possession for people convicted of the following crimes:
Any serious crime as a juvenile: 83.1% support (including 80% of gun owners).
Any two or more crimes involving alcohol or drugs within a 3-year period: 74.8% support (including 70.5% of gun owners).
Publicly displaying a gun in a threatening manner: 71.1% support (including 71.3% of gun owners).
Carrying a concealed gun without a permit: 57.8% support (including 49% of gun owners).
Assault and battery, even if it does not result in serious injury or involve a lethal weapon: 53% support (including 48.5% of gun owners).20
Originally posted by maryjane: Yep. It's called 'intoxi-carry' here. Most states have laws prohibiting drinking while carrying even if the user has a CCW permit. Public polls nationwide, with some limits, support it too.
Because intoxicated people have no right to defend themselves and would never 'fear for their lives" ? Intoxicated people are not allowed to hunt ? What is the intoxication BAC limit ? .10, .08, .05 ?
Polls are fickle. Shaped by the way a question was worded or by the court of public opinion. Both which can change. In that sense, laws are also. As I said ...
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: I had those thoughts but I reject the premise. They do have merit though.
I never let a poll tell me how to think. Interesting that your poll by the New England Journal of Medicine is doing gun polls. Gun problems are now a medical issue ? Moving boxes too, ? I agree, mental issues are legitimate concerns for gun ownership. I am not sure where I land there as it is just a bandied word being thrown out there with no clear definition. Poor judgement and common sense are mental issues.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: POLLING Americans broadly support laws to keep guns away from dangerous individuals. I agree. Who would not ? Define dangerous. Someone who had three beers ?
A national poll conducted for the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2013 found that strong majorities of Americans support a 10-year prohibition on gun possession for people convicted of the following crimes: I do not agree. You can count me in for gun prohibition if it is during the duration of a felony sentence. A ten year probation after the duration of second felony sentence seems reasonable. I am not sure I agree.
Any serious crime as a juvenile: 83.1% support (including 80% of gun owners). Define serious. A sixteen year old kid who makes a dumb mistake could not learn about gun safety and responsibility till he is 26 years old ? Unable to defend himself, perhaps his wife, his kids, his property ? I can't support that.
Any two or more crimes involving alcohol or drugs within a 3-year period: 74.8% support (including 70.5% of gun owners). Two public intoxication offenses and one can not possess a gun for 10 years ? Even if sober ? I am not in.
Publicly displaying a gun in a threatening manner: 71.1% support (including 71.3% of gun owners). Hmm, , for some open carry is threatening. If someone pulled a knife on me and I pulled a gun on him, I hope he will smart enough to feel threatened. I don't want to shoot anybody.
Carrying a concealed gun without a permit: 57.8% support (including 49% of gun owners). The indoctrination is coming along swimmingly, . What part of the Second Amendment do that 57.8% not understand ? I don't know who was on First first. Was it felons can't ever own a gun again ? Was it background checks ? Was it permits ? I think it was assault weapons, even though they were the arms which existed when we granted ourselves the 2nd, Amendment, the Right to keep and BARE arms. Now we need a permit not to bare our arms ? Who will make Home Plate next ? The new assault designations (we know that no other guns are used for assault), expanded universal background checks (heck let's use the political word "comprehensive", mental health evaluations in violation of HIPPA laws.
Was it a scant 12 years ago when we were voicing objection to the Dumbs declaring that the US Constitution was a "living breathing" document.
Assault and battery, even if it does not result in serious injury or involve a lethal weapon: 53% support (including 48.5% of gun owners).20 I am likely to agree with that. Depends.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat: I can think of very few circumstances (maybe none) where we should lock up or restrict the God given rights of anyone who has not committed a crime.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: I can think of one. Maybe two, possibly three.
Hmm. The first one being committing a crime while using a gun.
Does the felon Martha Stuart not have the right to protect to protect herself ? From whatever, dying on her feet, to living on her knees, to defend against criminal action ? From harm well wishers ?
How 'bout the felon Michael Flynn ? 30+ years of dutiful service to the United States of America.
They are not allowed to own a gun. They did not use a gun in the commission of a crime. They merely lied.
The second one ... being when a person has demonstrated a propensity for violence to solve problems when other methods are possible.
The third includes the second. Domestic violence, though they do have anger management classes for that.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Why should anyone not lose any of their rights except the Second ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-23-2019).]
Because intoxicated people have no right to defend themselves and would never 'fear for their lives" ? Intoxicated people are not allowed to hunt ? What is the intoxication BAC limit ? .10, .08, .05 ?
Polls are fickle. Shaped by the way a question was worded or by the court of public opinion. Both which can change. In that sense, laws are also. As I said ...
Originally posted by cliffw: What part of the Second Amendment do that 57.8% not understand ? I don't know who was on First first. Was it felons can't ever own a gun again ? Was it background checks ? Was it permits ? I think it was assault weapons, even though they were the arms which existed when we granted ourselves the 2nd, Amendment, the Right to keep and BARE arms. Now we need a permit not to bare our arms ? Who will make Home Plate next ? The new assault designations (we know that no other guns are used for assault), expanded universal background checks (heck let's use the political word "comprehensive", mental health evaluations in violation of HIPPA laws.
I am reminded about the frog who will immediately jump out of boiling water when put in, but who will stay in while the water is warmed.
Beto "the gringo" O'Rouke has softened his stance. He now say we must buy back these "assault weapons".
Did he sell them to begin with ? How much is he willing to pay ? Is this a seller's market ?
Evidently, some people showed up at one of his rallies, all with visible "assault weapons". At Kent State University. Oh the irony. Kent State University is the place the Government opened fire on unarmed students, killing four (I don't know how many wounded). He said, pointing at the armed people, "we can not let these people intimidate us". Our Government is supposed to be intimidated by an armed populace.
In other news ... a twenty two year police officer was before some hearing at Congress, about guns. She analogized guns with shoes. Watch.
]
What committee was that ? We have a member here who says outside agitators should be allowed to voice their thoughts. I have contacted my representatives but why not ? I want to contact all on that committee.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-27-2019).]
On the heels of that grim milestone, nine 2020 Democratic candidates on the campaign trail are convening in Las Vegas Wednesday for a forum on gun control - the first of its kind for presidential hopefuls – co-hosted by a nonprofit founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and March for Our Lives, in partnership with MSNBC.
Originally posted by maryjane: I think it really does qualify for the term 'mass shooting'. 25 shot and/or killed..]
25 shot or killed is notable.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: Ok..what is your 'official' definition of a 'mass' shooting?
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree: I think the media are just looking for excuses to use the term "mass shooting". When you see the term "mass shooting" in a headline, you probably think of someone shooting up a shopping mall, or a school, or something like that. But this situation was very different.
(A defense should be posted for all. I get this, but just taking a quarter of a million dollars to publicly defend what is a known killer is just beyond me.)
, for some open carry is threatening. If someone pulled a knife on me and I pulled a gun on him, I hope he will smart enough to feel threatened. I don't want to shoot anybody.
. What part of the Second Amendment do that 57.8% not understand ? I don't know who was on First first. Was it felons can't ever own a gun again ? Was it background checks ? Was it permits ? I think it was assault weapons, even though they were the arms which existed when we granted ourselves the 2nd, Amendment, the Right to keep and BARE arms. Now we need a permit not to bare our arms ? Who will make Home Plate next ? The new assault designations (we know that no other guns are used for assault), expanded universal background checks (heck let's use the political word "comprehensive", mental health evaluations in violation of HIPPA laws.
