Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OF COURSE your rights aren't restricted or you aren't otherwise punished unless you're convicted of a crime! We have the presumption of innocence in this country!! Why do certain people always forget that?!
That was a nice little window into your thought process there, jm, unintentional as it may have been.
I give up with the anti-gun types. They say they want only to be "reasonable," but what they actually want is full capitulation, and nothing less will do. Gun rights supporters have given way to "reasonable restrictions" time and time again since 1934, and not a single one of those laws has done a lick of good to reduce violent crime. Screw ALL of you anti-gunners. I will give you NOTHING MORE. You MUST address the root causes of violence in this country, and I have a newsflash for you - my guns have NOTHING to do with that.
Ugh. You completely missed the point. The poster I was responding to keeps saying that doing X makes you a felon. No, doing X does not make you a felon. Being convicted of doing X makes you a felon.
That poster is trying to make it sound as if half the country are "felons", which is just silly, in order to weasel another excuse for playing with weapons and letting crazy people and felons have them, too.
So your rant is completely misplaced. As usual for gun nuts. Who cares who dies? You've got your toys and your fun!
Take Martha Stewart. She was never convicted of insider trading, but she was convicted of lying to feds, which to me is kind of like being convicted of being rude to Howard Stern. Nonetheless she is now a felon. Does it really make sense to deny her a gun?
A few years ago legislators in my state (WA) made it a felony to lie on a resume. Lie on a resume, and lose a constitutional right. Does that sound about right to you libs?
How many people have been convicted? Do let me know.
Until they're convicted, NO ONE has been made a felon under that law.
You gun nuts really have to stretch in order to explain away your insistence on letting criminals and crazies have guns.
Anyone can find crazy old laws in any state. Apparently the NRA has done extensive research on it for talking points against laws that would keep nuts and criminals from getting guns. Of course, this whacky "we're felons for downloading songs" meme is a complete lie, but that never stops the NRA.
I'm probably breaking some law right now by typing, but until I'm arrested and convicted, I'm not a felon.
In Illinois, the state issues you a Firearm Owner ID Card (FOID card) if they think you are somebody they want to own a gun. You can't legally own a gun without this card.
But they will revoke your card for reasons such as, you have a restraining order issued against you. (In many areas, such restraining orders are routinely handed out to both parties in a divorce, including those where there have been no violence or threats.)
Recently the Sheriff in Cook County (which includes Chicago) put together a special team of police, whose job is to go door-to-door, confiscating guns from people whose card was revoked.
There has been no comment from the people who insist that registration does NOT lead to confiscation, and insist that the cops are NOT out to take away our guns.
I do need to ask: How many people have been murdered in Chicago since this special team of cops was put together in February? How many of the murderers (mostly thugs and gangbangers) obediently stopped to apply for Illinois FOID cards before murdering their victims, so that their guns could be confiscated when they broke the law?
OTOH, how many people who have never killed, injured, raped, robbed, assaulted, or even threatened anybody, have had their guns confiscated by this special team of cops?
Cook County sheriff’s team taking guns if FOID card is revoked
BY FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter fmain@suntimes.com
July 25, 2013 9:54PM
Updated: July 26, 2013 1:20PM
A new Cook County Sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the suburbs to seize guns from thousands of people whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards have been revoked.
More than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked FOID cards to the state. Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of them continue to possess firearms.
The Chicago Police Department conducts regular missions to recover revoked FOID cards and seize guns from the holders, but there wasn’t a concerted effort to do that in Cook County’s suburbs, Dart said.
“The system is broken,” the sheriff said. “The system revokes cards, but the guns are of no consequence. . . . Our strong hope is that we will eliminate tragedies.”
FOID cards are supposed to protect the public from dangerous people. Mental illness, felonies and protection orders are grounds for the state to revoke the cards from their holders. It’s illegal to buy guns or ammunition without one.
In February, Dart assigned a sergeant and four investigators to a gun team that has recovered about 160 FOID cards and taken more than 160 guns from the cardholders.
As former Law Enforcement I will tell you that the VAST MAJORITY of cops support gun rights.... even when their leaders (chiefs, sheriffs ect) support a different stance usually for political reasons.
Generally speaking cops working special assignment are not "hand" picked. This is not some gestapo unit devised to come steal your guns from you. These are just ordinary cops who's job it is to enforce this particular law..
I didn't particularly enjoy enforcing certain and what I considered to be trivial crimes and/or offenses but there were occasions that's exactly what I had to do because it was my job and that's what I was paid to do. And still there were many many times when we would do everything we could in stretching and manipulating the legal requirements surrounding a specific law so as to not enforce it..
I am in total agreement that restraining orders are routinely issued on baseless accusations and even sometimes there is hardly any accusations at all! In the places I worked they were issued on a temporary basis for almost ANY reason and unfortunately they were abused and used as a control tool! There would be a hearing scheduled for a permanent order where more evidence would be needed but in many cases the damage was done!
My response was just because I see many times the police officer themselves being the focus when its really the politicians! Remember we are your neighbors and live and raise families in the same communities as you. Many of us hunt, fish, go to the movies, and enjoy owning guns as much as anyone.
And in some way we are victims too! There is something sinister going on! Our rights are being eroded slowly and steadily, but the police are a tool in the process and the politicians are the real problem.. IMHO!
The poster I was responding to keeps saying that doing X makes you a felon. No, doing X does not make you a felon. Being convicted of doing X makes you a felon.
So your position is that you can commit murder and it's not a crime unless you're convicted of it? Is that what you're saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
That poster is trying to make it sound as if half the country are "felons", which is just silly
No, it's not. It's probably fairly accurate.
Whether you're convicted of committing a crime or not has nothing to do with if you actually committed it. I'm sure that I've been guilty of speeding much more often than I've received tickets for committing that crime. Heck, I haven't had a speeding ticket since 1997! I think I can say with some confidence that in the last 16 years, I've probably driven a few miles over the limit at least a few times...
His point was that you COULD lose your rights for something as mundane as transferring your cholesterol meds to a travel pillbox. He never said that everybody who did it had to go turn in their guns, which is what the tack you're taking implies that you believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
Who cares who dies? You've got your toys and your fun!
Inaccurate and uncalled for, jm. I can't say that I'm surprised, though. In virtually every thread I've seen you post in, you take the position that you're somehow superior to the people you're debating. Maybe you have some internal need to belittle them in order to convince yourself that you're on the right side of the issue - I don't know. But whatever it is, it makes you come off as a complete and total jerk, and it certainly has a repulsive effect when it comes to bringing people around to your side of the issue.
My "rant" stands. You want more restrictions. I say that the ones put in place have done nothing to curb violence. The facts and figures support my position, not yours. If you want more "reasonable" laws passed, you must first address the reasons that people are committing violent crime in the first place. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear in this country, the violence would continue, and most likely it would be with bombs and fire - both of which would result in far, far worse collateral damage than guns do.
So your position is that you can commit murder and it's not a crime unless you're convicted of it? Is that what you're saying?
No, it's not. It's probably fairly accurate.
Whether you're convicted of committing a crime or not has nothing to do with if you actually committed it. I'm sure that I've been guilty of speeding much more often than I've received tickets for committing that crime. Heck, I haven't had a speeding ticket since 1997! I think I can say with some confidence that in the last 16 years, I've probably driven a few miles over the limit at least a few times...
His point was that you COULD lose your rights for something as mundane as transferring your cholesterol meds to a travel pillbox. He never said that everybody who did it had to go turn in their guns, which is what the tack you're taking implies that you believe.
Inaccurate and uncalled for, jm. I can't say that I'm surprised, though. In virtually every thread I've seen you post in, you take the position that you're somehow superior to the people you're debating. Maybe you have some internal need to belittle them in order to convince yourself that you're on the right side of the issue - I don't know. But whatever it is, it makes you come off as a complete and total jerk, and it certainly has a repulsive effect when it comes to bringing people around to your side of the issue.
My "rant" stands. You want more restrictions. I say that the ones put in place have done nothing to curb violence. The facts and figures support my position, not yours. If you want more "reasonable" laws passed, you must first address the reasons that people are committing violent crime in the first place. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear in this country, the violence would continue, and most likely it would be with bombs and fire - both of which would result in far, far worse collateral damage than guns do.
In this particular thread, the issue isn't MORE restrictions and nobody in this thread is asking for more restrictions. It's all about LEOs enforcing the current laws on the books. Based on the bolded part of your post, I would postulate that you are against any laws prohibiting felons, mentally disturbed and those suspected of domestic violence from having any restrictions placed on their abilities to own firearms. Is that a fair assessment?
It does appear that for those who support unlimited gun rights there is a high level of deflection for this particular issue. That is, "should convicted felons be prohibited from possessing firearms?" Yes there are ridiculous laws on the books that can make someone a felon and the TRO situation is probably one of the most abused instruments of the legal system. But that doesn't mitigate the need for society to ban felons, mentally disturbed and those suspected of domestic violence from firearm possession.
I for one applaud those brave LEOs for their efforts involving removing guns from the aforementioned categories. I'm sure it's a nasty job that none of them look forward to on a daily basis and all they are really concerned about is getting home to their wife and kids.
So, ah, you're saying.....If I understand correctly, that those who refuse to surrender their FOID cards and disarm themselves after being convicted of a felony, adjudicated mentally unfit or under indictment for domestic violence are NOT criminals and should be left alone?
No, I'm saying that FOID cards are fundamentally unconstitutional (I'm in Illinois unfortunately) and that the proposition of even "temporarily" removing FOID cards or firearms from people who've merely been divorced recently is at best, laughable and at worst, a severe violation of an American's rights. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that the types of people you just listed shouldn't have guns.
In this particular thread, the issue isn't MORE restrictions and nobody in this thread is asking for more restrictions. It's all about LEOs enforcing the current laws on the books. Based on the bolded part of your post, I would postulate that you are against any laws prohibiting felons, mentally disturbed and those suspected of domestic violence from having any restrictions placed on their abilities to own firearms. Is that a fair assessment?
It does appear that for those who support unlimited gun rights there is a high level of deflection for this particular issue. That is, "should convicted felons be prohibited from possessing firearms?" Yes there are ridiculous laws on the books that can make someone a felon and the TRO situation is probably one of the most abused instruments of the legal system. But that doesn't mitigate the need for society to ban felons, mentally disturbed and those suspected of domestic violence from firearm possession.
I for one applaud those brave LEOs for their efforts involving removing guns from the aforementioned categories. I'm sure it's a nasty job that none of them look forward to on a daily basis and all they are really concerned about is getting home to their wife and kids.
No, convicted felons should not be prohibited from possessing firearms. Convicted violent felons should be prohibited from possessing firearms, but someone who is convicted of a felony that had absolutely nothing to do with firearms or violence in any way shape or form (such as the previous example of pirating music) should not lose their right to keep and bear a firearm.
I'd say you're not in any well-regulated militia. The end.
You and the rest of the anti-gun crowd have beaten that proverbial horse to death, beat it some more, processed it, and turned it into glue and dog food. Your argument has been refuted numerous times over the last century, yet you still insist on trying to use it as the defining argument of the 2nd amendment. As usual, you have shown yourself to be completely unable to argue the point without resorting to an argument that leads exactly nowhere.
You and the rest of the anti-gun crowd have beaten that proverbial horse to death, beat it some more, processed it, and turned it into glue and dog food. Your argument has been refuted numerous times over the last century, yet you still insist on trying to use it as the defining argument of the 2nd amendment. As usual, you have shown yourself to be completely unable to argue the point without resorting to an argument that leads exactly nowhere.
Blah blah blah whatever the NRA told me to say when someone mentions that inconvenient little phrase we want you all to forget.
It's in the Constitution. It ain't going anywhere, no matter how hard you flap your gums.
You have shown yourself to be unable to argue anything without help of the NRA and their gun company owners.
The reference to a well-regulated militia in the 2nd amendment, is merely an explanation for WHY the right cannot be infringed. It's not a condition on its protection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
