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.
The problem is the violence not the chosen weapon. A violent drunk can do lethal damage with a baseball bat, kitchen knife or his feet and fists. These just take more strength and energy. Would we ban all things that could be used as a weapon? I think not. However, as guns are an order of magnitude easer to use to lethal effect I think a person found guilty in court of assault with battery (actually hitting and/or injuring a person) should have their rights to possess firearms removed.
FWIW - The Bill of Rights only applies to citizens not guilty of a crime. A convicted felon has lost many of their rights including the right to keep and bear arms. So if you want to be a free and armed citizen do not beat anyone except to defend yourself after they started the fight.
Why then are we trying to disarm Iran of Nuclear weapons? By your logic, Iran could just use horses and bayonets to attack us.
The government indeed is going to very long lengths to be more controlling over the population every day. Generalizing here, many of those complaining in the threads about the governments attacks on our freedoms indeed do not have a problem with the government attacking our second amendment rights but I believe in the end the sane argument is the one that says to leave law abiding citizens alone while concentrating on those who do not will win out.
And littering isn't an offense worthy of removing anyone's rights outside of the right to a few of your dollars.
Listen pal! No one's rights are more violated and no one is more controlled than that of an abused wife whose husband threatens her with a gun!
Bull! You made the "loud argument" crap up. Hyperbole will not strengthen you position.
No actually I did not "make it up". I have met more then one person prosecuted for domestic violence that ONLY involved yelling. A quick search gives a example from the king country court website. Domestic Violence
Specifically from their definitions of what it is:
" It may also include breaking objects, hurting pets, yelling, driving recklessly to endanger or scare the abused person, isolating family members from others, and controlling resources like money, vehicles, credit, and time."
I think I clearly stated my position and it has been my position over many posts that I am totally against a gun ban for law abiding citizens.
Then you are either being deceptive, or you aren't very bright. If the criteria for maintaining one's constitutional rights is they must be "law abiding citizens", you have just effectively stripped or placed in jeopardy the majority of Americans rights.
With an estimated 200,000+ laws and statutes and regulations on the books ... a volume of which no one could even read, know about or understand, everyone is a criminal.
You are a criminal ... because I guarantee you have broken one of those laws, and probably several, and probably recently. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit, even by 1 mph? Have you ever jay walked, or got a parking ticket ... ever smoked weed, or been in the presence of a friend who did ... have you ordered a product online, but did not file your sales use tax with your your local tax authorities? All of these things, and hundreds more are pretty common behaviors, but by no means covers the entire volume of laws you aren't even aware exists ... some of them quite assinine, and outdated.
I'm willing to bet that 99 out of 100 people could not pass the test to be law abiding, if they were carefully scrutinized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The Constitution indeed does allow for this or we would not be able to remove a persons right to Liberty. Can those imprisoned own guns? Are you saying that your reading of the 2nd amendment standing alone leads you to believe that the removal of their rights here is UnConstitutional? And if not, why not?
This is the age old matter that so many are confused over ... the difference between rights and privileges. Privileges can be denied, and are subject to meeting certain qualifications. Rights cannot be denied, and are NOT subject to meeting qualifications, because if they were, they would not be rights. You have a right to breathe ... do you need ask anyone for permission to breathe?
Furthermore, it is not "my reading" that means squat .. it is the clear English language of the 2nd Ammendment that has weight. And it is very clear ..."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". (Note: the definition of "infringe" is to limit or restrict). This makes the statement even more clear ... "..... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be "limited or restricted". Please also make note the absence of any qualifiers, like "except for those who have been found guilty of a crime.
Consequently, if you have at minimum, 4th grade reading skills, "your reading" of that should be IDENTICAL to mine. There is no ambiguity or room for alternative interpretations.
Now, if you can identify to me a particular provision in the constitution that grants the government the authority to strip a citizen of his or her constitutional rights, by all means do show us the ACTUAL TEXT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Does a law against robbing a bank make you a criminal?
What a silly thing to say. There is no constitutional right to rob a bank. There is a constitutional right to own a firearm, and denying that right, under whatever pretext one chooses to use, does indeed make an otherwise "law abiding citizen" a criminal.
Then you are either being deceptive, or you aren't very bright. If the criteria for maintaining one's constitutional rights is they must be "law abiding citizens", you have just effectively stripped or placed in jeopardy the majority of Americans rights.
With an estimated 200,000+ laws and statutes and regulations on the books ... a volume of which no one could even read, know about or understand, everyone is a criminal.
You are a criminal ... because I guarantee you have broken one of those laws, and probably several, and probably recently. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit, even by 1 mph? Have you ever jay walked, or got a parking ticket ... ever smoked weed, or been in the presence of a friend who did ... have you ordered a product online, but did not file your sales use tax with your your local tax authorities? All of these things, and hundreds more are pretty common behaviors, but by no means covers the entire volume of laws you aren't even aware exists ... some of them quite assinine, and outdated.
I'm willing to bet that 99 out of 100 people could not pass the test to be law abiding, if they were carefully scrutinized.
The argument here is domestic abuse, not speeding or littering. The argument is not having your rights removed for any infraction.
Quote:
This is the age old matter that so many are confused over ... the difference between rights and privileges. Privileges can be denied, and are subject to meeting certain qualifications. Rights cannot be denied, and are NOT subject to meeting qualifications, because if they were, they would not be rights. You have a right to breathe ... do you need ask anyone for permission to breathe?
This is going way off tangent but Timothy McVeigh's right to breath was indeed taken from him. Was it not?
Quote:
Furthermore, it is not "my reading" that means squat .. it is the clear English language of the 2nd Ammendment that has weight. And it is very clear ..."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". (Note: the definition of "infringe" is to limit or restrict). This makes the statement even more clear ... "..... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be "limited or restricted". Please also make note the absence of any qualifiers, like "except for those who have been found guilty of a crime.
You fail to read the rest of the Constitution. I don't know what to tell you. The rest explains how your rights can be removed from you.
How is it that prisoners can have their rights to own guns taken from them?
Quote:
Consequently, if you have at minimum, 4th grade reading skills, "your reading" of that should be IDENTICAL to mine. There is no ambiguity or room for alternative interpretations.
Now, if you can identify to me a particular provision in the constitution that grants the government the authority to strip a citizen of his or her constitutional rights, by all means do show us the ACTUAL TEXT.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now what does the 14th amendment say? It doesn't say that a persons rights can not be removed. It says that a persons rights can not be removed without due process. It then gets more complicated as due process is not a passing of a law. Due process is a legal procedure that is singular to an individual. Due process can throw you in prison. A law can not be passed to throw everyone in prison.
What a silly thing to say. There is no constitutional right to rob a bank. There is a constitutional right to own a firearm, and denying that right, under whatever pretext one chooses to use, does indeed make an otherwise "law abiding citizen" a criminal.
No actually I did not "make it up". I have met more then one person prosecuted for domestic violence that ONLY involved yelling. A quick search gives a example from the king country court website. Domestic Violence
Specifically from their definitions of what it is:
" It may also include breaking objects, hurting pets, yelling, driving recklessly to endanger or scare the abused person, isolating family members from others, and controlling resources like money, vehicles, credit, and time."
Allow me to post the actual quote where you got your list:
Quote:
Domestic violence is a pattern of behaviors, some causing physical injury, others not, some criminal, others not, but all psychologically damaging. Frequently, domestic violence includes threats of violence, threats of suicide, or threats to take children from the abused person. It may also include breaking objects, hurting pets, yelling, driving recklessly to endanger or scare the abused person, isolating family members from others, and controlling resources like money, vehicles, credit, and time.
Which is temporary, usually a couple of years at most.
Unless they keep committing crimes which is usually what happens.
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.
