Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-16-2021, 06:00 AM
 
Location: The Commonwealth of Virginia
1,386 posts, read 991,662 times
Reputation: 2151

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"Ardent 2A supporters believe that to deny "felons and the mentally ill" gun rights is a violation of the 2A."

You OPINION ONLY. One I do NOT agree with.
So, I should have said the most extreme 2A supporters. That's not MY opinion. That's the OP's opinion. That's the point I'm trying to make. That's the title of this thread. The OP believes that background checks (for gun sales) are unconstitutional. By inference, that means he believes it is okay to sell guns to violent felons and the mentally ill, because without background checks, you will have violent felons and the mentally ill buying guns. There's no other way around it.

There are some ardent 2A supporters who believe ANY gun regulations are unconstitutional. Here's an example:

https://www.offthegridnews.com/self-...onstitutional/

Here's another:

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...strictions-are

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of ardent 2A supporters. If a person opposes ANY gun regulations, then, by inference, that person opposes background checks. If a person opposes background checks, then by inference, that person must be okay with violent felons and the mentally ill buying guns. With no background checks, violent felons and the mentally ill WILL buy guns. The most extreme 2A supporters won't come out and say that, because it sounds pretty bad. But there you have it.

I have asked the OP to address my point, that if he contends that background checks are unconstitutional, then that must mean he is also okay with felons and the mentally ill buying guns, but he has not done so.

--

Last edited by Bill790; 04-16-2021 at 07:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2021, 06:05 AM
 
Location: The Commonwealth of Virginia
1,386 posts, read 991,662 times
Reputation: 2151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
1 Town back in the 1800's even laid out the dead bad guys, propped up in the open caskets without the top on.
Ah, the good old days, huh?

--

Last edited by Bill790; 04-16-2021 at 06:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,406 posts, read 7,028,558 times
Reputation: 11655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
I believe when you CHOOSE to commit certain crimes and are caught you forfeit certain rights. Been that way from the beginning of our country.


Yes, and back then that meant that you forfeited those rights while you were incarcerated.

Not forever.

It never even occurred to the Founders to bar someone from owning firearms for their entire lives after they had served their sentence.

Anyone who was paroled immediately had ALL rights restored.

The notion that someone convicted of a crime should lose a Constitutional right FOREVER is a relatively new concept.

Last edited by FatBob96; 04-16-2021 at 06:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 07:05 AM
 
58,691 posts, read 26,969,662 times
Reputation: 14150
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
Yes, and back then that meant that you forfeited those rights while you were incarcerated.

Not forever.

It never even occurred to the Founders to bar someone from owning firearms for their entire lives after they had served their sentence.

Anyone who was paroled immediately had ALL rights restored.

The notion that someone convicted of a crime should lose a Constitutional right FOREVER is a relatively new concept.
"It never even occurred to the Founders to bar someone from owning firearms for their entire lives after they had served their sentence."


Is this your opinion, or do you have something to back it up?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 10:02 AM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,483,538 times
Reputation: 15331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790 View Post
So, I should have said the most extreme 2A supporters. That's not MY opinion. That's the OP's opinion. That's the point I'm trying to make. That's the title of this thread. The OP believes that background checks (for gun sales) are unconstitutional. By inference, that means he believes it is okay to sell guns to violent felons and the mentally ill, because without background checks, you will have violent felons and the mentally ill buying guns. There's no other way around it.

There are some ardent 2A supporters who believe ANY gun regulations are unconstitutional. Here's an example:

https://www.offthegridnews.com/self-...onstitutional/

Here's another:

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...strictions-are

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of ardent 2A supporters. If a person opposes ANY gun regulations, then, by inference, that person opposes background checks. If a person opposes background checks, then by inference, that person must be okay with violent felons and the mentally ill buying guns. With no background checks, violent felons and the mentally ill WILL buy guns. The most extreme 2A supporters won't come out and say that, because it sounds pretty bad. But there you have it.

I have asked the OP to address my point, that if he contends that background checks are unconstitutional, then that must mean he is also okay with felons and the mentally ill buying guns, but he has not done so.

--
Once a felon completes their sentence, they are no longer a felon...I do agree with that, (we cannot hold a persons crime over their head FOR LIFE), that conflicts with one of the founding principles of the US system of justice!


Even if you do not agree with it, being an American citizen, you are expected to stand up for citizens rights (if they are challenged), with the 1st Amendment, even though we may disagree with what another person says, we MUST defend their right to say it!


The mentally ill buying firearms is not a good idea, but this is America, we cannot give up freedom for the sake of safety, especially if it infringes on the right to own firearms....in other words, for the sake of protecting freedom, the danger is worth the cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 10:23 AM
 
Location: The Commonwealth of Virginia
1,386 posts, read 991,662 times
Reputation: 2151
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
The mentally ill buying firearms is not a good idea, but this is America, we cannot give up freedom for the sake of safety, especially if it infringes on the right to own firearms....in other words, for the sake of protecting freedom, the danger is worth the cost.
There you have it. The OP is okay with the concept of violent felons/gang members/convicted drug traffickers and the dangerously mentally ill legally buying guns. Which, of course, puts him at odds with the vast majority of Americans and SCOTUS.

Let me ask you another question, OP. How do you feel about the abridgment of the 1st amendment right to free speech? Hmmm? Like, for instance, child pornography or obscenity. After all, the 1st amendment doesn't say anything about child pornography or obscenity. There are no exceptions that I can see. Right? So, wouldn't a law passed criminalizing child pornography or obscenity be unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be, by your very narrow interpretation of the Constitution, a violation of the 1st amendment guarantee to free speech?

--

Last edited by Bill790; 04-16-2021 at 10:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Northwest Peninsula
6,135 posts, read 3,352,782 times
Reputation: 4324
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
It's cute that you think anybody gives a crap about the constitution. LOL

Please allow me to make a correction in your above statement.
It's cute that you think anybody on the left gives a crap about the constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Northwest Peninsula
6,135 posts, read 3,352,782 times
Reputation: 4324
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Why do we even celebrate July 4th anymore?


I think Im going to stop recognizing and celebrating it starting this year.(its no longer warranted or applicable).

So you think the 4th of July is racist and not in line with social justice?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 11:16 AM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,483,538 times
Reputation: 15331
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantiquity View Post
So you think the 4th of July is racist and not in line with social justice?
Its not due to racism at all...


Its due to the fact that so many citizens support violating the Constitution, and changing this country into something it was not created to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2021, 11:19 AM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,483,538 times
Reputation: 15331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790 View Post
There you have it. The OP is okay with the concept of violent felons/gang members/convicted drug traffickers and the dangerously mentally ill legally buying guns. Which, of course, puts him at odds with the vast majority of Americans and SCOTUS.

Let me ask you another question, OP. How do you feel about the abridgment of the 1st amendment right to free speech? Hmmm? Like, for instance, child pornography or obscenity. After all, the 1st amendment doesn't say anything about child pornography or obscenity. There are no exceptions that I can see. Right? So, wouldn't a law passed criminalizing child pornography or obscenity be unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be, by your very narrow interpretation of the Constitution, a violation of the 1st amendment guarantee to free speech?

--
HA HA, you are on an unconstitutional roll now!


Its clear to me, that you prioritize safety over freedom and liberty. I got news for you, 'safety' was never guaranteed in America...freedom/liberty are.


As American citizens, we are expected to stand up and fight for these rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top