Sign for gun hating neighbor.

[rehmwa 2]

this is hilarious -

Kallend asked a non-sequitor he is fond of
I provided one in response

Lucky was trending off on his little tangents, so I left before he started getting insulting like he always does.

Fortunately, Lucky, in normal fashion, avoids any pretense of even trying to understand any other viewpoint and is pigeon holing me into one of his neat little prejudiced buckets - even while I'm out - and even though he's wrong on his assessment of my views.

This is much more fun than actually trying to participate.

John - if you really want an answer about ex-cons owning weapons, then you need to provide some examples to answer each one to find that line. Here's a couple end points to build examples between.

1 - Man serves his time for a crime he didn't commit. He gets a job and is living a decent life - He "should" be able to get his 2nd amendment rights back

2 - Mass murderer gets out on a technicality and starts hanging around with his friends and has made numerous death threats to tons of people and has already, since out, lost his temper and attacked a handful of people - seems he 'shouldn't' get his 2nd amendment rights back

now, let the bickering over the fine gray line in the mix be drawn and debated over while the whole issue of those that want to completely disarm their neighbors can be ignored

Edit: even if photoshopped, I find both signs to be pretty amusing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

this is hilarious -

I want to thank everyone for letting me have a turn stirring the pot. I never expected such an overwhelming response. I am truly humbled.
Who knows. I just might wander in here more often.

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

John - if you really want an answer about ex-cons owning weapons, then you need to provide some examples to answer each one to find that line. Here's a couple end points to build examples between.

1 - Man serves his time for a crime he didn't commit. He gets a job and is living a decent life - He "should" be able to get his 2nd amendment rights back

2 - Mass murderer gets out on a technicality and starts hanging around with his friends and has made numerous death threats to tons of people and has already, since out, lost his temper and attacked a handful of people - seems he 'shouldn't' get his 2nd amendment rights back

So how would you frame a law to cover these situations that would pass Constitutional muster? Do we take Man #1's word for it that he didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So how would you frame a law to cover these situations that would pass Constitutional muster? Do we take Man #1's word for it that he didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted?

This has never been a big concern for you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No, it is NOT, because there is no doubt that innocent (and sane) people have a right to bear arms. There seems, however, to be some dispute about how valid the limits are.

To your kind, there's considerable doubt about this. California's Senior Senator and most of the Brady organizations have been quite clear in their intent. To claim otherwise is lying.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So how would you frame a law to cover these situations that would pass Constitutional muster? Do we take Man #1's word for it that he didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted?

you asked for a position, now you are changing the argument? C'mon - lay out the scenarios if you want an opinion

as for framing a law? I'm not in congress

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Now, I don't come in this room often. Maybe you and rehmwa have been in a pissing contest in other threads. I'm not sure.

actually, I think JK is a pretty neat guy here and in person - and he has a tongue in cheek style that mainly involves casual mockery and teasing - it's good stuff and fun for this place. there's maybe 3 or 4 people total here that are truly antagonistic and not worth the time - that's not too bad considering the nature of the forum

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

Edit: even if photoshopped, I find both signs to be pretty amusing

"Even if . . . " Like it's a question?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Edit: even if photoshopped, I find both signs to be pretty amusing

"Even if . . . " Like it's a question?

I especially like how the text stays level even when the signs are crooked - it's an indicator of a real nutjob gunfreak to paint the sign and then erect it such that when the photo is taken the text is level

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Edit: even if photoshopped, I find both signs to be pretty amusing

"Even if . . . " Like it's a question?

People throw out the PS claim all the time when they think it's obvious, even when they're wrong. Photographers have been disqualified because their image was just too fantastic to be real. Sometimes you just are in the right place/time for an unusual result.

Just as many use the word 'allegedly' in referring to nearly obviously guilty criminals, nothing wrong with at least considering the possibility.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?

Only when the courts give them the right to own, back

And I have seen one case of this personally

Congratulations on having your rights restored

Figures
You dont even know the difference between "seen" and "experenced"

If you know I'm making a funny, why the first part

Sme reason you made you post to me?

Can anyone decipher gibberish?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So how would you frame a law to cover these situations that would pass Constitutional muster? Do we take Man #1's word for it that he didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted?

you asked for a position, now you are changing the argument? C'mon - lay out the scenarios if you want an opinion

as for framing a law? I'm not in congress

You obviously have no clue how the law works in regard to statute. Would you have it read:

Gun rights restoration only for convicted felons who actually didn't commit the crime for which they were convicted. You must prove you didn't commit the crime and then you can be restored.

See, statute doesn't work that way, it makes a clear point in most cases, it doesn't extend a lot of discretion; it's normally very black/white. Now, the process works where the ex-con petitions the court and the judge can use discretion, the prosector's office has the right to pipe in too, but they are sometimes ignored.

The question is simple, you are dodging it as before.

EDIT: I think we know you want a gun in the hand of every man, woman and child, regardless of criminal history or mental state.

I'm still waiting for data supporting the claim that more gun ownership = less crime. Whoever that was who laid it and ran.

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

Quote

So how would you frame a law to cover these situations that would pass Constitutional muster? Do we take Man #1's word for it that he didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted?

you asked for a position, now you are changing the argument? C'mon - lay out the scenarios if you want an opinion

as for framing a law? I'm not in congress

Nice dodge.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms?

Only when the courts give them the right to own, back

And I have seen one case of this personally

Congratulations on having your rights restored

Figures
You dont even know the difference between "seen" and "experenced"

If you know I'm making a funny, why the first part

Sme reason you made you post to me?

Can anyone decipher gibberish?

Does "Good for the goose" mean anything to you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Nice dodge.

lay out the scenarios - I'll answer them

but when you have my personal position on where to draw that line, what then?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

Quote

Nice dodge.

lay out the scenarios - I'll answer them

We'll just use your scenarios:

Quote

1 - Man serves his time for a crime he didn't commit. He gets a job and is living a decent life - He "should" be able to get his 2nd amendment rights back

2 - Mass murderer gets out on a technicality and starts hanging around with his friends and has made numerous death threats to tons of people and has already, since out, lost his temper and attacked a handful of people - seems he 'shouldn't' get his 2nd amendment rights back

So how would YOU frame a Constitutionally acceptable law to deal with YOUR scenarios?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

that's not your original question

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

EDIT: I think we know you want a gun in the hand of every man, woman and child, regardless of criminal history or mental state.

YAY - but why do you hate dogs and cats? I clearly think dogs and cats should have guns too

you can never have enough guns....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

that's not your original question

You asked for scenarios. I'm content to use YOUR scenarios.

Try answering instead of dodging.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

that's not your original question

You asked for scenarios. I'm content to use YOUR scenarios.

Try answering instead of dodging.

You asked where I draw the line, essentially. I don't believe we've figured that out yet as these two examples are way too wide. But now you've gone on a tangent asking me to write a law....

I actually offer to try to answer this, with your wise assistance, but apparently you aren't interested in that. That's fine, but don't go all antagonistic because I want to finish one thing before going on a tangent you are constructing (for what reason I have no idea)

As for writing a constitutionally correct law - I'm not dodging - I couldn't write one for something clear cut, let alone to delineate this fine line you are asking for, ask a law-maker, they are the experts. Even if we figure out that razor's edge you asked for, I still couldn't write a law for it. That kind of law is cumbersome and can step on one guy's toes while doing perfect for others - you know about alpha and beta risk right? so asking for something with zero alpha or beta risk is impossible. so why are wasting time and bandwidth?


The original premise wasn't about some grey area, it was a gag from John about how to respond to an 'all or nothing' individual (either the anti-gunner (nothing) neighbor, or his uber-pro (all) relative - depending on which extreme annoys you more) - absolutely nothing about refining who's who. That's something else that I don't find entertaining enough to wade through the morass you like to construct.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

Two points -

Someone called themselves a 'Live and Let Live" liberal. I suggest to you that Live and Let Live is actually a Libertarian. Liberals tend to want to take money from those who earned it and give it to those that the liberals think deserve it more. If you want to live and let live, you have to stay out of other people's pockets. Conservatives have their own problems. I am just mentioning liberals because that is what the individual claimed.

As to ex-cons with firearms - if we can't trust the person with a firearm, why the heck did we let them out of prison? That's just a thought I had. I don't mean to base policy on it. But, really. If they are dangerous, why have we let them back into the population? Just something to ponder.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,121]

> Liberals tend to want to take money from those who earned it and give it
>to those that the liberals think deserve it more.

And conservatives tend to want to take money from those who earned it and use it to kill those that conservatives dislike. Two sides of the same coin.

I agree that the libertarian ideal is a good ideal to aspire to - but it has not yet survived contact with the real world. I look forward to seeing a viable (i.e. large enough to be taken seriously) libertarian party winning some seats.

>As to ex-cons with firearms - if we can't trust the person with a firearm, >why the heck did we let them out of prison?

Because the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It's not justice if the guy who gets drunk and waves a gun around gets the same sentence as a serial rapist.

[davjohns 1]

Mmmm....gonna have to disagree with your definition of conservative. I live my life conservatively, but am libertarian. I noted that conservatives have their own issues as a group, but wanting to kill others surely isn't one. Trying to make others live their lives in conformance with their own values might be part of the definition from my perspective.

As to the drunk waving a gun vs. serial rapist...I miss your point. The drunk is not a felon and can probably learn his lesson by having that gun confiscated and spending the night in jail. The serial rapist should not be allowed out of prison because he is demonstrably a threat to society. So your argument does not address my question, but rather reinforces it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.