Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Something to ponder


Recommended Posts

  We all know someone with the inability to legally own a firearm due to a crime committed or in some cases the expectation a crime will be committed. They no longer possess the God given right to protect themselves with a firearm affirmed to them by the 2nd amendment. 

  Maybe what we should do is take away peoples' right to protest if they're caught looting, vandalizing, or rioting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

No.

 

Looting vandalizing and rioting already aren't covered in the Constitution.

You misunderstand. I say do away with an individuals' right to protest(which is freedom of speech in the 1st amendment) if they are caught breaking the law by rioting, looting, and vandalizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I understood.

 

You're still mixing crimes already covered in the penal code with unrelated Rights enshrined in the Constitution.

 

Denying Rights to people because of unrelated actions is a slippery slope that I have no interest in starting down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not against the law to be stupid in public. I tried many a times to find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well 

 

   I ain't real sure just when , the probation , on owning a firearm , was put into place , for crimes  

 

  I think it was in GCA68 , which is very close to a Nordic edict , posted in 1938 , (Germany) 

 

  NFA34 , NFA38 , GCA68 , and all the rest , flys in the face of the 2nd adm. 

 

  this nation , was founded , by outlaws , and traders to the crown 

 

   Chickasaw Bill 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

Denying Rights to people because of unrelated actions is a slippery slope that I have no interest in starting down.

 

I think TW's point is that we've already started down that slippery slope by denying people their 2nd amendment rights.

 

I also think his point is that the actions are related:  If abuse of your 2nd amendment rights = loss of said rights, then abuse of 1st amendment rights should = loss of said rights.

 

The whole point of which is, I believe, that you shouldn't be losing ANY of your constitutional rights - but we (Americans) allow the government to screw with our 2nd amendment rights all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

Nor is there even a license requirement,  unfortunately.

 

Maybe I read it on here, but I recently saw the definition of a "license" as "When the government takes away one of your rights, and then sells it back to you on a temporary basis"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bart Slade said:

 

I think TW's point is that we've already started down that slippery slope by denying people their 2nd amendment rights.

 

I also think his point is that the actions are related:  If abuse of your 2nd amendment rights = loss of said rights, then abuse of 1st amendment rights should = loss of said rights.

 

The whole point of which is, I believe, that you shouldn't be losing ANY of your constitutional rights - but we (Americans) allow the government to screw with our 2nd amendment rights all the time.

Just because the trip down the slippery slope has started, it doesn't mean that you ought to get out and push.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting 'pondering',  TN.

 

I understand wackily what your saying:   We violate gun laws and they take away our guns.   We violate our other

constitutional rights and those rights will get taken away. 

 

Its not a bad way to looks at the punishment equalling the crime.....BUT, do we restrict DQ visits to everyone with

a high blood sugar problems?

 

We'll talk about the Constitution tonight on the phone.    Interesting topic.

 

..........Widder

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Interesting 'pondering',  TN.

 

I understand wackily what your saying:   We violate gun laws and they take away our guns.   We violate our other

constitutional rights and those rights will get taken away. 

 

Its not a bad way to looks at the punishment equalling the crime.....BUT, do we restrict DQ visits to everyone with

a high blood sugar problems?

 

We'll talk about the Constitution tonight on the phone.    Interesting topic.

 

..........Widder

 

Widder, don't forget those poor disenfranchised folks that have nanner allergies...there gonna have DQWs (Dairy Queen Withdrawals) ;)

 

Kajun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Interesting 'pondering',  TN.

 

 

1 hour ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

BUT, do we restrict DQ visits to everyone with

a high blood sugar problems?

 

 

..........Widder

 

Mayor Bloomberg in New York?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you can lose those rights under certain circumstances. Lets take life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you commit a capital crime for which the penalty is death you lose life. If you commit a crime which is punishable by incarceration you lose liberty you go to jail. If you commit a crime because it makes you happy you should lose the right of pursuit of happiness.

 As far as I'm concerned you should lose rights if they are abused. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly no matter what you do you should retain all of your rights. I disagree, but that is my right.

kR

17 hours ago, Bart Slade said:

 

I think TW's point is that we've already started down that slippery slope by denying people their 2nd amendment rights.

 

I also think his point is that the actions are related:  If abuse of your 2nd amendment rights = loss of said rights, then abuse of 1st amendment rights should = loss of said rights.

 

The whole point of which is, I believe, that you shouldn't be losing ANY of your constitutional rights - but we (Americans) allow the government to screw with our 2nd amendment rights all the time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Kid Rich said:

I believe you can lose those rights under certain circumstances. Lets take life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you commit a capital crime for which the penalty is death you lose life. If you commit a crime which is punishable by incarceration you lose liberty you go to jail. If you commit a crime because it makes you happy you should lose the right of pursuit of happiness.

 As far as I'm concerned you should lose rights if they are abused. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly no matter what you do you should retain all of your rights. I disagree, but that is my right.

kR

 

What I think is actually an amalgamation of what you and Bart said.

   I agree if you use a gun to commit a crime or even commit a crime that is considered violent it stands to reason you could lose your right to carry a firearm. What I don't think should happen, is to be denied if you haven't been convicted of a crime yet or the crime is non violent like d.u.i. There are of course some exceptions.

     I also think if you are caught looting or rioting you should lose your right to "peacefully protest." I believe turnabout is fair play. If you can lose the 2nd amendment, you should face losing the 1st. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

What I think is actually an amalgamation of what you and Bart said.

   I agree if you use a gun to commit a crime or even commit a crime that is considered violent it stands to reason you could lose your right to carry a firearm. What I don't think should happen, is to be denied if you haven't been convicted of a crime yet or the crime is non violent like d.u.i. There are of course some exceptions.

     I also think if you are caught looting or rioting you should lose your right to "peacefully protest." I believe turnabout is fair play. If you can lose the 2nd amendment, you should face losing the 1st. 

 

Seems like a looter should be incarcerated and thus lose their right to protest. Stealing is a crime and should be enforced, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

Seems like a looter should be incarcerated and thus lose their right to protest. Stealing is a crime and should be enforced, period.

The difference is you lose the 2nd amendment potentially forever. You would only lose the 1st while you are incarcerated. 

   With the 2nd amendment, someone can not feel safe and call the police or get a restraining order and you can lose it. 

    Nobody feels safe with protests that turn into riots, but if we call the police and say Joe Bob said he's gonna start rioting at the protest down town nothing happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

What I think is actually an amalgamation of what you and Bart said.

   I agree if you use a gun to commit a crime or even commit a crime that is considered violent it stands to reason you could lose your right to carry a firearm. What I don't think should happen, is to be denied if you haven't been convicted of a crime yet or the crime is non violent like d.u.i. There are of course some exceptions.

     I also think if you are caught looting or rioting you should lose your right to "peacefully protest." I believe turnabout is fair play. If you can lose the 2nd amendment, you should face losing the 1st. 

I never said or believed that anyone should be denied due process.

kR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's illegal to riot, cause property damage and inflict violence upon others. Not that anyone is enforcing the laws right now.

So you're convicted and in most instances it would be a felony. Gun rights gone away and now protest rights?

 

Who is going to stop and ask or check someone protesting if their "protest" rights have been suspended or taken away. We can't even get leadership to allow the LEO's to enforce the laws!

 

Excuse me sir/miss/whatever can I see your protest clearance permit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Government has too much power over us already.  No law should be passed giving them more. None, zip, nada!  I am even against the law prohibiting felons from owning possessing guns to some extent.  There are some felons that are rehabilitated and productive members of society that had points in their life where they were less developed emotionally and made bad choices.  Forever is too long.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

So it's illegal to riot, cause property damage and inflict violence upon others. Not that anyone is enforcing the laws right now.

Its also illegal to shoot and murder someone, but some states make it almost impossible to carry a firearm. Some places prohibit you from carrying a firearm into their establishment, but they can't prevent you from coming in and verbally running the place down. What makes one amendment more important than the other?

24 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

So you're convicted and in most instances it would be a felony. Gun rights gone away and now protest rights?

I'm not sure that stealing a pair of Nike shoes is a felony. 

24 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

 

Who is going to stop and ask or check someone protesting if their "protest" rights have been suspended or taken away. We can't even get leadership to allow the LEO's to enforce the laws!

The same way they enforce the 2nd amendment being taken away. If you're found with a gun, you get time. If a known rioter or looter is caught protesting, they get time. 

24 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

 

Excuse me sir/miss/whatever can I see your protest clearance permit?

No. However, when someone is brought in for blocking a roadway the rioting and looting is on their record and the max sentence goes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE said:

The Government has too much power over us already.  No law should be passed giving them more. None, zip, nada!  I am even against the law prohibiting felons from owning possessing guns to some extent.  There are some felons that are rehabilitated and productive members of society that had points in their life where they were less developed emotionally and made bad choices.  Forever is too long.

 

I'd say forever would depend on the crime. I don't want gang member X that did a drive by shooting to be able to walk in and buy a gun.

Yes, I know they can be had elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the cops aren't arresting anyone, mostly, then how are the looters going to be convicted, and identified? Cops recognizing a "known" looter or rioter falls in the same success rate of them recognizing any other convicted felon in  a crowd....won't happen.

Stealing Nike's is not a felony, but good be if they looter is a multiple offense good citizen.

 

Some places prohibit you from carrying a firearm into their establishment, but they can't prevent you from coming in and verbally running the place down. What makes one amendment more important than the other? 2A rights can legally be restricted. Someone verbally doing anything is protected under the 1st Amendment unless they are inciting violence. If I don't want you in my place with a gun I can ask you to leave. If you're disrupting my place by your verbal whatever I can have you trespassed. Both time the cops show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

I'd say forever would depend on the crime. I don't want gang member X that did a drive by shooting to be able to walk in and buy a gun.

Yes, I know they can be had elsewhere.

Why is a convicted murderer released in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

Why is a convicted murderer released in the first place?

I actually just said drive by shooting, doesn't have to kill anybody or even hit anybody for that matter. But I get what you're saying. I don't know why they can only be put away for 5 or 10 years and be considered good enough. May just depend on the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE said:

The Government has too much power over us already.  No law should be passed giving them more. None, zip, nada!  I am even against the law prohibiting felons from owning possessing guns to some extent.  There are some felons that are rehabilitated and productive members of society that had points in their life where they were less developed emotionally and made bad choices.  Forever is too long.

 

Thats why there are pardons.

kR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall that a felony conviction nullifies the right to vote.  Should that right be returned to a convicted felon?  :huh:

 

By the way - there are at present movements underway to not only restore voting rights after satisfying a judgement.  There are even movements underway to allow incarcerated felons voting privileges.  :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.