115
Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou : Swingers Discussion 2209971051
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsGun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou
TOPIC: Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start   51 to 60 of 108   End
User Details are only visible to members.
"Btw, I also can make a fairly good argument that there is a constitutional right to vote, at least in congressional elections. The Constitution says they are to be chosen by "the people." Not much of a stretch to say what that means. "

Ya sure, even though it was written by men who had no intention of letting women or blacks vote. We really didn't need 15th or 19th Amendments. lol.

Spin-a-hoy!!!

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Voting isn't a right."

Not so fast. The US Constitution doesn't explicitly say in so many words that "voting is a right," but every citizen of this country (except possibly Arizona peeps) have a fundamental right to vote. Those rights flow from the Constitution, but you have to understand it to see how and why. I'm pretty sure you're not capable of doing that. 

Btw, I also can make a fairly good argument that there is a constitutional right to vote, at least in congressional elections. The Constitution says they are to be chosen by "the people." Not much of a stretch to say what that means. 

Belle Chasse LA
 
 
Username hidden
(10427 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Besides, as I mentioned earlier, burglary might not in itself be violent, but it often leads to violent encounters. An awful lot of rapes and murders start out as simple burglary. That is precisely the kind of decision that we give to the legislature, not the courts. "

Ya, I get it. You're in favor of limiting fundamental rights based on maybes and what-ifs.

Nuts.

Don't blame the prosecutors for cutting deals or the criminal justice system that puts people back on the street with rap sheets longer than your arm.

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
""Draughter was charged under the statute that prohibits gun possession from 10 years after completion of a sentence for violent felonies. Louisiana's legislature, in listing the felonies, had decided to include some (like Draughter's burglary conviction) that typically erupt into violence even though the felony itself doesn't technically involve personal violence. The legislature also was aware that violent offenders often plead to lesser, non-violent charges. 

Why would Fun fight for the Rights of natrualized terrorist but AGAINST the rights of man convicted of Simple Burglary?????????? "

=========== You need to go back and look at my original post on this. I don't know the details of the thug's earlier crime, but the fact he PLED GUILTY to simple burglary means (almost certainly) that the crime he actually committed was worse. 

Besides, as I mentioned earlier, burglary might not in itself be violent, but it often leads to violent encounters. An awful lot of rapes and murders start out as simple burglary. That is precisely the kind of decision that we give to the legislature, not the courts. 

Sort of ironic that you earlier gave us a very good example of an attempted simple burglary doing just that, i.e., leading to a violent encounter. 

Belle Chasse LA
 
 
Username hidden
(10427 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"If a person is truly capable of rejoining society they should have all their rights. If they aren't capable of rejoining society they shouldn't be set free."

Maybe you should share with parole boards everywhere your invention of the visual aid that apparently enables you to see the otherwise invisible signs flashing on foreheads of particular prisoners: "dangerous" or "not dangerous."

Even Scalia recognized in Heller the concept that letting prior felons have guns might not be the best of ideas, and that no right is absolute. 

Your problem is that you see everything as simple black-or-white absolutes. That's okay; complexities can be challenging to some people. 

There is no precise or perfect way to know exactly how long a sentence should be, or whether a particular felon being released from prison is or is not dangerous. 

Legislatures and parole boards have to make the best (imperfect) decisions they can, somewhere between the prohibitively expensive lock-every-criminal-up-forever-and-throw-away-the-key, and the other extreme of letting criminals roam the streets. 

So they take the best stab they can at a calculated risk. The decision to minimize that risk (by outlawing firearm possession until the felon earns his way back into society's good graces) normally belongs to the Legislature. 

The laws on the books are clear: anyone who is thinking about committing a felony should know that the penalties include loss of liberties, which includes the indefinite loss of firearm rights. If you don't want to lose your rights, don't do the crime. I have no sympathy for the poor felons who didn't think this through. 

Look at it a different way if you want: If some scum is sentenced to ten years in prison (during which time I assume you have no problem with depriving him of guns), it's still a "gift" to him if the prison part of the sentence gets shortened even if the loss of gun rights isn't. Would that make you feel better?

Belle Chasse LA
 
 
Username hidden
(10427 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
""You added the grand jury thing late in that discussion" 

Oh WOW! A DISCUSSION evovled!! Call Ripley's!!!!!!!!!! It took 10 or so, short posts to get to that point. That would never work if a thesis." ================================

Clever. And a great response to what I actually said:

"You added the grand jury thing late in that discussion, perhaps to make your proposal slightly less preposterous. A grand jury means little if it isn't accompanied by the protections of a fair trial before a jury of your peers, with legal counsel and the right to confront your witnesses and call your own. Some former Duke lacrosse players could tell you how dangerously absurd you are to suggest that a grand jury indictment is enough to determine guilt.  

"That's done only by a verdict, at the end of a trial with the safeguards we have. And yes, AT THAT POINT a person does lose their rights."

Belle Chasse LA
 
 
Username hidden
(10427 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"If somebody is convicted of Libel they're never allowed to be published again? People convicted of slander are to have their tongue cut out???"

What? There are states where libel and slander are criminal offenses instead of acts for which civil damage suits can be filed? Who knew? I'll have to concede to Perf superior legal knowledge on this one. 

But I'm pissed that someone apparently has been hiding the crime statistics on the number of people robbed at book-point. Is murder-by-slander much of a problem up in that world you live in? Do you have bumper stickers saying "Books don't kill people; writers do."

Belle Chasse LA
 
 
Username hidden
(10427 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
""That's the response you really want to go with, to support your false assertion that I launched into some argument about strict scrutiny "absolutely" applying to due process questions? " 

Yes, even though 'absolutely' might have been a poor choice of words on my part. It's better than your false assertions in your diatribe." ========

Dufus. Neither I nor anyone else was talking about the level of scrutiny applied to due process. You meandered off track to bring up Heller and gun rights, moaning that SCOTUS used notions of "reasonableness" as a basis to dilute them. 

To that diversion from the topic, by you, I asked rhetorically if you had heard of strict scrutiny. 

Let's quote you precisely: "If I recall, the word 'reasonable' was thrown around quite a bit in Heller." Apparently, you were unaware until I told you that Scalia in Heller explicitly rejected the "reasonableness" standard of review for a categorical ban on handguns. 

Gun rights is supposed to be your strong suit, and you don't even understand what was said in SCOTUS' first in-depth look at the 2nd Amendment? Will someone please tell me why I bother to teach this idiot anything?

Belle Chasse LA
 
 
Username hidden
(10427 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Spin Ahoy is so misleading. Do you think he didn't know Draughter was charged of attempted Simply Burglary???

"Draughter was charged under the statute that prohibits gun possession from 10 years after completion of a sentence for violent felonies. Louisiana's legislature, in listing the felonies, had decided to include some (like Draughter's burglary conviction) that typically erupt into violence even though the felony itself doesn't technically involve personal violence. The legislature also was aware that violent offenders often plead to lesser, non-violent charges.

Why would Fun fight for the Rights of natrualized terrorist but AGAINST the rights of man convicted of Simple Burglary??????????

NUTS!

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Fun

Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you hate Freedom?

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start   51 to 60 of 108   End
TOPIC: Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou