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
FORUMS General Discussions Politics Gun 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   61 to 70 of 108   End
User Details are only visible to members.
This is the bullshit that Fun presents????????? LMAO

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Simple Burglary — La R.S. 14:62

Simple burglary is the unauthorized entering of any dwelling, vehicle, watercraft, or other structure, movable or immovable, or any cemetery, with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein, other than as set forth below in R.S. 14:60 (Aggravated burglary).

Whoever commits the crime of Simple Burglary shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than twelve years, or both.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Glen Draughter who had previously pleaded guilty to attempted simple burglary.

Public defenders Jill Pasquarella and Colin Reingold argued that under a strict-scrutiny test, the government must be able to provide compelling data showing that those convicted of crimes like simple burglary prove a heightened threat to society when armed.

"There is, simply, no rational basis for stripping Louisianans of their rights ... where they have been convicted of crimes that are wholly unrelated to firearm possession or use," Pasquarella wrote to judges in this and several other cases.

Assistant District Attorney Matthew Payne submitted sociological studies suggesting a link between such offenses and a proclivity toward later violent crime. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bravo Pasquarella ! Fun and Payne can rely on 'suggested psychological links (hahaha) to treat citizen's as second class. What do the psychological studies of the the Boston bombers say??

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
if a person is capabel of rejoining socaity he should have his rights restored.if not he should not be free......I agree...there is no such thing as a second class citizen.you either have your rights or you have no rights.........BS

Kingston TN
Username hidden
(1991 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I doubt you recognize how far out on the fringe you are to be advocating that gun rights for felons should be a higher value than those of a business owner who doesn't want to give armed convicts free access on his business premises. Nuts. "

I still can't believe that a such a self proclaimed intelligent person such as yourself still can't see that I'm advocating keeping criminals off the streets. 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.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 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.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"The recidivism rate for felons is over 60% within three years after release from prison. Why would anyone in their right mind want to make it easier for the very people most predisposed to crime, to have weapons for the next time they break the law? "

They shouldn't be on the streets. If they want a gun, they'll get one anyhow. The second time they go to jail for a violent crime should be the last time they are free.

What's next? 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??? That wouldn't be REASONABLE.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 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.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
No olive branch from you. You know how I feel about you, and that's highly unlikely to ever change.

Voting isn't a right. The constitution only contains reasons a person CANNOT be excluded.

The right to self protection is fundamental. If you served your time you shouldn't be a second class citizen. MANY, many courts have used the rational test with the second amendment, including your home state's Supreme Court. Even the SCOTUS. although saying they're not using it, are misleading. Gun Free school zones are bullshit. It has nothing to do with guns. Dozen's of stories here, including my own, tell of taking guns to school for demonstration or for after school hunting. YOU, and tons of other choose to treat the right to keep and bear arms as some sort of 'privelege'. It's NOT. And if you can treat it as such, then why get all bent when I suggest treating some other Right as a privelege. Some would say the hypocrisy. Some other's think felon's serving time should be allowed freedom of Religion, but damn if they can exercise their rights when they get out.

You think you know the Constitution......you only know what you WANT the Constitution to be. Did you miss my Rehnquist quote??? I doubt you did, you just ignored it because it goes against your rationale. Just like you ignored my background info on the Louisiana SC in 1979.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"You implied it. You didn't say "Ever hear of intermediate scrutiny?"

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? 

Why is it so hard for you to admit you were mistaken about something when you obviously were mistaken? Standards of review by SCOTUS is fairly esoteric stuff; do you think anyone here really cares that you don't know much about it? Is it more important to strut around as if you are some expert, than to just be honest about what you said or didn't say?

Look Perf, I'd be happy to help you understand any of these constitutional/legal concepts, if you really wanted to learn anything. But you're always more interested in picking out some minutiae to attack on, than discussing and understanding the substance of a central issue. 

I'd rather try to have serious discussions than to just make fun of you when you do this shit. That's why I recently walked away and let VA respond to your inanity with a gentle spanking instead of the ass-reaming I could have done to you. And I took a break from the Trolls thread listing of examples of idiotic ironies.

I'm extending you an olive branch here. If you want to have actual discussions, let's do it. Otherwise, I'll assume all you want to do is take pot shots. Which is fine too; it can be fun, up to a point. Your choice.  

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start   61 to 70 of 108   End
TOPIC: Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou