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   71 to 80 of 108   End
User Details are only visible to members.
"You jumped down my throat for musing that naturalized citizens should lose their due process rights after some sort of Grand Jury panel determined there was sufficient evidence that they attacked the country."

You still don't get the difference, even after Maritimers gently suggested you should re-examine your illogic. Whatever.    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. 

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? 

Most states have procedures for "restoration of civil rights" after felons have served their time. The ones I looked at usually require the felon to be arrest-free for a period of years. If someone has shown such contempt for society by committing a felony, I see nothing wrong with requiring them to earn their way back to full rights. 

(Btw, it's funny that back last year when we were discussing voter fraud, one of the only bits of "proof" you offered for its existence was an article about felons who voted illegally; you don't like felons voting, but want them to have guns? I suppose it's true: Ballots don't kill people, felons do). 

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. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Do you play chess?

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
So in 1979 the Louisiana SC applied the rational test to gun ownershiip and now Fun is upset that the people of Louisiana passed that they must used strict scrutiny.

Booo hoooo.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Fundamental right. It's not a privilege like driving where you can have it suspended for too many violations or DUI. It's a RIGHT. Convicted felons who have served their time shouldn't be second class citizens......or should they? Who else can we make Second Class Citizen's? Maybe it could be Naturalized Citizen's who have committed an act of Terror. Noooooooo that would be crazy. lol.

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?

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Show me where I made any argument about strict scrutiny absolutely applying to due process questions. Quote it."

Still waiting.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Ever hear of the "strict scrutiny" test? Belle Chasse LA Report to Moderator 2 Days Days Ago View Fun_Ahoy's posts (8216 post) perfectmatch69

Him: Straight ,44 Her: Bi ,44 Ever hear of the '“reasonableness” test? Pittsburgh PA Report to Moderator Del Post 2 Days Days Ago View perfectmatch69's posts (14271 post) Fun_Ahoy

Him: Straight ,50 When some statute burdens a fundamental (constitutional) right, courts don't use a "reasonableness" standard of review; they scrutinize the law much more strictly.

Any gun restriction can be challenged in the courts; people who remember high school civics have heard of checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.

Passing a gun law that is subject to judicial review is very different than advocating that this kid be shipped off somewhere as an enemy combatant, specifically in an attempt to avoid judicial involvement.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Under the new provision a bad guy -even a convicted felon like Draughter- can walk into a convenience store at midnight with an AK-47, and there's nothing anyone can do about it until after he points it at the clerk. I think that's bad; you seem to be okay with it. Nuts. "

Nuts, no. Think about what you're saying. If this Draughter dude is a threat to society he shouldn't be on the streets. If he wants a gun, he can get a gun by illegal means. If he served his time, and he's able to be released into society then why do you want to curtail a fundamental right? In another thread there were people (can't remember if it was you) arguing that Jewish inmates should get kosher food because practicing their religion was a fundamental right.

You jumped down my throat for musing that naturalized citizen's should lose their due process rights after some sort of Grand Jury panel determined there was sufficient evidence that they attacked the country.

...............when they came for me there was no one left to speak out.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17464 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I find it amusing that both the Gun Grabbers and NRA cult believe Heller was a clear victory for them, when in fact, it was a resounding loss for both. The real winners in Heller? Those of us who in the majority, IE WE THE PEOPLE who reject the false dichotomy of BAN guns vs Guns with unrestricted impunity. The only downside is that Heller, either by design of haste, left some blanks to be filled in...stay tuned

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"You argued before that due process was a fundamental right and strict scrutiny would absolutely apply."

You are dreadfully confused. I never got into any discussion of which level of scrutiny would apply to due process questions. Denial of due process can be substantive or procedural. It can pertain to any number of liberty interests, some of which are fundamental rights and some not.

Show me where I made any argument about strict scrutiny absolutely applying to due process questions. Quote it. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Should ALL FUNDAMENTAL rights get strict scrutiny?"

My post was already too long, without becoming an exhaustive treatise on all the complex intricacies of constitutional law, which no one here wants to read and which I doubt you would understand anyway. But here are some Cliff Notes:

Heller involved what amounted to a categorical ban on all persons possessing any handguns. When statutes categorically ban fundamental rights they generally are subjected to the strictest scrutiny. 

SCOTUS applies a more relaxed level of scrutiny to rules that only regulate how the fundamental right is exercised, as opposed to a statute that outright bans it. The best example I can think of are so-called "time, place, and manner" rules that might limit how free speech is exercised, as long as the limits don't amount to a categorical ban based on the content of the speech. 

For example: a city's requirement that any group must apply for a permit if it desires to use a public park for a gathering of 50 or more people. The city wouldn't be subjected to strict scrutiny just because the Nazis are upset that the date they ask for has already been given to a youth soccer league. 

So, even First Amendment free speech rights don't get the benefit of strict scrutiny for every little rule or regulation, as long as those rules are content-neutral and don't amount to a categorical ban. 

The new Louisiana provision elevates gun rights beyond anything else in American jurisprudence, and absurdly so. It says "ANY restriction" relating to guns must pass strict scrutiny. Someone could complain that requiring steel shot instead of lead for duck hunting is a restriction on their gun rights, thereby requiring the state to meet strict scrutiny. 

More ominously, the gun nuts have served up on a silver platter a way for bad guys to beat good laws aimed at deterring crime. 

Under the new provision a bad guy -even a convicted felon like Draughter- can walk into a convenience store at midnight with an AK-47, and there's nothing anyone can do about it until after he points it at the clerk. I think that's bad; you seem to be okay with it. Nuts. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start   71 to 80 of 108   End
TOPIC: Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou