Obama Attacks Gun Owners

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:

My point is there are numerous felonies that one could be convicted of that should not warrant loss of weapons. White collar crimes, etc. At the very least, one should be able to recover his gun rights after so many years of a good record. As it stands now it is a lifetime ban.

For instance, what if a dentist or oral surgeon who had no violent criminal history at all was convicted of felony malpractice. Should he ever be allowed to touch a weapon again?

Forty years after his conviction a Houston area criminal breaks into his home and rapes and kills him and his wife and he COULD have defended himself had he been armed but because he fucked up with a tool in someone’s mouth decades before, he can’t.

I’m not even disagreeing with you. I am stating that starting with FIREARMS is starting in the wrong place when those same people can’t even vote.

Why start here? Because it is clearly an unjust quirk in our legal system that has been around for a long time. It needs to be changed.

Make it a package deal with the voting restoration if you want. To be honest, if it were me, I’d rather have my guns than my voting rights. I thought about that for .001 seconds in order to make my decision and if I took two weeks to make the decision it wouldn’t change.

There are many areas that deserve attention before firearms like the fact that many have trouble even renting an apartment based on 10-20 year old criminal activity which does nothing but make it even harder for that person to rehabilitate.

I am sure quite a few would put having a roof over their heads without relying on others before owning a gun.

I’m just putting this out there…Once you become a felon I don’t think you deserve shit. Whatever you did you knew it was wrong and you still pissed it away. The crime shouldn’t have been committed in the first place. Most of the guys that perform “white collar” crimes are smart enugh to know the consequences of their actions. If they can’t defend their family 30 years from now that is on them…

Sorry, but you take my hypothetical example of the Houston oral surgeon and their is no way on earth you can justify barring that man from his guns especially many years later. No way.

Another example relevant to this site is the AAS user. Should a 59 year old guy who shoots 100 mg a week of Testosterone that he bought on the black market who gets busted and convicted of a Schedule III drug felony be banned FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE from owning a hunting rifle? Or a shotgun in his bedroom for protection against home invaders? You really going to stick with your “Fuck him” mentality?[/quote]

I believe I wrote violent felonies like murder, rape, arson…I would say if your crime hurts anyone other then you then yes fuck them…The malpractice is a sticky situation though. Most of the time it is an accident and I didn’t even know malpractice was a felony? At any rate the detail would need to be worked out, but yes criminals know the consequence of their actions and they can choose to do the right thing.

142

As a non-felon, I’d rather have my voting rights.

But I don’t care how many hypothetical white collar criminals or incompetent oral surgeons you come up with, people who commit crimes know that their actions may have consequences they won’t like.

I’m honestly not sure what would constitute criminal malpractice anyway.

145

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s where I’m coming from on our little “what if” game we’re playing…what if I had to choose between voting and gun rights? I said I’d choose the gun.

Why?

The voting right gives me the power of one individual among hundreds or thousands in a county election. One of hundreds of thousands in a state election (I live in MT and we don’t yet have a million residents total much less voters). One of tens of millions in presidential election. Powerful in its own right but relatively infinitesimal.

In a home/personal self defense or revolt against a tyrannical domestic or foreign government my gun makes me very powerful; powerful enough to take the life of a human being who threatens my very existence. [/quote]

I agree 100%. Honestly the way the Electoral College is set up your vote really doesn’t matter anyway. 99% of the voted could be for a democrat and the electoral votes can still go to a republican. I have read; however, some states are adopting a majority popular vote gets all electoral votes stance. It is good, but I think the popular vote is enough and all we need.

146

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s where I’m coming from on our little “what if” game we’re playing…what if I had to choose between voting and gun rights? I said I’d choose the gun.

Why?

The voting right gives me the power of one individual among hundreds or thousands in a county election. One of hundreds of thousands in a state election (I live in MT and we don’t yet have a million residents total much less voters). One of tens of millions in presidential election. Powerful in its own right but relatively infinitesimal.

In a home/personal self defense or revolt against a tyrannical domestic or foreign government my gun makes me very powerful; powerful enough to take the life of a human being who threatens my very existence. [/quote]

I knew you were going to come up with something like that.

Regardless, I still don’t give a shit about the rights of felons. But, if I was a felon, I’d rather have my voting rights because that is the way we elect the people who make the laws. Also, I’m not paranoid and my backup plan is to have you protect me in the event of tyrannical government takeover.

There are many other laws that need adjusting before considering gun ownership for non-violent felons anyway.

148

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< Yep, everybody has their own priorities.

Howver, It’s going to be tough for me to protect you from a home intruder. The tyrant might taste some lead though if I can help it.

[/quote]

I am wearying mightily of hearing which defenseless woman or child is the latest to be brutalized by some lowlife in what is supposed to be the sanctuary of their own home. How in the name of all that’s reasonable anybody can believe more restrictive gun laws will make people safer is completely beyond me.

I know neither you nor Christine are saying that, but your post just reminded me.

149

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Howver, It’s going to be tough for me to protect you from a home intruder. The tyrant might taste some lead though if I can help it.

[/quote]

Good thing I’m only counting on you in the case of tyrannical government takeover then.

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…My opinion is that regulation is needed. If you want a gun, get registered. Have your finger prints on file. I also believe in mandatory training whether that be every 5 years or every other year, something that indicates the person is still competent.

This isn’t the 1700’s. In a world where I can’t even drive down the street without being on 15 street cameras, yes, I want people with guns registered. [/quote]

That is a bad idea. Just because the government now has unprecedented powers of monitoring the people it does not in any way support your assertion that constitutional limits on governmental abuse of power should be abolished. Instead it argues that the only genuine and real limit upon governmental power should be jealously guarded by the people.

The right ti keep and bear arms gives the people power over the government that is real and undeniable. Everything else in the constitution isn’t worth the parchment it is written on without it.

[quote]
Sorry, X, this reasoning is deeply flawed. Registration is all about control. It puts the control in the hands of the state. The Second Amendment is all about empowering the People not the state.

Your proposition cannot viably work without violating the Second Amendment. It’s simply that simple.

Wait, so expecting people to be competent with their guns is “unconstitutional”? Putting restrictions on purchases so that it isn’t as easy for possible criminals to get them from a store is “unconstitutional”?

I am FOR the waiting period. I see no problem with it at all. [/quote]

Why should people have to wait for their civil rights? Do you think the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties was wrongheaded because they didn’t want to wait for their rights like the government was telling them to?

[quote]

I am for registering the fire-arm. I see no problem there either. [/quote]

Registration of firearms is an authoritarian ideology, perhaps your time in the military has made you grow accustomed to authoritarianism but authoritarianism is not healthy for a democracy. It also violates the constitutional guarantee of privacy.

Face it X you are just wrong on this, I am getting the impression you don’t understand the timeless principles that this country was founded on.

The founding fathers never wanted this country to be tightly regulated with the government having unlimited power over the people, they wanted to people to be a bit ungovernable. The government forcing the people to provide to it records of how and when they have excercised their civil rights completely goes against the principles this country was founded on.

[quote]
I am also for some type of regulation that causes a person to get regular practice with a gun. [/quote]

Making people have to regularly prove that they are worthy of having civil rights is elitist and dictatorial.

[quote]
I don’t understand this reaction to gun control that I am speaking of while people completely ignore the way the society is changing in every other regard. [/quote]

Come on now, nothing has changed. Tyranny still exists in this world and threats to democracy and freedom are greater than ever.

[quote]
You can not drive to work in a major city anymore without being on surveillance. Eventually, your children or their kids won’t even know the meaning of the word privacy, yet THIS is where you speak up the loudest? [/quote]

Because weapons are very important to prevent us from becoming slaves or crime victims. You do have a point that we need to be vigilant on other fronts as well though. People are missing out on how technology is changing things. There are things in our not too distant future that even our most popular science fiction has not even discussed.

Body armor is going to improve by leaps and bounds, so are exoskeletons, robotic soldiers and “area control weapons”. Our present day firearms are going to become obsolete and useless, probably within our lifetimes. The way the regualtory environment is moving we will not be able to own the follow on weapons that would enable us to rebel against the government.

We do need to be coming up with new checks and balances to deal with this changing environment.

[quote]
Power to the people would mean freedom. We’ve lost that on so many levels that maybe, just maybe some of that should be the focus. Even without direct gun regulation, there will still be regulation even if it is unspoken to the general public.

More damage can be done to your life using a keyboard now than with a bullet. [/quote]

151

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The founding fathers never wanted this country to be tightly regulated with the government having unlimited power over the people, they wanted to people to be a bit ungovernable. The government forcing the people to provide to it records of how and when they have excercised their civil rights completely goes against the principles this country was founded on.
[/quote]

I didn’t respond to everything you wrote because I feel we would just be going round in circles. You have your opinion and I have mine, however, I did want to respond to this. This is the same argument made against the Patriot Act which I see as much more sweeping and damaging than gun registration yet NONE of these voices were being given much of a platform when it comes to the conservative party as a whole. Instead, we got, “if you didn’t do anything wrong then why worry about it”.

No doubt many will now say that they don’t feel that way now that republicans are no longer in office. However, hopefully you won’t claim as such and will actually address the real concern here.

My point is, while some people rant and rave about gun control that hasn’t even happened, the real 400lbs gorilla in the room isn’t that but the act pushed through which seems to give our current government the right to call its own citizens ‘enemy’ if it sees fit.

152

As far as I can figure out, they know the gorilla is there and they only trust their guy to keep it in it’s cage… even though they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5987804

Why no outrage about this?

154

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
As far as I can figure out, they know the gorilla is there and they only trust their guy to keep it in it’s cage… even though they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5987804

Why no outrage about this?

Worthy of its own thread. I’ll supply my share of outrage.

Guess what ultimately keeps this kind of government power from oppressive excess?

C,mon. Guess.

Go ahead and guess.[/quote]

An armed law abiding populous.

What’d I win?

155

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Guess what ultimately keeps this kind of government power from oppressive excess?

C,mon. Guess.

Go ahead and guess.[/quote]

Politicians?

156

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
As far as I can figure out, they know the gorilla is there and they only trust their guy to keep it in it’s cage… even though they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5987804

Why no outrage about this?

Worthy of its own thread. I’ll supply my share of outrage.

Guess what ultimately keeps this kind of government power from oppressive excess?

C,mon. Guess.

Go ahead and guess.

An armed law abiding populous.

What’d I win?[/quote]

You win a peach! But you have to go collect it from your nearest supermarket. And there is a collection fee. Which is pretty much the same price as a peach.

157

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
As far as I can figure out, they know the gorilla is there and they only trust their guy to keep it in it’s cage… even though they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5987804

Why no outrage about this?

Worthy of its own thread. I’ll supply my share of outrage.

Guess what ultimately keeps this kind of government power from oppressive excess?

C,mon. Guess.

Go ahead and guess.

An armed law abiding populous.

What’d I win?

You win a peach! But you have to go collect it from your nearest supermarket. And there is a collection fee. Which is pretty much the same price as a peach.[/quote]

Already?

158

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Makavali wrote:
You win a peach! But you have to go collect it from your nearest supermarket. And there is a collection fee. Which is pretty much the same price as a peach.

Already?[/quote]

You don’t like peach?

159

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
As far as I can figure out, they know the gorilla is there and they only trust their guy to keep it in it’s cage… even though they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5987804

Why no outrage about this?

Worthy of its own thread. I’ll supply my share of outrage.

Guess what ultimately keeps this kind of government power from oppressive excess?

C,mon. Guess.

Go ahead and guess.

An armed law abiding populous.

What’d I win?[/quote]

Uhm, the guys they were spying on were soldiers, right? Therefore, they had arms and this still happened.

As long as there is apathy for this, I don’t see how any of you get off on worrying about gun legislation that has not happened to this degree.

The Patriot Act allows our own government to legally spy on its own citizens…yet you all are worried about gun legislation. So they can watch your every move…but God Forbid they make you wait to buy a gun!!

160

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
As far as I can figure out, they know the gorilla is there and they only trust their guy to keep it in it’s cage… even though they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5987804

Why no outrage about this?

Worthy of its own thread. I’ll supply my share of outrage.

Guess what ultimately keeps this kind of government power from oppressive excess?

C,mon. Guess.

Go ahead and guess.

An armed law abiding populous.

What’d I win?

Uhm, the guys they were spying on were soldiers, right? Therefore, they had arms and this still happened.

As long as there is apathy for this, I don’t see how any of you get off on worrying about gun legislation that has not happened to this degree.

The Patriot Act allows our own government to legally spy on its own citizens…yet you all are worried about gun legislation. So they can watch your every move…but God Forbid they make you wait to buy a gun!![/quote]

Yes, but nothing happened to said soldiers. The government didn’t come flying in and take the soldiers away in a black van. Hell they didn?t even know they were being listened to until after the fact?.I agree the government shouldn’t be listening in to private conversation, but if they had tried to take the soldiers by force do you honestly think they wouldn’t have used their weapons to defend themselves?

If you?re in a war zone and using government equipment I would expect my conversation not to be very private if I am in my home a little different.

Once again if you can’t get a weapon you can’t fight against a tyrannical government.