[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
THE END[/quote]
If you could only find a gif of some nice meaty vagina lips unfolding like that, I’d purchase it 
Now that would be a rose :)[/quote]
Give me time, my friend.
Oh, you better be careful what you say on here, BG. ZEB will throw it back at you on PWI.[/quote]
LOL True. But ZEB is an unadulterated idiot and everyone except 3 other people know this.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You are being intellectually dishonest now. You know damn well when I say felon I mean someone with a felony record (or you should know). Can I really be asking you if a prisoner should have a gun permit? Or be allowed to vote or “assemble”? Your reply is nonsensical Push.
Answer the question; should someone with a felony record be permitted to bear arms.[/quote]
No, you seemingly went out of your way to misunderstand. I DO believe a felon, especially a violent one, should lose their right to keep and bear.
However, I do think there should be exceptions. For instance, let’s say one was only convicted of felony tax evasion or theft of a $501 old beater car ($500 being the felony theft threshold here in MT, I believe) or such. I do not think that person should be unable to own a weapon forever.
(I thought we were done and it was beer and whiskey time?)[/quote]
I honestly didn’t know where you were going. And everytime I try to get out…you pull me back in
You do realize that exceptions to the felony rule is a slippery slope in and of itself. Your exceptions are fine, but where do you draw the line? Again, there are no easy answers Push. You’re giving vanilla examples that no reasonable person would object to. However, there are a wide array of felonies…many of them non-violent. Where do you stop?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Lemme add one thing in order to clarify my position.
TBG, I insist, and I do this from what I believe to be a good, solid, constitutional foundation, that all men inherently have the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, including gun ownership, to begin with. If a man commits a felony (again, I believe the nature of the felony should be considered) or goes insane or exhibits some other kind of unacceptable behavior he can/should give up his rights with due process.
You on the other hand are coming from the premise that a man should be “permitted” to exercise his rights only after he has proven he is responsible enough. In other words an innocent, law abiding man must be certified by the government, his master, that he is unlikely to use his right - in this case, gun ownership - to propagate evil in the future.
So if that is the case let’s take the right of freedom of the press and play with it. Say I want to start an online news website like the Drudge Report or Huffington Post. Now I certainly have the potential to commit slander and/or libel in the future and we all know the pen is mightier than the sword soooooooooooooooo should I have to secure a permit from the federal or state Department of Media Affairs and prove/certify that I am a low risk for committing slander and libel in advance of starting my website?
Should I?
We all know that terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion in our planet’s past soooooooooooooooooo in advance should I have to prove/certify that I am a good boy and don’t have any medieval torture devices in my basement before I can worship at the church of my choice?
Should I?
Should I have to prove/certify in advance that I don’t have any contraband in my home before I can claim the right of not having unwarranted search and seizures executed against me?
Should I?
If the answer is No to all those questions then the answer of whether I should have to be certified in advance to keep and bear arms is No as well.[/quote]
Push, those are false analogies. Let’s stick to guns.
Have you ever resided in a major city? I understand your slant, and I ever share it. But have you ever really pondered a world where anyone can just buy a gun, carry it - with no screening, and then wait for due process to determine if it’s a problem?
So you say you’re in favor of limitations for most felonies, and some craziness, with due process. Do you realize the mere process of screening for this is a process to determine “privilege”? Stop and think about it. Either we screen or we don’t screen. Screening is weighing and measuring a person - granting a privilege. Do you see where this is logically leading?
We all currently have the right to purchase and possess a gun as you desire - we just don’t all have the right to carry them. It’s a special problem, and there is not a clear solution. And yes, our rights are affected by the bad guys. But cities are a special problem. We cannot simply arm the criminally inclined and wait for them and due process to prove them unworthy. Some of our cities are already war zones with guns. This is NOT something I read about from the comfort of my home…it is something I witness each year. 4 people have been murdered within a four block radius of just my social club over the last few years…and that’s just counting the IMMEDIATE radius. One has been killed on the side of the building and one in the rear. That’s two within spitting distance, literally.
Arming everyone in Montana is not the same as arming everyone in Philadelphia or Camden NJ, or Baltimore, MD, or Newark, NJ, etc. Your constitutional arguments aside, it just isn’t.
Earlier, you wanted to imply that gun ownership stops crime. Bullshit. Maybe in Montana. Maybe in areas where a criminal knows a home is likely armed. But on the streets of the City? Hell no my friend. Every teenager in the area of my social club is armed or has easy access to a gun. It does NOT deter them to know an enemy is armed. It ENCOURAGES them to pull and fire FIRST.
Even when I was younger, my best friend’s then girlfriend’s little brother, was carrying a gun in 6th grade! Under your analysis, there should be no gun crime in Camden NJ or Philadelphia because so many people have guns. Well, it doesn’t deter gun crime at all! And, as you are now aware, Philadelphia and PA are CCP and apparently OCP. Gun crime is very high in Philadelphia. CCP or the rare OCP hasn’t dented it.
Your constitutional arguments are simple, if you want to ignore the various court cases wrangling with these issues. And, I stand with you…on principle. However, the solutions to complex problems are not so simple.
And please tolerate another thought from me…
Have a single one of you lost someone to gun violence? Any of you? Be honest. Have any of you seen someone shot?
One of my best friends was gunned down. And he was armed. To say that your “right” to carry is a full proof means to deter crime against you is delusional. Your strongest weapon is avoidance. It’s why that idiot in Tom’s story lost the civil case against him. And he’s a classic example of the person that is emboldened by a gun, and no longer avoids trouble. If someone is intent on doing you harm, I bet you don’t get the chance to return fire. My friend didn’t. It’s kind of hard to do when you were lit up with 6 hot ones. This aint the movies fellas.
The idiot that was the subject of this OP ostensibly started to carry b/c some friends got mugged. Guess what? If someone walks up to him tomorrow with a gun drawn, do you think his gun will save him? Do you guys really think this shit is movie land? There is theory, and then reality. The reality is that every day in our big Cities, a guy with a gun gets shot and never gets a chance to return fire.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It IS all about the ability of the common man to violently resist a tyrannical government.
[/quote]
With all respect, the above is antiquated. You have no chance of resisting a tyrannical government today; you don’t even have a chance to seriously resist your local SWAT team. In the day of muskets and cannonballs, perhaps. Today, no.
So are you saying that our right to bear arms is inextricably linked to an antiquated time of muskets and cannons, in the years following rule under another Country? You believe the basis for this doctrine is still valid today? Do you remember how resisting “tyranny” worked out for those folks in WACO TX?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Have you ever resided in a major city? I understand your slant, and I ever share it. But have you ever really pondered a world where anyone can just buy a gun, carry it - with no screening, and then wait for due process to determine if it’s a problem?
[/quote]
First of all I have resided in a major city. Miami - Fort Lauderdale.
Second, friend, you can’t hardly imagine all the places I’ve been in North America. I don’t mean to sound arrogant but I have a feeling if you took all the travels of the next 50 - 100 people to read these words and combined them they wouldn’t equal or exceed how much of this country (and Canada) I’ve seen with my own eyes.
Third, EVERY single place in this country where gun laws have been or are being relaxed you will see a DECREASE in violent crime. Look it up.
The places with the most violent crime are the places with the strictest gun control. AND it’s not a recent development either. The stringent gun control in many major violent cities has been around for decades. IT DOESN’T WORK.
If anything I could easily make the point that getting guns into more people’s hands in major cities might very well HELP the situation. Why should a single mother in North Philly who has been beaten repeatedly by her ex-husband(s) and had her children abused by that same man HAVE to go and prove to come cocksucking half-crooked police chief that she deserves to be able to defend herself, her home and her children with “The Great Equalizer” when the eminent James Madison already helped make it thataway a long time ago? Why, man, why?
Fourth, if want the screening so doggone bad, do the right thing and get that fuckin obstinate 2nd Amendment repealed. Don’t be all Gumby with it and stretch and twist it into something it isn’t.
[/quote]
Travel does not equal a month in N. Philly. Living in Ft. Lauderdale is not equal to spending time in a Miami housing project. Reading about violence, or proximity to it, is not the same as understanding the culture and having a feel for what would happen in that area.
Next, you’re repeating this chicken / egg correlation-causation fallacy. Don’t tell me about studies. Point to one where this was the result in a major City, where causation is clear. We both know restrictions are usually in response to an existing problem. That the restrictions did not have an effect, or immediate effect, is evidence that the problem was not stemmed - NOT EVIDENCE THAT IT CAUSED THE PROBLEM! Show me the before and after statistic where there was an existing gun problem prior to the restrictions.
Crime raising in a suburb after some gun legislation is not instructive here. It’s not.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We all currently have the right to purchase and possess a gun as you desire…
[/quote]
Absolute bullshit.
[/quote]
Ok, this is non-responsive.
Where can’t you purchase and possess a gun for your home? Or are you referring to the restriction on assault weapons too? If so, should we be able to purchase grenades and small bombs too? How about shoulder fired missiles? Because you never know when that tyrannical government will come knocking
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
…But cities are a special problem. We cannot simply arm the criminally inclined and wait for them and due process to prove them unworthy. Some of our cities are already war zones with guns. This is NOT something I read about from the comfort of my home…it is something I witness each year. 4 people have been murdered within a four block radius of just my social club over the last few years…and that’s just counting the IMMEDIATE radius. One has been killed on the side of the building and one in the rear. That’s two within spitting distance, literally… [/quote]
I’ll bet you a year’s supply of a Newark policeman’s donut intake that the city(ies) you speak of have stringent gun control in effect.[/quote]
In RESPONSE to the violence. It didn’t create the violence. Their violence and troubles are the same as Philadelphia and PA allows CCP!!!