Gov McAauliffe is a moron

[Timjoebillybob]

Do you want a neighbor to also have this ability? No better yet do you want a previous fellon to have that ability? How about someone with repeated domestic violence incedents?

They have that ability, but it may not be the legal ability. Crap "falls off the back of a truck" all the time.

Ability?

I want my neighbors to share my rights, not my abilities.

Why do you want us all to be ruled by a few ever-changing opinions?

Why should what Trump wants limit your liberties and direct your life?

Yep.

Yeah, I think I've always believed that there just happens to be consequences for your actions and some people have shown it might be better for all if they don't. Here again I use reasonable and it's reasonable to believe it might not be best. Sometimes a few do without but then again this is best for all kind of thing.

I believe in consequences for your actions as well. See below for more.

So, would you like to see the GAU-19 become something that requires no hoop jumping? Oh and for that person with a previous conviction or domestic abuse?

Oh and are you for voting IDs though I don't believe you said whether you are or aren't?

By the way trying to keep up with everybody is but one of the reason I don't answer everything. Sometimes I have to Pee and as such I don't have enough time. LOL

Yep. And yep. If a person is too dangerous to enjoy the rights of a free man, perhaps they shouldn't be free. To continue on with the "actions have consequence" from above. Once a person has served their debt they should be a free man, if they are too dangerous to be set free... Perhaps our laws need some work on that. Three strikes for violent crime life without parole maybe?

Here is a case I know about, I have a friend who is a convicted felon. He received two DUIs, he was having troubles in his marriage and eventually divorced. Prior to that no criminal arrests/charges/convictions. None since them either and that was pushing 20 years ago or so. Heck I don't think he's even received more than 1 or 2 traffic tickets in that time. Has worked for a total of 2 companies in the last 30+ years, the reason that it's two is because he works as an outside contractor and the company he worked for lost their contract. The hiring company told the company that was going to get the contract that one of the conditions is they would hire him, the company that was losing the contract was told if they ever wanted to have a shot at getting one they had to release him from his no compete agreement. Sound like a guy who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm? Or heck with a firearm, how about having a license? After all his crimes were committed using a vehicle.

ETA. I forgot to answer about voter ID. Yes I'm in favor of it. The difference is I wouldn't say that voting is a "natural right" it is a privilege granted by the govt we instituted. Also if someone votes more than once in an election that infringes on my vote. Now if someone simple owns multiple firearms, even a GAU 19 it doesn't effect me or my rights in the least.

Isnt that not in itself a limitation?

Nope, it's an infringement on a natural right.

 

[2A_Tom]

I reccomend depends.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you want a neighbor to also have this ability? No better yet do you want a previous fellon to have that ability? How about someone with repeated domestic violence incedents?

If they've paid their "debt to society", then why should I care?

You don't want me telling you how many Trump posts to make, I don't want you telling me what kinds or how many guns and ammo I choose to own.

See? Minding your own business and only punishing harmful behavior means people (the .gov) doesn't mess with you doing what you like to do and it means it doesn't mess with me doing what I like to do. You don't have to like it.

 

[ATM]

If they've paid their "debt to society", then why should I care?

You don't want me telling you how many Trump posts to make, I don't want you telling me what kinds or how many guns and ammo I choose to own.

See? Minding your own business and only punishing harmful behavior means people (the .gov) doesn't mess with you doing what you like to do and it means it doesn't mess with me doing what I like to do. You don't have to like it.

Whoa! Too radical!

 

[Dddrees]

They have that ability, but it may not be the legal ability. Crap "falls off the back of a truck" all the time.



Yep.



I believe in consequences for your actions as well. See below for more.



Yep. And yep. If a person is too dangerous to enjoy the rights of a free man, perhaps they shouldn't be free. To continue on with the "actions have consequence" from above. Once a person has served their debt they should be a free man, if they are too dangerous to be set free... Perhaps our laws need some work on that. Three strikes for violent crime life without parole maybe?

Here is a case I know about, I have a friend who is a convicted felon. He received two DUIs, he was having troubles in his marriage and eventually divorced. Prior to that no criminal arrests/charges/convictions. None since them either and that was pushing 20 years ago or so. Heck I don't think he's even received more than 1 or 2 traffic tickets in that time. Has worked for a total of 2 companies in the last 30+ years, the reason that it's two is because he works as an outside contractor and the company he worked for lost their contract. The hiring company told the company that was going to get the contract that one of the conditions is they would hire him, the company that was losing the contract was told if they ever wanted to have a shot at getting one they had to release him from his no compete agreement. Sound like a guy who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm? Or heck with a firearm, how about having a license? After all his crimes were committed using a vehicle.



Nope, it's an infringement on a natural right.

Well with our current jail system I think your making a bad arguement at this point in history, Because I doubt many actually completely serve their time anyway. Sounds as though the whole system needs a re-work and sounds to me like some shouldn't be there in the first place.

Unfortunately your freind is a prime example of what can go wrong. However with something like this when it works we'll never know because it worked it was successful and nothing happened. Frankly I don't know of many systems that we adopt as being perfect. It s*** and I don't mean it lightly but that is for a fact true no system is perfect. But I'm not willing to say we should not use what we have just because it's not perfect.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Whoa! Too radical!

I'm not a libertarian---I don't want to take over the world. Just leave me alone.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well with our current jail system I think your making a bad arguement at this point in history, Because I doubt many actually completely serve their time anyway. Sounds as though the whole system needs a re-work and sounds to me like some shouldn't be there in the first place.

Unfortunately your freind is a prime example of what can go wrong. However with something like this when it works we'll never know because it worked it was successful and nothing happened. Frankly I don't know of many systems that we adopt as being perfect. It s*** and I don't mean it lightly but that is for a fact true no system is perfect. But I'm not willing to say we should not use what we have just because it's not perfect.

Under our current laws, they have served their time. Once again I think the system may need some work. If they are released early it's on probation/parole/home detention/whatever, they continue to "pay their debt" or serve their time albeit in a different location than a cell. They are still not free men.

I can come up with more examples if you would like. What was that quote? Blackstone's formulation. "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free, then for one innocent man to suffer"

Oh and I forgot to answer one of your questions earlier, I edited the post but you may not have seen it. I'll re-post my answer here. The question was do I support voter ID laws.

Yes I'm in favor of it. The difference is I wouldn't say that voting is a "natural right" it is a privilege granted by the govt we instituted. Also if someone votes more than once in an election that infringes on my vote. Now if someone simple owns multiple firearms, even a GAU 19 it doesn't effect me or my rights in the least.

To add to that, the Constitution only lists certain things the states may not do in regards to voting. Unlike the 2nd Am which simply states "Shall not be infringed"

 

[Dddrees]

Under our current laws, they have served their time. Once again I think the system may need some work. If they are released early it's on probation/parole/home detention/whatever, they continue to "pay their debt" or serve their time albeit in a different location than a cell. They are still not free men.

I can come up with more examples if you would like. What was that quote? Blackstone's formulation. "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free, then for one innocent man to suffer"

Oh and I forgot to answer one of your questions earlier, I edited the post but you may not have seen it. I'll re-post my answer here. The question was do I support voter ID laws.

Yes I'm in favor of it. The difference is I wouldn't say that voting is a "natural right" it is a privilege granted by the govt we instituted. Also if someone votes more than once in an election that infringes on my vote. Now if someone simple owns multiple firearms, even a GAU 19 it doesn't effect me or my rights in the least.

To add to that, the Constitution only lists certain things the states may not do in regards to voting. Unlike the 2nd Am which simply states "Shall not be infringed"

Kind of seems to me that voting is one of the most important rights that a person can have. I maybe wrong but I think the Constitution mentions it but frankly my memory fails me here and I don't often review exactly what it says, So I can't remember in what context and where it was mentioned. But actually it also originally didn't give this right to blacks or women hence we have two of the Amendments to the Constitution that we have now.

I wonder what the percentage of repeat offenders there are as that seems that would be a great point to make here as well.

 

[2A_Tom]

So an imbezzeling secretary should not have a gun because she may embezzle again.

If we are talking violent criminals if they are still violent they should not be allowed in society. Period. Full stop.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So an imbezzeling secretary should not have a gun because she may embezzle again.

If we are talking violent criminals if they are still violent they should not be allowed in society. Period. Full stop.

Embezzlement is a gateway crime. You graduate to armed robbery from there.

 

[Dddrees]

So an imbezzeling secretary should not have a gun because she may embezzle again.

If we are talking violent criminals if they are still violent they should not be allowed in society. Period. Full stop.

I've mentioned before that I don't specifically agree with the current criteria. This doesn't mean that the UBC would include it anyway. I'm certain the details would have to be worked out anyhow. Regardless if you think I'm going to champion a crooks case I am not. Besides just because your a felon this also doesn't mean it was for a violent crime. Is violent felons the only ones prohibited from gun ownership or does it apply to all felons? Consequences, it's a consequence of doing something you shouldn't have done in the first place.

 

[2A_Tom]

What is it that you do not understand about UNIVERSAL?

Check out Oregon.

 

[Dddrees]

What is it that you do not understand about UNIVERSAL?

Check out Oregon.

I'm sorry here again you got me.

Oregan?

But yes, I understand what universal means, or when someone brought up the thing about handing a gun over to your son at the range I even understand it now even better.

 

[ATM]

I've mentioned before that I don't specifically agree with the current criteria. This doesn't mean that the UBC would include it anyway. I'm certain the details would have to be worked out anyhow. Regardless if you think I'm going to champion a crooks case I am not. Besides just because your a felon this also doesn't mean it was for a violent crime. Is violent felons the only ones prohibited from gun ownership or does it apply to all felons? Consequences, it's a consequence of doing something you shouldn't have done in the first place.

Why should anyone care what you agree with or champion? You don't get to decide for yourself others - Trump does.

That's the system you seem to favor, with politicians deciding these things for us all.

You just want a different guy at the top, not a different system.

 

[ATM]

I'm not a libertarian---I don't want to take over the world. Just leave me alone.

If we don't take it back away from those who want to rule (and be ruled by) others, you can forget your antiquated notion of being left alone.

 

[Dddrees]

Why should anyone care what you agree with or champion? You don't get to decide for yourself others - Trump does.

That's the system you seem to favor, with politicians deciding these things for us all.

You just want a different guy at the top, not a different system.

That's the way things work. Not that I personally get to decide but generally when you choose to live in any area that has a group of people rules are determined and enacted. Tell me where that doesn't exist?

 

[ATM]

That's the way things work. Not that I personally get to decide but generally when you choose to live in any area that has a group of people rules are determined and enacted. Tell me where that doesn't exist?

It's universal. Trump isn't just the leader of the U.S. but the world. It's his turn to rule us, so what you think or care about doesn't matter.

What do you hope to accomplish by expressing your personal displeasure with a man yet agreeing with this system?

Good luck.

 

[Dddrees]

It's universal. Trump isn't just the leader of the U.S. but the world. It's his turn to rule us, so what you think or care about doesn't matter.

What do you hope to accomplish by expressing your personal displeasure with a man yet agreeing with this system?

Good luck.

I wasn't referring to Trump, i was only referring to rules or laws or Constitution. Things that govern people. Talking guns rights and UBC.

 

[ATM]

I wasn't referring to Trump, i was only referring to rules or laws or Constitution. Things that govern people. Talking guns rights and UBC.

Nonsense.

The constitution prohibits the government infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but you seem to think that what you care about or find reasonable should have some bearing on the matter.

If you want what you think to matter, or to enforce your own whims upon others, you'll need to campaign and get elected like Trump did.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Citizens can't just be allowed to govern themselves or to make their own choices. They might choose poorly.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Do you want a neighbor to also have this ability? No better yet do you want a previous fellon to have that ability? How about someone with repeated domestic violence incedents?

Absolutely. If they are too dangerous to possess all their rights, they are too dangerous to be roaming free. This use of criminal convictions to establish a de facto second-class citizenship does not square with the principles of a free republic. You should also consider the trend to felonize an ever increasing number of behaviors. Even now, I wonder how many laws the average person breaks in a day without even realizing it. Given enough time, well, welcome to serfdom for most anyone.