Fed. gun law takes down drug thug killer

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

Not pro-Pot, not pro-criminal. Just anti infringement on my 'rights' as an individual to do what I want when I want. More importantly, my right to be left alone.

The non-thinking drones are all for every possible intrusion into their day to day life by government. Pretty soon it will be illegal to flush your toilet twice. Control freaks galore.

Anyone can be a felon at any time so think about that before you think you really have any 'right' to own a gun.

B.O. (a puppet), so I'll say TPTB instead, are making any little thing a felony these days. Have you ever downloaded a song or a movie without paying for it? Well, you might join the 'felon club' and lose your 'right' to own a firearm. This is why I agree with the previous poster that said we can all be felons if need be, to get around 2A.

The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.

• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."

Why is it that you think you should have the right to someone elses work - if you want the music buy it otherwise listen to the radio.

James ruby

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[dmancornell]

You seem to thinks it is our gorvernments responsibility to ensure that drug prices are affordable for addicts - sorry cant buy that one.

A criminal is someone that commits a crime - an addict by nature of being addict has already broken laws making them a criminal.

James Ruby

Actually the government is supposed to leave people alone and not create problems where none existed in the first place. As always, the state creates the problem then masquerades as the solution.

 

[Akathepriest]

dmancornell

This guy was convicted of murder, but you believe that he should be free to own a firearm when he was released? Tell that to the family of the guy he murdered.

Really hope your car is plastered with Measure 80 stickers at this point, because otherwise you are just a useless internet troll with a hatred against authority.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[dmancornell]

dmancornell

This guy was convicted of murder, but you believe that he should be free to own a firearm when he was released? Tell that to the family of the guy he murdered.

Really hope your car is plastered with Measure 80 stickers at this point, because otherwise you are just a useless internet troll with a hatred against authority.

How exactly does a person owning a firearm after serving his sentence offend the victim's family?

Or maybe the entire victims' rights movement is nothing more than people who are too stupid to criticize the legal system for imposing light sentences, so they try to impose further punishment via unconstitutional means with massive collateral damage the result.

LOL @ "hatred against authority", also known as liberty. Yep I admit it, I'm a fanatic for liberty.

 

[Akathepriest]

How exactly does a person owning a firearm after serving his sentence offend the victims' family?

Or maybe the entire victims' "rights" movement is nothing more than people who are too stupid to criticize the legal system for imposing light sentences, so they try to impose further punishment via unconstitutional means with massive collateral damage the result.

LOL @ "hatred against authority", also known as liberty. Yep I admit it, I'm a fanatic for liberty.

Nah, I will just leave you to write laws for us and decide how things should work. At your rate, I am sure that you will need your guns to defend yourself from people breaking into your home to steal your stuff to buy more drugs. We are all counting on your ideas.

 

[Akathepriest]

Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, Speed, Acid, PCP. All now legal as the govt shouldn't control what you decide to do to yourself. Good luck everyone else!

-dmancornell

 

[dmancornell]

Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, Speed, Acid, PCP. All now legal as the govt shouldn't control what you decide to do to yourself. Good luck everyone else!

He learns. It's a miracle.

 

[Akathepriest]

He learns. It's a miracle.

Yeah I am sure you will love coming home to your house and find that a bunch of meth addicts stole everything you hold true and dear.

 

[Redcap]

Yeah I am sure you will love coming home to your house and find that a bunch of meth addicts stole everything you hold true and dear.

You act as if some of us haven't already had this happen.

 

[Akathepriest]

You act as if some of us haven't already had this happen.

You act as this is because of the govt controlling these substances to prevent them from being sold on grocery store shelves.

 

[mortre]

The people who founded the country beg to disagree.
Even the man who would be known as a "big government" politician, Alexander Hamilton, wrote:

"...every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised,is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

That does not even address my statement, much less contradict it. Nowhere does it say that people should break, or even ignore, laws. It does not say people are free from prosecution of unconstitutional laws. It says no legislative act contrary to the constitution can be valid. This is where the Supreme Court comes into play. The law in question can be challenged there, and if found contrary, overturned. It does not in any way state that people are not bound by bogus laws in the interim. Again, if this was the case then all laws should be stricken from the books, along with the constitution.

There is no middle ground, there is no gray area. Either laws are to be obeyed, or no law can exist. Including the laws that legally bind the government. If laws are contradictory, then they can be challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Redcap]

You act as this is because of the govt controlling these substances to prevent them from being sold on grocery store shelves.

 

[dmancornell]

You act as this is because of the govt controlling these substances to prevent them from being sold on grocery store shelves.

Maybe if meth was sold at the pharmacy it would be cheaper and people wouldn't need to rob houses to buy it.

Oh wait, that's exactly how things worked back before the drug prohibition.

 

[dmancornell]

That does not even address my statement, much less contradict it. Nowhere does it say that people should break, or even ignore, laws. It does not say people are free from prosecution of unconstitutional laws. It says no legislative act contrary to the constitution can be valid. This is where the Supreme Court comes into play. The law in question can be challenged there, and if found contrary, overturned. It does not in any way state that people are not bound by bogus laws in the interim. Again, if this was the case then all laws should be stricken from the books, along with the constitution.

There is no middle ground, there is no gray area. Either laws are to be obeyed, or no law can exist. Including the laws that legally bind the government. If laws are contradictory, then they can be challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Translation: the law is whatever the government says it is, so shut up and obey.

The formerly common practice of jury nullification (which has been outlawed by the Total State) was how people used to deal with tyrannical laws.

 

[HansC]

Back when the country was founded, murderers were put to death. I don't think an honest argument can be made that murderers in this country have any right to have guns. They don't, never have, and shouldn't. Following existing gun laws is not onerous. I live in a safe, friendly, peaceful community and can buy whatever guns I want, in any quantity I want. Non-criminals treat people with respect, and this respect of each other is what allows us to have a peaceful, working community. I am a gun collector happy with current gun laws, as I have a huge amount of freedom regarding their possession and use. I take my responsibility not to act like an idiot very seriously. I cannot pretend there aren't bad people out there, or forget that events like the genocide in Rwanda happen when bad, armed men treat people without respect. I plan to behave responsibly regardless of whether there are any laws. Most people do. I'm flabbergasted that people are carping about unfair drug laws. Having just got back from Austria, Hungary, and Poland 10 days ago, I can assure you that illegal drugs are just as destructive to individuals there as here. My sister in law in Poland had a heroin habit that put tremendous strain on the family and took a huge amount of effort and support to overcome. Even if traditionally ille gal drugs are free, THEY WRECK PEOPLE. This thread amazes me. We havSecuritye really scary, big-brother stuff that needs to be repealed like the Patriot Act, but folks want to give guns to proven killers and legalize drugs? Have you ever looked at the condition of the teeth of a meth addict that smiles?

Spent two days in Vienna with a couple who are both police. It is a pretty safe job there, sort of like babysitting for drunk adults. Their biggest hassle are soccer fanatics after games. They were taken aback with my gun collection, and said it wouldn't be possible in Austria. They cited gang fights (these days arranged over the internet, for fun) as a reason citizens couldn't own guns.

Austria was wonderful. The people showed me great hospitality, and it is a well-run place. Despite this, in America, we still trust our citizens with guns, and the great majority constantly prove worthy of this trust.

In Hungary, I visited the House of Terror, a building first used by the Nazi Arrowcross party and then the Communist party for the detention, torture, and murder of thousands of their own people. Interrogation rooms with drains in the floors, dungeons, terrible, terrible stuff. Takes a couple of hours to walk through. Picked up lots of literature on what went on there when it was running. THE PARALLELS BETWEEN WHAT WENT ON THERE AND HOMELAND SECURITY HERE ARE STRIKING. Don't think we can do without common sense laws. We need them. I don't think withholding guns from murderers is unreasonable. But there are laws that erode the sanctity of humanity we should work to repeal. We are civil, moral beings and should not allow a government to treat us as though we are not such.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[mortre]

Translation: the law is whatever the government says it is, so shut up and obey.

The formerly common practice of jury nullification (which has been outlawed by the Total State) was how people used to deal with tyrannical laws.

Try reading it again, along with my previous post.

Do you prefer total anarchy? Because that is your only other option.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2