JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
What, versus anti authority anarchists that feel that the fact they dont like the law means that they dont have to abide by it. They have no reverence for any law that doesnt conform to thier self fulfilling needs and wants and that means when and if they get caught doing something illegal they simply blow it off as a patriotic sentiment that they are standing up for thier way of life without realising that thier gain is at the cost of others. It is ok to be caught and tried by your peers and that even when someone has shown a tendency for violence towards others you should be able to do it all over again. The fact that these individuals protect the criminals instead of the individuals the crimes were committed against is ok because it allows these individuals to do what they want all over again. These same individuals say - we just want to be left alone and not infringed on with no acknolwedgement of the people they infringe on. I say bull c rap - if you are a convicted criminal you lose your rights and frankly I dont care if they like it or not. This is my opinion.

Good night

James Ruby
 
Cigarettes don't effect your judgement though. And booze is far from as addictive as most illicit drugs. The only thing holding weed back from being legalized is the lack of a cheap roadside test IMO.

With that said, prohibition is a poster child for your argument. And I'm not familiar enough with Europe or it's decriminalization of drugs, and/or other changes that may have influenced the crime/addiction rates.

I am familiar with how addiction to drugs like heroin can screw a persons life up though, and I fail to see any redeeming qualities. Happened to a cousin of mine and a half-uncle spent time in prison for drug related murder charges.

In the end they knew the risks involved, and chose to take them. Addicts are not victims. They go in with their eyes open and choose addiction and violence over a life where they have to work to be happy. If they don't choose drugs as their conduit for easy money and cheap thrills, they will simply choose another illegal market to exploit.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Sorry to hear about that for your family, I had to grow up without a father and a mother who was an alcoholic. Both because of alcohol. I almost died one night because my mom was out drinking and I was coughing up blood but didn't want to call an ambulance for fear of retribution for the medical bills.

Imagine the single parents who are too blasted off their minds and their children suffer because they didn't have somebody to look out for them.
 
I just watched a poll on a news show on youtube called TYT where 6% of democrats and 15% of republicans think that Romney deserves more credit than Obama for the killing of Osama.

See where I am going with this? The number might be staggering.

Actually Obama had nothing to do with it other than approving the SEALS going. The one woman who had the most to do with it had been working on finding Osama for five years, which means it dates back to Bush so he should get all the credit, not the pretender in president.
 
Actually Obama had nothing to do with it other than approving the SEALS going. The one woman who had the most to do with it had been working on finding Osama for five years, which means it dates back to Bush so he should get all the credit, not the pretender in president.

The choices were

Obama
Romney
Not Sure
 
Students of history would know the only way to overturn bad laws is by treating them with open contempt, i.e. prohibition, and the northern states treatment of the fugitive slave act.

But of course in the modern era of the Total State where any civil disobedience is punished with crushing violence, some people in the 2A community actually believe following bad laws is now some kind of civic duty, like an Americanized Fuhrerprinzip. So sad.

Sheesh. You are quite a piece of work. You are essentially defending a man who killed another human being with a gun and was in the process of committing at least two other felonies. I am gathering you believe that a person who has demonstrated he has no regard for life and is willing to use a gun to take a life is not reason enough to restrict their 2A rights. If this is what you are supporting you can't be taken seriously. But I would like to invite you to put your money where your mouth is a commit a felony and keep carrying and then argue your case from wherever you find yourself incarcerated.

Does some guy who shoots in his backyard with an illegal SBR really deserve to be called an "Animal"?

That's a false equivalency. A guy shooting an illegal SBR might be breaking the law but is no comparison to a convicted killer who was breaking the law yet again. Like it or not being a convicted felon causes you t forfeit your right to ow or possess a gun.

The average citizen commits three felonies a day without even knowing it. The entire 2A community can be reclassified as felons with a single executive order.

I don't know why I will play along but pray tell, what three felonies did you commit today? :s0114:
 
Sheesh. You are quite a piece of work. You are essentially defending a man who killed another human being with a gun and was in the process of committing at least two other felonies. I am gathering you believe that a person who has demonstrated he has no regard for life and is willing to use a gun to take a life is not reason enough to restrict their 2A rights. If this is what you are supporting you can't be taken seriously. But I would like to invite you to put your money where your mouth is a commit a felony and keep carrying and then argue your case from wherever you find yourself incarcerated.

I'd respond, but since the "only serious people believe in X" argument is used by imbeciles, why bother...

Come back when you can actually come up with a coherent argument on why 2A rights should be conditionally granted based on your prejudices.
 
Actually Obama had nothing to do with it other than approving the SEALS going. The one woman who had the most to do with it had been working on finding Osama for five years, which means it dates back to Bush so he should get all the credit, not the pretender in president.

Bush had the chance to be the great decider in Deember '01 when we were within 2000 yards of OBL in Tora Bora. Nobody had the cajones to "pull the trigger" and allow our forces to get him. Hate on Obama all you want but be intellectually honest about things. It was a gutsy decision and contrary to popular fact twisting and outright lies Obama gave credit to all kinds of folks.
 
I'd respond, but since the "only serious people believe in X" argument is only used by imbeciles, why bother...

Come back when you can actually come up with a coherent argument on why 2A rights should be conditionally granted based on your prejudices.

I will type slow so you can keep up: it is a felony for a convicted felon to own or possess a gun. If that is my prejudices then I am not alone.

Very simple question that only needs a yes or no answer: Do you support a convicted killer to continue to possess a gun? Yes or no.
 
Very simple question that only needs a yes or no answer: Do you support a convicted killer to continue to possess a gun? Yes or no.

It is not a simple yes/no answer because a "convicted killer" could fall into several categories


Don't CARE: (If the convicted killer has died -- e.g. by being executed)
NO: (If the convicted killer is in prison)
NO: (If the convicted killer is out of prison on parole, and a condition of parole is not to possess a gun.)
YES: (If the convicted killer has served his sentence and is now a "normal citizen")

The "YES" answer is based on the following logic:
A person released from prison has paid his debt and is now as free as the rest of us.
A person should not be released from prison if they are still a danger.
A firearm is just one of the many tools a prior "convicted killer" could use to commit a new crime.
A prior "convicted killer" intent on committing a new violent crime will not care about the minor law of "felon in possession of a firearm".
 
Last Edited:
It is not a simple yes/no answer because a "convicted killer" could fall into several categories:

It's a very simple question unless you have a need to qualify everything to the point you did. :s0114: Thanks for playing along but I want to see of dman is a credible guy or not. For the purposes of this thread should a convicted killer be allowed to possess a gun with current law being what it is?

If you are going to support the idea of a convicted killer being allowed to possess guns then you wouldn't mind if a convicted pedophile works at a day care right?
 
It's a very simple question unless you have a need to qualify everything to the point you did. :s0114: Thanks for playing along but I want to see of dman is a credible guy or not. For the purposes of this thread should a convicted killer be allowed to possess a gun with current law being what it is?

If you are going to support the idea of a convicted killer being allowed to possess guns then you wouldn't mind if a convicted pedophile works at a day care right?

Or somebody who has committed robbery would be allowed to drive an armored car to deliver cash.
 
I don't think the government should make laws that restrict the exercise of rights, or limit the jobs you are allowed to have AFTER you have served your time for any crime.

So, YES, I think that the LAW should not restrict a person who has been convicted, sentenced, and has served his time to:
A) hold any job he can get hired for.
B) exercise all of his civil rights including voting, owning a gun, going to church, free speech, etc...

Now, before you puts words in my mouth, I think it is OK for the EMPLOYER to:
1) Refuse to employ a person, based on anything they have done in their past.


Furthermore, I believe we wouldn't be having this discussion if:
A) Dangerous convicted murderers were not released from prison (i.e. Were either life-without-parole or were executed)
B) Dangerous convicted predatory pedophiles were not released from prison
 
I don't think the government should make laws that restrict the exercise of rights, or limit the jobs you are allowed to have AFTER you have served your time for any crime.

So, YES, I think that the LAW should not restrict a person who has been convicted, sentenced, and has served his time to:
A) hold any job he can get hired for.
B) exercise all of his civil rights including voting, owning a gun, going to church, free speech, etc...

I disagree here, I feel prison time is too easy/short in this day and age. I would agree on the stipulation that their citizenship is revoked and are given a work VISA and a limited window to complete the naturalization process. At which point they would become a naturalized citizen again.

Furthermore, I believe we wouldn't be having this discussion if:
A) Dangerous convicted murderers were not released from prison (i.e. Were either life-without-parole or were executed)
B) Dangerous convicted predatory pedophiles were not released from prison

I agree here.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
 
When talking negatively about your government becomes a Felony, will you change your opinion? Because it's that simple for it to happen.

We may vote on representatives, but we do not vote on what is and is not a felony. Is having an unregistered SBR a felony? Does some guy who shoots in his backyard with an illegal SBR really deserve to be called an "Animal"?

It's a slippery slope, my friend, and that is why the 2nd amendment does not list restrictions.

Well I believe the government banning any guns from productive law abiding citizens is unconstitutional. I view the second amendment as the ultimate check and balance, some people say we have a three branch government, well they forget that branches are part of a tree, and you and I friend are the roots and trunk of that tree. We were given the ability to cut the branches off if they became infected. So yes, you are right the government has overstepped its boundaries with banning guns from law abiding citizens. Of course if we were going by what the founding fathers were intending, this gent would have been put down for his original homicide charge. Murderers were always executed back in those days. Sort of a moot issue in the end.

In short the whole scenario you provide is the reason we have a second amendment. The constitution and bill of rights DO NOT APPLY to convicted felons. The only way to fix the problem is to vote everyone out of office, and throw out 100% of incumbents. EVEN IF IT IS AGAINST THE PARTY THAT SO MANY PEOPLE BLINDLY VOTE FOR!
 
Do you support barring (for life) the second amendment to a woman who opens her husband's mail (felony in Montana)? :s0155:

Did they knowingly and willingly commit a crime. I have known since I was a small child it is ILLEGAL to open another's mail. If she was convicted as a felon she loses her rights, just like all felons. If you don't like it have the law changed by voting out all incumbents until they get the point.
 
You forget about the base principle of intent - was she opeining it because she had to pay the bills. or was it an accident or was it so she could open up numerous credit cards for the purpose of fruadulently using her husbands name. I dont know of any court in the land that would convict a wife of opening her hsubands mail if the husband did not press charges. Try again.

James Ruby
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top