Just had my first turn-down for a class (Prohibited Person) what to advise?

[unklekippy]

Since I have never been arrested, convicted or otherwise....paid my few traffic tickets, act responsibly and don't do stupid things I guess I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to this thread. Of course, I'm one of those idiots that never calls in sick, works hard and pays his bills on time. And in my free time I can be found taking care of my family in an honest and law-abiding manner. Go figure.

Hey! Me too! Except, I've never even had traffic tickets. Still, it doesn't give anyone the right to keep someone from keeping and bearing arms, because after all, that right shall not be infringed, eh? It's right there in the Second. It STILL doesn't say "...Shall Not Be Infringed Unless Deemed Ineligible".

Going to work and doing the things we are all supposed to do doesn't give anyone the right to strip someone else's rights.

 

[unklekippy]

UnkleK, Sorry if you feel I misquoted your ~intended meaning~ I re-read your original post, that I quoted, and can not see that intention, However, we agree on the "lets Not be Leaders..." And so, I will chalk it up to learn how to read your posts, I mostly agreed with what you were saying....

I know, that sometimes my tounge hangsover my eye teeth, and Eye can't see what Eye am writing!!!!

philip,
Cutting slack is easy, hanging some one is such a final statement, we just reserve that for Super bad Guys, here in the BoonDocks !!!!!

Uuuhhh...What you quoted of mine, verbatim, was "without firearms ownership, we don't become the leaders of the free world and would have remained "subjects" of a king".

I'm sorry, but my message is/was very clear. There is no reason that anyone would need to learn to read my posts. The sentence you quoted in post #32 speaks for itself.

Cutting slack is easy. I'm not sure what you mean by "hanging" anyone, though I do agree it is quite final and reserved for Super bad Guys(?). But yeah, if you do your time and have a life to live after your debt is REPAID, you get to defend yourself. That, in fact, shall not be infringed.

 

[Kruel J]

Hey! Me too! Except, I've never even had traffic tickets. Still, it doesn't give anyone the right to keep someone from keeping and bearing arms, because after all, that right shall not be infringed, eh? It's right there in the Second. It STILL doesn't say "...Shall Not Be Infringed Unless Deemed Ineligible".

Going to work and doing the things we are all supposed to do doesn't give anyone the right to strip someone else's rights.

I agree. But I'm not so far off to the left to argue that felons should have the right to bear arms. And I also think that people that decide to sell drugs, commit violence or do something that classifies as a felony probably isn't a great decision maker. I've NEVER considered snorting coke or selling drugs no matter how tough times got. I've never committed a violent crime because my brain and my conscience tells me NO! And can anyone please give some "repeat offender" stats?

Come on guys. There are way too many of us with clean records to need to start fighting for felons just out of spite to protect the 2nd.

 

[Kruel J]

And to add to this, research says about 7% of the US population is convicted felons. I'll stand side-by-side with the 93% and fight for my 2nd amendment rights. I'll bet that a few years ago finding a member on this site that would even consider a felon owning a gun would be like finding a gold nugget up a unicorn's azz.

Don't be scared of the propaganda guys. We stand stronger than people think. It's like watering down a drink. It does make more but it sure doesn't make it better or more effective.

 

[pdx210]

So, where is it written that rights are lost for life? Where is the inclusion of "felonies" and the exclusion of "misdemeanors"? I don't see your point here. Nowhere does the Fifth say that if someone is convicted of crimes(a lot of which are in fact Unconstitutional to begin with) they lose all rights for life, yet that is what you tell me.

A felony is a label the government gives to people it needs to keep under their thumb. Please, point out in the Fifth where you are no longer allowed to be in certain professions for jaywalking? Since you will undoubtedly say "You can't lose rights for jaywalking", please show me where this line that you created in the Fifth is drawn? At what point does an oppressive, illegal government get to strip rights? Murder? Drug possession? Jaywalking? Nowhere is any of that written. I conceded you had a slight point and you decided to drag the Bill of Rights through the mud. Implying that the Fifth gives the government the right to brand anyone they choose as "ineligible" for rights is disgusting.

LOl,

jaywalking, where did that come from?




Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides a trial by jury

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed



The 5th amendment requires no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
see what they did right there in the constitution your right can be take away with due process by a jury


The 8th amendment sets the limits on punishments but lets state and feds define within those limits

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


every convicted felon I've know of has been given the opportunity to;

-defend him/herself in court in front of a jury of his/her peers
-plead no contest
-or plead guilty

 

[Kruel J]

LOl,

jaywalking, where did that come from?




Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides a trial by jury

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed



The 5th amendment requires no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
see what they did right there in the constitution your right can be take away with due process by a jury


The 8th amendment sets the limits on punishments but lets state and feds define within those limits

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


every convicted felon I've know of has been given the opportunity to;

-defend him/herself in court in front of a jury of his/her peers
-plead no contest
-or plead guilty

^^^What he said. Wow, this whole thread is ridiculous. Shame on you bubblegumers that are so blinded by your anti-government rhetoric that you argue in favor of convicted felons.

"who is a stand-up GG, but who also had a felony possession conviction for Heroin in 1986.".....sounds like a good decision maker to me. I'm quite sure that I would NEVER EVER even know what heroin looks/smells/tastes/feels like because I'm not a bubblegumbag. And I've met enough members here to KNOW that I don't stand alone in my thinking.

No such thing as a GG who shot heroin. Smart decision makers don't wake up one day and say "Gee Whiz, let's break a bunch of laws because we feel sorry for ourselves" Period. I don't want to hear excuses about how bad life was or how mommy/daddy didn't love them enough. It's a lame excuse. We all have rough spots in the road but not one of them is an excuse/reason/justification to be a felon. Man the bubblegum up fellas.

And just FYI , I married at 20. Took full custody of my one year old daughter at 23 and have been raising her all by myself ever since (granted soul custody). I'm 38 now and she is 16. Tough? Yes. Break the law to "get by"? Never once crossed my mind.

 

[Redcap]

^^^What he said. Wow, this whole thread is ridiculous. Shame on you bubblegumers that are so blinded by your anti-government rhetoric that you argue in favor of convicted felons.

"who is a stand-up GG, but who also had a felony possession conviction for Heroin in 1986.".....sounds like a good decision maker to me. I'm quite sure that I would NEVER EVER even know what heroin looks/smells/tastes/feels like because I'm not a bubblegumbag. And I've met enough members here to KNOW that I don't stand alone in my thinking.

No such thing as a GG who shot heroin. Smart decision makers don't wake up one day and say "Gee Whiz, let's break a bunch of laws because we feel sorry for ourselves" Period. I don't want to hear excuses about how bad life was or how mommy/daddy didn't love them enough. It's a lame excuse. We all have rough spots in the road but not one of them is an excuse/reason/justification to be a felon. Man the bubblegum up fellas.

And just FYI , I married at 20. Took full custody of my one year old daughter at 23 and have been raising her all by myself ever since (granted soul custody). I'm 38 now and she is 16. Tough? Yes. Break the law to "get by"? Never once crossed my mind.

You want to talk about blind? Re-read that post. Kettle, you is black.

 

[unklekippy]

Do any of you think I want an armed felon living next door to me and my family? Guess what, this is still America and no where is it said "The Land of The Free, Unless You Make A Mistake 30 Years Ago". FREE people get to arm and defend themselves. After the debt is paid, FREEDOM is what is regained. Not being able to defend yourself is actually "cruel and unusual punishment".

 

[Adam12]

^^^What he said. Wow, this whole thread is ridiculous. Shame on you bubblegumers that are so blinded by your anti-government rhetoric that you argue in favor of convicted felons.

"who is a stand-up GG, but who also had a felony possession conviction for Heroin in 1986.".....sounds like a good decision maker to me. I'm quite sure that I would NEVER EVER even know what heroin looks/smells/tastes/feels like because I'm not a bubblegumbag. And I've met enough members here to KNOW that I don't stand alone in my thinking.

No such thing as a GG who shot heroin. Smart decision makers don't wake up one day and say "Gee Whiz, let's break a bunch of laws because we feel sorry for ourselves" Period. I don't want to hear excuses about how bad life was or how mommy/daddy didn't love them enough. It's a lame excuse. We all have rough spots in the road but not one of them is an excuse/reason/justification to be a felon. Man the bubblegum up fellas.

And just FYI , I married at 20. Took full custody of my one year old daughter at 23 and have been raising her all by myself ever since (granted soul custody). I'm 38 now and she is 16. Tough? Yes. Break the law to "get by"? Never once crossed my mind.

Exactly.

 

[unklekippy]

LOl,

jaywalking, where did that come from?




Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides a trial by jury

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed



The 5th amendment requires no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
see what they did right there in the constitution your right can be take away with due process by a jury


The 8th amendment sets the limits on punishments but lets state and feds define within those limits

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


every convicted felon I've know of has been given the opportunity to;

-defend him/herself in court in front of a jury of his/her peers
-plead no contest
-or plead guilty

Are you joking? Did you read the part where I explained why "jaywalking" was brought up, then countered your laughing at "jaywalking" by explaining why it is relevant? I knew you would respond with something like "LOL. Jaywalking?", which is exactly why I wrote it the way I did.

All you folks who think you have the right to strip even more rights from people, consider that when in prison, you are under the protection of armed guards. When "free", unless the multi-billion dollar PRIVATE prison industry will post armed guards at your house and to escort you around in public, YOU STILL GET TO PROTECT YOURSELF! It's an inalienable right, like breathing, that only goes away with death. The right to defense will never be non-existent by court order, unless the sentence is death, to make sure that an oppressive government(look around you) doesn't label us all with THEIR labels of "felon" to keep us in check.

Any way, the constant quoting of laws that don't exist is getting absurd. One last time. "Shall Not Be Infringed" STILL does not say "Shall Not Be Infringed Unless Deemed Ineligible By The Government That The 2A Was There To Defend You From". The allowance to strip an American of defense doesn't exist.

But hey, bark all the idiocy you want. I'm done with this thread. While you guys choke on the Socialist dream, I'll be living a free life, unafraid of thugs that want to see me defenseless and "Americans" that want to help them do it.

 

[Adam12]

Free life? You mean you pay no taxes, have no auto insurance, no license to drive? You mean free life under the law... Just like the law that does not allow felons to possess firearms...your talk holds no weight.

 

[pdx210]

I'm not sure of the specifics of this "felon" situation ?
Often there's more to it than just a simple "felony drug conviction"
It's very common to get plea bargained down it saves the DA, court system time and money
or weaker/ circumstantial charges tossed out. So while convicted of felony drug possession
the original case could have included a whole bunch of stuff like armed robbery, attempted murder, rape ect.

Regardless, He went through the system "his due process" and is now a felon and deemed untrustworthy to have full rights.



There are plenty of situations where our government has clearly overstepped their constitutional power/ authority
but felony convictions and loss of felon's personal liberties isn't one. This type of discussion kind of castrate meaningful
talk about the feds power grab and disregard & side stepping of the 10th amendment.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If anything I hope people will take the time to read and research the constitution.

 

[unklekippy]

Free life? You mean you pay no taxes, have no auto insurance, no license to drive? You mean free life under the law... Just like the law that does not allow felons to possess firearms...your talk holds no weight.

Taxes do not imply a lack of freedom. Taxes are definitely out of hand and in the case of a Federal income tax, possibly illegal. I have auto insurance. Did you know that Washington himself imposed mandatory insurance on sailors? License to drive? Please show me where your right to "Keep And Bear Automobiles Shall Not Be Infringed".

My talk holds all kind of weight. Kissing the *** of your oppressors won't get you into a nicer concentration camp. "Shall Not Be Infringed" covers it and it has nothing to do with cars(before you go there, the right to interstate travel protects the citizen, not the car.). I'm glad I didn't leave too soon. The scared ones always like to come out after someone announces they are done with the thread. And with that, I'm done with this thread.

 

[Liberty97045]

Setting aside the legal and constitutional issues for the moment and focus on the pragmatic issue of reducing recidivism.

We have the stick (prison, fines) shouldn't we have the carrot as well?

If you stay clean for a number of years you have changed and can have your full rights restored, except for measure 11 crimes.

I voted for measure 11 because of the emotional stories about revolving door criminals and lenient judges. Measure 11 takes away the carrot.

Until we the voters take an unemotional, pragmatic view of issues and stop letting pandering politicians and their whores in the media hold up a boogieman to get votes, we will get more of the same.

 

[Liberty97045]

Now I know how "bubblegum" keeps showing up in posts. I tried to use a word that describes a person who works in a house of ill repute and the word showed up as bubblegum. Cute

 

[pdx210]

Are you joking? Did you read the part where I explained why "jaywalking" was brought up, then countered your laughing at "jaywalking" by explaining why it is relevant? I knew you would respond with something like "LOL. Jaywalking?", which is exactly why I wrote it the way I did.

All you folks who think you have the right to strip even more rights from people, consider that when in prison, you are under the protection of armed guards. When "free", unless the multi-billion dollar PRIVATE prison industry will post armed guards at your house and to escort you around in public, YOU STILL GET TO PROTECT YOURSELF! It's an inalienable right, like breathing, that only goes away with death. The right to defense will never be non-existent by court order, unless the sentence is death, to make sure that an oppressive government(look around you) doesn't label us all with THEIR labels of "felon" to keep us in check.

Any way, the constant quoting of laws that don't exist is getting absurd. One last time. "Shall Not Be Infringed" STILL does not say "Shall Not Be Infringed Unless Deemed Ineligible By The Government That The 2A Was There To Defend You From". The allowance to strip an American of defense doesn't exist.

But hey, bark all the idiocy you want. I'm done with this thread. While you guys choke on the Socialist dream, I'll be living a free life, unafraid of thugs that want to see me defenseless and "Americans" that want to help them do it.

I have pointed out in the Constitution in 3 places that authorizes the power to government ....

-Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides a trial by jury
(this is the system for trial )


-The 5th amendment requires "no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
( this authorizes the way to try citizens, You should have stopped after reading the 5th. it says you cant be
deprived without trial, which means you can with trial ...get it ?)

-The 8th amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments."
(while not well defined ,this sets the limits on punishments not all punishments and lets state and feds define within those limits)



You mentioned jaywalking a number of posts back which is absurd and has no relevance to the discussion.
It's classic, bring in an absurd element to cloud the discussion when there is no substance to an argument just knee jerk reaction.
Then attempt a close with the "higher moral ground" by claiming idiocy & Socialist dream,...sorry it didn't work.



As I said in my first post this is what scare me most. The far right gun nuts as well as far left ban gun liberals both want to
twist the crap out of the constitution for their own personal beliefs.

 

[dmancornell]

-The 8th amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments."
(while not well defined ,this sets the limits on punishments not all punishments and lets state and feds define within those limits)

8th amendment doesn't give the government any right to define "cruel and unusual punishment", therefore that is left to the people to interpret. In OP's case, removing the ability of self-defense from people after they already suffered from years of unjust persecution from a drug-related non-crime certainly fits the definition of "cruel and unusual".

Then there's the issue of unjust laws, which you seem to dismiss offhand with "due process". As if a bunch of fascist bureaucrats running their "process" explains the dubious morality behind the drug war and removal of human rights from anyone who offended the government.

 

[taylor]

He might get it dealt with on a state level, but the feds are not forgiving. Here in Oregon if you've gone 15 years from 1 non-violent felony they won't prosecute for having a gun. But you cannot in any way have anything to do with guns federally, ( go through a federal check, having a gun while committing a fed crime, possessing a gun while on federal land etc. anything that in any way involves the federal government), so if you already own a gun or buy one from a private party and are a law abiding person who uses it to hunt or defend his family the Oregon Police generally won't hassle you.

 

[hermannr]

He might get it dealt with on a state level, but the feds are not forgiving. Here in Oregon if you've gone 15 years from 1 non-violent felony they won't prosecute for having a gun. But you cannot in any way have anything to do with guns federally, ( go through a federal check, having a gun while committing a fed crime, possessing a gun while on federal land etc. anything that in any way involves the federal government), so if you already own a gun or buy one from a private party and are a law abiding person who uses it to hunt or defend his family the Oregon Police generally won't hassle you.

You are wrong there. Here in WA the LAW gives the court 72 hour to correct the NCIS listing after the record has been expunged or sealed. I know Oregon has a similar program to have your record sealed/expunged, and while Oregon may, or may not, have the same 72 hour mandate as we do here in WA, I also am sure they have a requirement to correct the NCSI record.

 

[taylor]

I don't understand you, can you explain it simpler?