Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by daiello91, Sep 30, 2009.
You have all probably heard about the Fire-Ants in South America. When they go on the move they attack every living thing - animal or vegetable - until there is no living thing left. No matter how many you kill, there are always more. They destroy every thing in their path. They just keep on coming.
Gun haters are the same way. they keep on coming, destroying everything in their path that they don't like. Like cockroaches that get established in your house, these people keep showing up. If you ever had cockroaches in your home, you know that you can swat them, spray them or whatever, but you flick on a light and you will see a swarm of these filthy bugs running for cover. Anti-gun people are like that - looking for ways to destroy the Rights of those they don't agree with. They just keep coming.
Anything you want in the line of shooting, you better get while you can. It will be easier to keep it if these anti-gun termites finally succeed in banning guns, than to obtain it at such a time.
Email sent !.........:thumbup:
Lars Larson was talking about this yesterday.. I sent an email and called as well..
One nice thing about "liberal" gun haters. I assume they don't have guns? :thumbup:
True, they don't have guns.
But they seem to have no ethical problem with others using guns on their behalf.
Carl Rowan was a liberal political writer a few years back. He was a fervent gun hater. He constanly wrote anti gun articles. He hated the NRA. He lived in Washington, D.C., a bastion of anti-freedom. One night, he saw someone messing around in his yard. And guess what? HE HAD A GUN!! He confronted the invader with his (would you believe it?) handgun and somehow I think he did shoot the "villain".This is the typical hipocrisy that many "elitists" practice. Although he broke the D.C. anti-gun rules and should have gone to jail, as a leading hater of conservatives he was allowed to go free.
Now please don't take this as a attack on all liberals. Some of them are fervently pro gun and we should count them among our friends.
I am gonna have to say I agree with OFF on the second issue (concealed carry on campus or anywhere else). However, I think they are off base on the first issue. There are many non-sensical laws out there (Washington's suppressor law) that are worthy of attention. Whether a convicted felon (aka one of the reasons I carry gun) can buy but not possess/own a gun after making a petition to the state does not seem like an issue worth addressing. Why not change the law so that no petition can be made period? One consequence of committing a felony is that you lose the right to own guns. I'm ok with that. OFF is getting in a tizzy over Oregon DOJ's nonsensical argument against OFF's nonsensical position.
I live near Medford but in the county. The story about the teacher with the gun was all over the news.
She was afraid of an estranged husband who had made numerous threats against her. She had a restraining order which he had already violated. She was legally carrying in her purse and with a CCW. There is no law in Oregon which prohibits that. The school district of course had a big fit and unlawfully ordered her to stop carrying. She sued. She didn't have to win, because the legislature clarified her right with new law before the case was settled.
I support her right to carry to the max. I wish every teacher carried. Maybe then we wouldn't have a Columbine incident.
I agree 100%. I would like to see at least half of ALL teachers armed. I think that the children would be a lot safer.
I have walked into schools that had signs saying that guns were not allowed. But, no one checked me for them. I could easily have been carrying. All these signs do is tell these wackos that they will have a field day with NO interference if they choose to shoot up the children in that school. And, isn't that what usually happens? A few well trained and armed teachers or other employees would make a school a lot safer in my opinion.
Something else bugs me. Government agencies often say you can't do something "because it's public property."
If my constitutional rights to free speech or to practice religion or to carry or whatever aren't valid on government property, then just where the hill are they any good? Only at home in my closet?
We already know that others may restrict our rights on their private property, and rightfully so. If I say you can't do something on my private property then you can't.
Public property is MY property - it's OUR property, imho. It's where our constitutional rights should kick in the most. The politicians don't own the public property. WE do.
You come home from work one day. You find out that a well known drug dealer was trying to push drugs on your kid. He was giving him a hard time, and ended up roughing him up. You have talked to the cops about this before, with no results. You jump in your car and drive down to the dealers house. He is out front. You tell him to stay the **** away from your kid. He walks towards you and shoves you backwards off of the sidewalk and pursues you. He tries to grab you and you punch the guy a couple of times in the face. You end up breaking a bone in the attackers face. The police get there, and file charges on both of you. When you go to court, you are charged under measure 11 and find yourself in prison for 5 years and a felon, when you should have never had charges filed to begin with. I have a friend who had that exact thing happen to him.
You can feel in the blanks any way you want. Things like this happen every day. Self defense is a hard thing to show these days. If you are in a fight, you are considered guilty in a lot of cases, not to mention the fact that laws can be changed to include anything as a felony.
Barring all people considered felons from owning guns is a slippery slope in my opinion. I have seen way too many people charged with ridiculous crimes to feel that way. One local guy bought a couple of quads off of a well known site. He ended up charged with receiving stolen property even though he had a bill of sale and a paper trail as required by DMV. He got out of it, but only on appeal after spending 100k or better. Most people would have been hung not having the money to fight it.
Sorry, but I don't buy the sob stories anymore. Every once in a while I hear a compelling story about how Mr. Innocent was done wrong by the system. I start to feel sympathetic and then-wham-it goes all Paul Harvey and then I know the rest of the story. There may be one or two sad cases of people done wrong by the law, but I believe it to be EXTREMELY rare. Poor impulse control or bad luck, too bad felons----NO GUNS FOR YOU!
From a karma perspective, my opinions might bite me in the rear. However, some actions have lasting consequences. I'd even advocate that a repeated pattern of misdemeanors would warrant barring someone from guns. Guns require good decision making and a great deal of maturity. I recognize that the people you mention are friends and, as such, you are able to see them in a better light. But, I believe there is much more to their stories/history.
You are welcome to your opinion. The guy that was in the fight with the local drug dealer had absolutely no record of any kind. I don't even think that he ever even had a speeding ticket! The other guy that I spoke of wasn't a personal friend of mine, he is a local business owner that has a very good reputation.
I believe that people who have been found guilty of serious crimes that would show violent tendencies should be banned from owning a gun. The fact is though that it doesn't really matter. A felon who is bent on committing a crime with a gun, is going to have one no matter what law is made. If they are going to commit murder, or armed robbery, a weapons charge isn't that huge of a deal is it? My thought is that a person who is trying to follow the law would petition to have their right to self defense restored.
I would say that a very large percentage of people could be a felon if a cop would have been there at the wrong time. Most guys have been in a fistfight at some time in their life. Although it isn't my thing, I would venture a guess that many people on here have been in possession of marijuana in their life. Has everyone on this site been COMPLETELY honest in filing all of their taxes? I bet nobody has ever copied a vhs tape or a dvd either! The point is that there are many things that a person can get in trouble for that a high percentage of people have done.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a pro-criminal kind of guy. I had a bunch of stuff stolen recently and would have loved to catch the guys who did it! I have been the victim of crime plenty! I had a guy try to mug me and my two year old little girl on Christmas Eve Day when leaving the hospital from visiting my sister who was in a near fatal wreck that same day! I just realize that I could have ended up a felon from protecting myself that day too.
Just my thoughts. I just am very careful about how many people I say can't have the right to own a gun. It just makes it easier for others to say the same thing about us!
Isn't Martha Stewart a felon?
I will concede that in a handful of cases, an appeals process might be warranted. However, I see it as a very minor issue in the grand scheme of gun legislation. The fact is that I believe that a convicted felon has shown poor decision making (at best) and a lack of trustworthiness. Occasionally, in a rare case, is the punishment, perhaps, too harsh for the crime? Maybe. But, I do not believe that the label of criminal is often applied inappropriately. I guess I just think OFF has bigger battles to fight. Nothing pleases anti-gun folks more than to see the gun lobby hop into bed with convicted criminals. Take care of the issues that affect 99.9% of the people that should have guns first. Then help the one or two people in the state of Oregon with a felony conviction that have demonstrated that they are worthy of gun ownership.
NOTE: Possession of less than 1 oz of weed (a lot of marijuana to those who don't know) = a violation (fine, no jail) in Oregon.
Perhaps there are a few laws that are felonies that should be classified as misdemeanors. We can take that issue up with our elected officials. But, I would argue that most folks do a quick COST/BENEFIT analysis before engaging in any of the activities that you listed. They rolled the dice, knowing that there was a chance, however small, that they would lose and have to suffer the consequences.
If you don't think the system screws people over then I would suggest you take some time to study what it's like to be in Family Court as a male in a divorce where children are involved.
Family Court and Criminal court are two different animals. Different rules. Different standards of evidence. Nothing in family court has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no advocate for the people (prosecutor) and, generally, no jury. Likening family court and criminal court is like saying a Porsche and a skateboard are the same thing because they both have four wheels and are used for transportation.
Separate names with a comma.