T1B

I disagree completely. The felon forfeited certain of his rights the moment he decided to exact violence on another citizen, and in so doing may have impinged on that person’s right to the pursuit of happiness. Should a serial-pedophile (‘sup Tardowen) have the right to live next to a grade school?

So the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government gives you ?

What does "well regulated" mean to you?

Mikey wrote:What does "well regulated" mean to you?

A well balanced diet replete with the appropriate amount of fiber.

You're not planning on eating that Ruger are you?

I mean an iron-rich diet is important but I'm pretty sure you're not menstruating at this point.

OH SNAP. Nice Mikey, so because we perceive the Bill of Rights differently you're suggesting I eat a bullet. Nice man. I thought we were cool.

I'm just being flip, Tom.

Besides, bullets are lead. At least usually. From what I hear.
It's the gun that's high in iron.

Didn't Hacksaw Reynolds once eat a car or something?

Mikey wrote:I'm pretty sure you're not menstruating at this point.

I wouldn't be too sure about that, Mikey.

Tom, I believe that the founding fathers felt that as people we had certain rights. But rights often come with responsibilities. And people who shirk their responsibilities may find some of their rights curtailed. Seems reasonable to me. Considering how persistently you argue for the rights of convicted felons to be armed, Tom, I have just one question for you: what were you in for?

Corporal Klinger ate a jeep in M*A*S*H.

I know you're being flip, I'm feigning being hurt.

Further, my "extreme" position is more geared towards trying to determine a fundamental difference in how the Bill of Rights is viewed. Some, actually do view it as a granting of "priveleges" or "rights". Something conferred upon the governed by the government.

I take a different view. I view them as being an acknowledgement that these rights are inherent to human beings.

Sort of, "We know you're all worried about tyranny and all that, so, just so you know WE ACKNOWLEDGE these rights ... and we'll honor them ... so don't worry about it".

Then what happens is .... "reason" and "rationale" slip in. Then there's "scope creep". For instance, okay, it is reasonable to have criminals disarmed. But they keep getting armed - even though it's against the law -

So now, it's "reasonable" to disarm - honest, law abiding citizens and deprive them of their rights.

Whereas, if we simply adhered to what I believe the Constitution acknowledges, we wouldn't be faced with these little debates.

1. Violent criminals can be addressed in and of themselves. Longer sentences perhaps.
2. There might just be less "violent" criminals. Let's look at the rates of gun violence in cities or regions with conceal carry vs. cities without. What are the numbers ?

Tom In VA wrote:So now, it's "reasonable" to disarm - honest, law abiding citizens and deprive them of their rights.

That was certainly never my point. I was simply addressing your contention that if Lee Malvo was released from prison tomorrow he had an inalienable right to purchase a firearm.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Mikey wrote:I'm pretty sure you're not menstruating at this point.

I wouldn't be too sure about that, Mikey.

Ooooh Zinger. Good one Goobs. You are a clever witty man.

Goober McTuber wrote: Tom, I believe that the founding fathers felt that as people we had certain rights.

Not all of them did. Federalists did not see a need for the Bill of Rights. But the Constitution would not have been ratified if it did not address and acknowledge some basic fundamentals of human liberty. Those are .. the Bill of Rights. "Human Liberty" not "Human Liberty based on conditions".

Goober McTuber wrote: But rights often come with responsibilities.

No. They ALWAYS come with responsibilities.

Goober McTuber wrote: And people who shirk their responsibilities may find some of their rights curtailed.

To the detriment of those who are responsible ? We curtail them through the process of imprisonment. Once the debt is paid, the debt is paid.

Goober McTuber wrote: Seems reasonable to me. Considering how persistently you argue for the rights of convicted felons to be armed, Tom, I have just one question for you: what were you in for?

I also argue for the de-criminalization of marijuana - at least - I don't use it. I argue that prostitution should be decriminalized - I don't use that. I don't drink and I don't argue for a return of prohibition. I also don't take issue with the fact our government allows for the killing of innocent human beings. It's a "choice" that "responsible" women get to have as a result of a night's worth of "irresponsibility" and if doctors want to provide that service they should be able to. Same with "assisted suicide" if somebody wants to call it quits and pay someone for a peaceful evening on the way out ... more power to them.

But I can see, by your proven level of deductive reasoning skills, where I might have confused you. Sorry about that dude.

Tom, did you or did you not suggest that a convicted felon has as much right as any other citizen to own a firearm? That was the only point I addressed. If you want to have discussions about abortions, drug laws, assisted suicide, etc., go ahead and start a thread. Now answer the question: what were you in for?

Goober McTuber wrote:Now answer the question: what were you in for?

I am not a felon.

Felonious Monk

Goober McTuber wrote:
This is the kinder, gentler Goober, BTW, so I decided against calling you a fucking idiot.

Why do you feel the need to downgrade your board cred at this point ? I am shocked by such repentance ....

Roach wrote:


Whatever weapon you jokers choose, get to know it and practice actual shooting on a practical range. Study up a little on the law and shit like that. Join the NRA, and never let the liberal cocksuckers, or anybody else, take it away.

Good advice...if the fucking intercity gangstas of all races hit the range..they might get some kill shots in, instead of all this wounding in the leg bullshit...

The Ayrans actually take their weapons out and practice with them...the ganstas instead of being charged with attempt murder, need to get a free pass to the range and not allowed to leave until they can get 7 of 10 in the body mass / kill zone.

Supply them with the ammo and range time..its wayyy cheaper than arresting, trying, convicting and incarcerating them...