An anti-idiot admits he supports criminals, drug dealers and the mentally disabled having firearms

[John-Melb]

This is gold

====================

On Mar 30, 5:05 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

> **Not at all. Disgusting creatures like you, who constantly bleat about
> taking away the rights of easy access to firearms by criminals, drunks,
> drug addicts and the mentally disabled, disgust me.

===================
That's an interesting comment Trevor, how long have you supported the
easy access to firearms by criminals, drunks, drug addicts and the
mentally disabled?

[Poof]

[�Jones]

A "right" is something recognized by the society as an intrinsic
property of the human existence. Societies will articulate these
rights in documents sometimes called national constitutions; however,
a constitution simply acknowledges these rights; the constitution is
not the source of the rights.

For example: most societies recognize that a person's theistic beliefs
or lack thereof are covered by a fundamental, intrinsic right. A
person who commits a crime does not lose that right. Drunks and drug
addicts have the right to their own beliefs regarding religion as do
people with mental handicaps. This is an example of a right; others
exist.

If gun ownership and possession is one such intrinsic human right (and
I'm not at all sure that it is,) then the right must apply to all
human beings. Does this "right to keep and bear arms" fall into that
same category? Is this a basic right similar to... say... the right
not to self incriminate that applies to everyone or do we view it as
some codified law like a highway speed limit that does not apply to a
drunk (for obvious reasons,) may be changed arbitrarily, and is
inconsistent when one crosses a state or county line?

I'm willing to listen to either side; however, you don't get to go
both ways... i.e.: "It's *my* fundamental right! ... just disarm the
other guy!" Which way do we go? Is the RTKABA a fundamental,
intrinsic, human right or is it subject to governmental interpretation
and restriction?

Jones

[ozark...@yahoo.com]

The right to defend one's self is a fundamental right. For a
government to recognize that right - yet to take away the very means
to do so is the problem.


>
>Jones
>
>

[�Jones]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:47:10 -0500, in talk.politics.guns
ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:

>The right to defend one's self is a fundamental right. For a
>government to recognize that right - yet to take away the very means
>to do so is the problem.

Oh... we agree! Self defense is fundamental to common law and
recognized across all societies. Basic instinct will never get more
basic than that.

But, you miss the point: a person who has previously committed a crime
still retains that basic right. A person who is a drug addict has
that right. People who have mental handicaps such as schizophrenia
have the right of self defense... you have that right; I have that
right. Furthermore, there is nothing you or I can do that would cause
that "fundamental right" to be revoked.

Do we agree? I think we do: your right to self defense is as secure
as anything ever gets in this world; I will present no argument to the
contrary.

However, is gun possession such a basic right? This is my point.

Now, let us not wander off into a nebulous never-never land of why you
think it happens to be *your* specific right... is the idea of gun
possession a fundamental right of every human being on the planet?

You see... I have accepted your argument and taken us yet further down
that road. If you really believe your own argument, then you have to
accept that gun possession is also a fundamental human right and is
not subject to *any* restrictive law of any form.

Are you ready to go there?

Jones

[ozark...@yahoo.com]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:36:19 -0500, �Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:47:10 -0500, in talk.politics.guns
>ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>The right to defend one's self is a fundamental right. For a
>>government to recognize that right - yet to take away the very means
>>to do so is the problem.
>
>Oh... we agree! Self defense is fundamental to common law and
>recognized across all societies. Basic instinct will never get more
>basic than that.
>
>But, you miss the point:

Not a bit

>a person who has previously committed a crime
>still retains that basic right. A person who is a drug addict has
>that right. People who have mental handicaps such as schizophrenia
>have the right of self defense... you have that right; I have that
>right. Furthermore, there is nothing you or I can do that would cause
>that "fundamental right" to be revoked.

And there is where we enter the slippery slope of the 'socoal
contract'. Some people fall out of the definition of "person" when
they break the social contract - whether their fault as in a criminal
or not (as in a mentally ill person) and (in our country) are judged
by the legal system.

In some cases, they are "returned" to being a person.

>
>Do we agree? I think we do: your right to self defense is as secure
>as anything ever gets in this world; I will present no argument to the
>contrary.
>
>However, is gun possession such a basic right? This is my point.

Possession of common modalities such as guns are part of the basic
right to self defense. Just assume that at some point in the future
some type of individual weapon is developed thhat becomes common place
for self defense - then that too would be part of the basic right.

>
>Now, let us not wander off into a nebulous never-never land of why you
>think it happens to be *your* specific right... is the idea of gun
>possession a fundamental right of every human being on the planet?

The right of self defense is.

>
>You see... I have accepted your argument and taken us yet further down
>that road. If you really believe your own argument, then you have to
>accept that gun possession is also a fundamental human right and is
>not subject to *any* restrictive law of any form.

Wrong. Every right has limitations - free speech - religion - etc. The
issue is how much should the restrictions be? THAT is the fundamental
argument. Most of the left-wing nuts will say they do not want to
disarm Americans (in most cases they are also lying but they are
paying lip service) - they just want there to be so many restritions
the right becomes one in name only.

>
>Are you ready to go there?

Been there, came back.

>
>Jones

[John-Melb]

All rights require some form of control.

You have the right to "freedom of religion" but if you choose to
practice the religion of the Aztecs, which includes human sacrifice in
it's religious practices, you'll will find your right to freedom of
religion quickly and severely curtailed.

You have "freedom of speech", but if whilst practicing this freedom,
you (for example) leak details of someone on the witness protection
program to an organised crime gang, your freedom of speech will be
rather quickly amended.

It comes down to what we see as "reasonable", I believe the saying is
"Your right to swing your fists stops, one inch from the end of my
nose".

I do not view allowing violent criminals, drug addicts or the mentally
unwell access to firearms as "reasonable", do you?

[keithr]

"Anti-idiot" and interesting term, if Wilson is anti-idiot and you
oppose him, does that make you pro-idiot?

[John-Melb]

On Mar 31, 8:45 pm, keithr <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> "Anti-idiot" and interesting term, if Wilson is anti-idiot and you
> oppose him, does that make you pro-idiot?

No, but even asking that question demonstrates why you are a total
fuckwit.

[Dechucka]

"John-Melb" <mcnama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef009749-3226-47d2...@kk11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

===============================

and your OP shows that you are pro idiot but we knew that

[Scout]

"�Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
news:pf3el89ibfa4f9he6...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:47:10 -0500, in talk.politics.guns
> ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>The right to defend one's self is a fundamental right. For a
>>government to recognize that right - yet to take away the very means
>>to do so is the problem.
>
> Oh... we agree! Self defense is fundamental to common law and
> recognized across all societies. Basic instinct will never get more
> basic than that.
>
> But, you miss the point: a person who has previously committed a crime
> still retains that basic right.

Agreed, but their legal ability to exercise that right may be limited or
eliminated by the due process of their conviction.

The 5th Amendment allows due process to deprive you of your life....I can
imagine anything more invasive to your rights than that.

[Scout]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
news:desdl85p5kdtf440k...@4ax.com...

Don't forget the 5th Amendment and it's application to restricting the
rights of those convicted of crimes in a court of law.

Rights can be restricted by due process. Otherwise, your point is valid.

Oh, and one more thought to consider. The mechanisms you set up to restrict
selectively or generally the rights of the population....can be also used to
restrict in a similar manner any other rights which may be protected.

Do you really wish the federal government to treat book, movies, and bibles
in the manner you would have them treat firearms?

Be careful of the tools you use government, they may continue to use them on
things other than what you felt they would be.

[�Jones]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:13:36 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Agreed, but their legal ability to exercise that right may be limited or
>eliminated by the due process of their conviction.
>
>The 5th Amendment allows due process to deprive you of your life....I can
>imagine anything more invasive to your rights than that.

We absolutely do not agree. There is simply no constitutional
guarentee against capital punishment. One may also be jailed and,
therefore, unable to attend the church of his or her choice... that's
not a matter of rights; there is no process by which a person can be
prevented from being a Baptist, for example.

A right is universal; a right is neither earned nor granted by the
constitution; rights recognized by the constitution may not be revoked
or limited in any way by any judicial body deriving its authority from
that same document. Show me some "right" that can be revoked and I
will show you something that was never a right in the first place. As
easily as you may judge someone mentally incompetent and revoke that
person's rights, so may yours be revoked just as easily.

Jones

[�Jones]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:11:48 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Don't forget the 5th Amendment and it's application to restricting the
>rights of those convicted of crimes in a court of law.
>
>Rights can be restricted by due process. Otherwise, your point is valid.
>
>Oh, and one more thought to consider. The mechanisms you set up to restrict
>selectively or generally the rights of the population....can be also used to
>restrict in a similar manner any other rights which may be protected.
>
>Do you really wish the federal government to treat book, movies, and bibles
>in the manner you would have them treat firearms?
>
>Be careful of the tools you use government, they may continue to use them on
>things other than what you felt they would be.

Very well. Let's look at it, shall we?

< Quote from my government text >

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

< /Quote >

This certainly provides a way for a person to be deprived of their
life, liberty, and property... yup. But, let's look at a right it
recognizes: "[no person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself." Tell us, Scout: is this subject to due
process?

Most constitutions of civilized countries recognize a person's basic
right to life; the United States is not such a society and never has
been. There's nothing in the Constitution of the United States that
prohibits capital punishment. It does, however, prohibit "double
jeopardy" and there is no "due process" to which such a prohibition is
subject.

Jones

[Scout]

"�Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:utafl89k35hp3tnes...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:13:36 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Agreed, but their legal ability to exercise that right may be limited or
>>eliminated by the due process of their conviction.
>>
>>The 5th Amendment allows due process to deprive you of your life....I can
>>imagine anything more invasive to your rights than that.
>
> We absolutely do not agree. There is simply no constitutional
> guarentee against capital punishment.

What about confiscation of property without compensation, or more broadly
the liberties protected in the Constitution.

Have you even read the 5th Amendment?

> One may also be jailed and,
> therefore, unable to attend the church of his or her choice... that's
> not a matter of rights; there is no process by which a person can be
> prevented from being a Baptist, for example.

Sure there is, if the court decides that such and infringement of their
rights is just punishment for their crimes.

> A right is universal; a right is neither earned nor granted by the
> constitution; rights recognized by the constitution may not be revoked
> or limited in any way by any judicial body deriving its authority from
> that same document.

Better read the 5th Amendment again because it says you're full of BS.

< Show me some "right" that can be revoked and I
> will show you something that was never a right in the first place.

Life

Going to tell me you don't have a right to life?

You have now truly and clearly painted yourself into a corner of your own
making.

[�Jones]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:24:49 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>What about confiscation of property without compensation, or more broadly
>the liberties protected in the Constitution.
>

>Have you even read the 5th Amendment? Sure there is, if the court decides

>that such and infringement of their rights is just punishment for their crimes.

>Better read the 5th Amendment again because it says you're full of BS. Life

>
>Going to tell me you don't have a right to life?
>
>You have now truly and clearly painted yourself into a corner of your own
>making.

Well, I'm pretty obviously not getting my point across.

Of course a person can suffer deprivation of freedom as adjudicated by
a jury; that takes us off on a tangent.

Whether an intrinsic human right is revokable by a jury is debatable;
however, a person cannot be deprived of life as an arbitrary rider
administratively added to the sentence. For example: "Anyone convicted
of a crime shall be executed as soon as their sentence is served."

What best illustrates my point is to focus on a person who has not
committed any crime; however, for one reason or another, has been
referred for mental health concerns.

But, then...

Jones

[Scout]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
news:i46gl8l8n0uvkdkqm...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:24:49 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>What about confiscation of property without compensation, or more broadly
>>the liberties protected in the Constitution.
>>
>>Have you even read the 5th Amendment? Sure there is, if the court decides
>>that such and infringement of their rights is just punishment for their
>>crimes.
>>Better read the 5th Amendment again because it says you're full of BS.
>>Life
>>
>>Going to tell me you don't have a right to life?
>>
>>You have now truly and clearly painted yourself into a corner of your own
>>making.
>
> Well, I'm pretty obviously not getting my point across.
>
> Of course a person can suffer deprivation of freedom as adjudicated by
> a jury; that takes us off on a tangent.
>
> Whether an intrinsic human right is revokable by a jury is debatable;

They aren't revoking his right, they are merely infringing upon it's
exercise.

> however, a person cannot be deprived of life as an arbitrary rider
> administratively added to the sentence. For example: "Anyone convicted
> of a crime shall be executed as soon as their sentence is served."

Depends on how the rules of the punishment are set up.

If the infringement of rights is included as a required portion of the
punishment, then conviction automatically invokes that infringement.

Such as voting and owning weapons.

Having to register yourself and put on a searchable publically accessible
database.

Oh, and the jury doesn't decide the punishment, the most they can do is
SUGGEST what it should be. Punishment is set by the law and/or the judge.

> What best illustrates my point is to focus on a person who has not
> committed any crime; however, for one reason or another, has been
> referred for mental health concerns.

Agreed, and in the cases that matter it is because they have been determined
to be a reasonable direct threat to themselves or others.

Now personally, I'm not as interested in whether they are a threat to
themselves, but when in a state of mental disarray they reasonably present a
threat to others, then it is an issue to be addressed.

Oh, and I believe in such cases, the process occurs as part of a court
proceeding and both sides have a chance to present their arguments. So due
process has occurred, and the limitation imposed exists only for as long as
the person is impaired.

I'm still not seeing anything that refutes my point or negates that the 5th
does allow for infringements and restrictions imposed on the exercise of
rights via due process.

[︰ones]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:24:40 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>They aren't revoking his right, they are merely infringing upon it's

>exercise. Depends on how the rules of the punishment are set up.

>
>If the infringement of rights is included as a required portion of the
>punishment, then conviction automatically invokes that infringement.
>
>Such as voting and owning weapons.
>
>Having to register yourself and put on a searchable publically accessible
>database.
>
>Oh, and the jury doesn't decide the punishment, the most they can do is
>SUGGEST what it should be. Punishment is set by the law and/or the judge.

>Agreed, and in the cases that matter it is because they have been determined
>to be a reasonable direct threat to themselves or others.
>
>Now personally, I'm not as interested in whether they are a threat to
>themselves, but when in a state of mental disarray they reasonably present a
>threat to others, then it is an issue to be addressed.
>
>Oh, and I believe in such cases, the process occurs as part of a court
>proceeding and both sides have a chance to present their arguments. So due
>process has occurred, and the limitation imposed exists only for as long as
>the person is impaired.
>
>I'm still not seeing anything that refutes my point or negates that the 5th
>does allow for infringements and restrictions imposed on the exercise of
>rights via due process.

OK, so... when guns are made illegal, I suppose you'll consider how
the rules are set up?

Scout, your rights are only as secure as the other guy's rights are.
Of course you will stand up and scream when you think *your* rights
are being violated... everyone does that. My point is that: if that's
the *only* time you'll stand, then I'm not impressed with your
position on rights. And, ya know, Scout... the people whose rights
you have to protect aren't at all like Charlton Heston; however, this
is where we find out whether you really mean what you speak or is it
empty talk.

Do you think a gun is your right?

Jones

[︰ones]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:08:19 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
John-Melb <mcnama...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, but even asking that question demonstrates why you are a total
>fuckwit.

Actually, everyone else on the group was thinking the same thing.
Well, *I* was, anyway.

Jones

[Scout]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:kmfhl85hgc7j33mrf...@4ax.com...

Not in the least. I know how the rules are set up, and the first thing that
would need to occur is a Constitutional Amendment.

Don't see one of those on the horizon to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Otherwise, your question is irrelevant and a lame attempt to change the
subject.

> Scout, your rights are only as secure as the other guy's rights are.

Agreed. If I'm convicted of a crime, or legally ruled mentally ill and a
danger to the community...then my rights can be infringed just like that
other person's

I fail to see the issue at hand, much less the support for your claim that
all this is prohibited by the Constitution given that it is allowed by the
5th Amendment.

> Of course you will stand up and scream when you think *your* rights
> are being violated... everyone does that. My point is that: if that's
> the *only* time you'll stand, then I'm not impressed with your
> position on rights. And, ya know, Scout... the people whose rights
> you have to protect aren't at all like Charlton Heston; however, this
> is where we find out whether you really mean what you speak or is it
> empty talk.

<yawn>

You're just ranting now. Does that mean you've run out of rational argument
and find yourself unable to refute the points I made?

>
> Do you think a gun is your right?

Currently it certainly is.

If I get convicted of a felony, ruled mentally ill and a danger to others,
or something like those. Then it will be my right, but my ability to
exercise it could be limited, restricted or even prohibited by due process
as allowed under the 5th Amendment.

If you wish to discuss the facts of what the Constitution does and does not
allow in a reasonable rational manner I'm perfectly willing to discuss it
with you. If you simply want people to agree to whatever you have to say
whether true or not and then rant at them when they don't agree....then
you're going to ignored.

So, I suggest you can the rhetoric and see if you can back up your claim
that restrictions imposed by due process are not allowed for under the
Constitution.

Otherwise, that point will forever shoot down your assertions to the
contrary.

[︰ones]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:19:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Not in the least. I know how the rules are set up, and the first thing that
>would need to occur is a Constitutional Amendment.
>
>Don't see one of those on the horizon to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
>Otherwise, your question is irrelevant and a lame attempt to change the

>subject. Agreed. If I'm convicted of a crime, or legally ruled mentally ill and a

>danger to the community...then my rights can be infringed just like that
>other person's I fail to see the issue at hand, much less the support for your
>claim that all this is prohibited by the Constitution given that it is allowed by the

>5th Amendment. <yawn>

>
>You're just ranting now. Does that mean you've run out of rational argument
>and find yourself unable to refute the points I made?

You keep changing the subject. If all we have to do is follow "due
process", why would we need an amendment?

There'll never be such an amendment; however, I do expect guns to be
banned... one at a time and by due process.

Jones

[Scout]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:enohl8p3skh3jbdgv...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:19:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Not in the least. I know how the rules are set up, and the first thing
>>that
>>would need to occur is a Constitutional Amendment.
>>
>>Don't see one of those on the horizon to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>>Otherwise, your question is irrelevant and a lame attempt to change the
>>subject. Agreed. If I'm convicted of a crime, or legally ruled mentally
>>ill and a
>>danger to the community...then my rights can be infringed just like that
>>other person's I fail to see the issue at hand, much less the support for
>>your
>>claim that all this is prohibited by the Constitution given that it is
>>allowed by the
>>5th Amendment. <yawn>
>>
>>You're just ranting now. Does that mean you've run out of rational
>>argument
>>and find yourself unable to refute the points I made?
>
> You keep changing the subject. If all we have to do is follow "due
> process", why would we need an amendment?

Because you're not going to get a general ban on all guns by simply using
due process, unless you think you can get a court to individually hear each
and every case and either get a conviction for a felony or show just and
reasonable cause for a temporary restraint to be imposed.

In short, it's not going to happen.

> There'll never be such an amendment; however, I do expect guns to be
> banned... one at a time and by due process.

No, they may be banned, but it won't be by due process. Rather it will be by
Unconstitutional legislative fiat.

Really, if you're going to argue this stuff then you should understand the
meaning of the terms.

[︰ones]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:36:15 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Because you're not going to get a general ban on all guns by simply using
>due process, unless you think you can get a court to individually hear each
>and every case and either get a conviction for a felony or show just and
>reasonable cause for a temporary restraint to be imposed.
>

>In short, it's not going to happen. No, they may be banned, but it won't be

>by due process. Rather it will be by Unconstitutional legislative fiat.

BINGO!!!! Gwaddamnit, Scout!!! We have a breakthrough! *That* is my
point.

>Really, if you're going to argue this stuff then you should understand the
>meaning of the terms.

Scout, that tactic is used all across Usenet; heck, I've even used it
myself occasionally. You simply shift the topic all over Kansas;
however, if you don't mind... just *this* time can we leave out Hitler
and the Jews?

********************

Can a right be infringed? Poof! We lived with slavery for two
centuries. Texas alone executes twice as many people as Lybia... I'm
speaking of theory, here. A constitution simply recognizes rights
that already exist.

Don't we already have the precedent for this "legislative fiat" in
place?

Jones

[keithr]

That demonstrates that you have no sense of humour, and you can't handle
having the piss taken out of you.

[John-Melb]

Actually, I have a great sense of humour, I just don't see any reason
to put up with fuckwits like you.

[keithr]

So you have a great sense of humour unless you are the target, ie you
can hand it out but can't take it. Well nothing new there.

[�Jones]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:06:54 -0500, in talk.politics.guns
ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:

>Not a bit And there is where we enter the slippery slope of the 'socoal

>contract'. Some people fall out of the definition of "person" when
>they break the social contract - whether their fault as in a criminal
>or not (as in a mentally ill person) and (in our country) are judged
>by the legal system.
>
>In some cases, they are "returned" to being a person.
>

>Possession of common modalities such as guns are part of the basic
>right to self defense. Just assume that at some point in the future
>some type of individual weapon is developed thhat becomes common place
>for self defense - then that too would be part of the basic right.
>

>The right of self defense is.
>

>Wrong. Every right has limitations - free speech - religion - etc. The
>issue is how much should the restrictions be? THAT is the fundamental
>argument. Most of the left-wing nuts will say they do not want to
>disarm Americans (in most cases they are also lying but they are
>paying lip service) - they just want there to be so many restritions
>the right becomes one in name only.
>

>Been there, came back.

Well... OK... I guess. I can't really figure out what your basic
point is.

Is this it?

"Possession of common modalities such as guns are part of the basic
right to self defense."

"Modalities"??? OK, that part makes sense, I suppose... if I work on
it. Thus, this ... "modality" (whatever that means) is a basic human
right? It looks like you're saying that the possession of a gun is a
basic, fundamental human right.

And, so... a "person" with a mental handicap isn't really a "person"
(or human being) at all because they have... what? ... broken a
"social contract"??? Thus, you appear to be saying, they have no
right to these... "modalities" because they broke a contract?

When did this person agree to such an absurd "contract"? Do you have
a copy of it? I'd like to see that contract, please.

Jones

[�Jones]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:01:29 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
John-Melb <mcnama...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>All rights require some form of control.
>
>You have the right to "freedom of religion" but if you choose to
>practice the religion of the Aztecs, which includes human sacrifice in
>it's religious practices, you'll will find your right to freedom of
>religion quickly and severely curtailed.
>
>You have "freedom of speech", but if whilst practicing this freedom,
>you (for example) leak details of someone on the witness protection
>program to an organised crime gang, your freedom of speech will be
>rather quickly amended.
>
>It comes down to what we see as "reasonable", I believe the saying is
>"Your right to swing your fists stops, one inch from the end of my
>nose".
>
>I do not view allowing violent criminals, drug addicts or the mentally
>unwell access to firearms as "reasonable", do you?

Good question!

My answer goes directly to the definition of a "right"... and I
believe that I owe you a straight answer to a straightforward
question:

Yes, in fact, I do. (Thus, you have a clear answer.)

Let me qualify that: I do so only insofar as you accept that gun
ownership is a basic human right. I have never asserted that it is.

My answer to your question depends upon your acceptance of the idea
that gun ownership is a basic human right.

Do you accept that gun possession is such a right? (May I have an
equally clear answer, please?)

Jones

[John-Melb]

No, I don't see gun ownership as a basic human right.

I see the right to self defence as a human right, and the right to own
property as a human right.

As I said, all rights require some form of control, the question is
where on the "reasonable scale" should this control be positioned.

I do believe that US citizens have the "right" to own arms, as per
their constitution, however, I am not a US citizen.

[�Jones]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
John-Melb <mcnama...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, I don't see gun ownership as a basic human right.
>
>I see the right to self defence as a human right, and the right to own
>property as a human right.
>
>As I said, all rights require some form of control, the question is
>where on the "reasonable scale" should this control be positioned.
>
>I do believe that US citizens have the "right" to own arms, as per
>their constitution, however, I am not a US citizen.

That's fine. If gun possession isn't a basic human right, then one
clearly does not gain such a right by committing a crime.

One point upon which most of us seem to agree is that a constitution
simply recognizes rights; however, it is not the source of the rights.
Constitutional rights apply to all human beings who are subject to the
authority of that document. For example: in a few weeks, I will step
off of an airplane in Australia; the moment I do, I become subject to
the Constitution of Australia and will immediately gain all human
rights protected by that document. I don't need to earn these rights
because they existed before your Founding Fathers ever took a pen in
their hands.

The other point I have noticed about rights is that they tend to be
universally recognized. By this, I mean that, if you hold the
constitutions of Australia, Germany, the United States, and Bolivia
side by side and compare them, they all sound pretty much alike in
terms of semantics. It comes as a shock to most US citizens to learn
that laws protecting individual rights are much stronger in Europe
than they are here in the US... particularly in the areas of personal
privacy wrt information mining and the rights of a person accused of a
crime.

While US citizens are copious consumers of guns and ammunition, gun
possession has never been considered a "right" in practice. Each
state has its own set of laws; many of them practically nonexistent
and many quite Draconian... then, individual cities will pass their
own local laws. Compound that with the fact that no two people will
ever quite agree on what that sentence actually says and you have a
mess in which everyone is walking around armed to the teeth and nobody
pays much attention to the laws.

It isn't really a "right" here; I really don't have any choice but to
strap on a 9mm and put two extra magazines in my pocket before I go to
the store because I know the loon next to me in the produce isle is
armed... and he feels the same way. I suppose it's a right; however,
it doesn't feel very much like freedom to me.

We've pretty much made our bed in the US and I doubt anything will get
better. Most people believe that we made a serious mistake; I
certainly do; however, I don't want to be the first person to be
disarmed. Methinks the Aussies have the right general idea with
fairly strict laws; however, one can obtain a gun... but I doubt it's
as simple as passing a law. I'd certainly trade with you, though.

Jones

[ozark...@yahoo.com]

The right to life - and the means to protect it is a basic,
fundamental right.

>
>And, so... a "person" with a mental handicap isn't really a "person"
>(or human being) at all because they have... what? ... broken a
>"social contract"??? Thus, you appear to be saying, they have no
>right to these... "modalities" because they broke a contract?

Sadly you will have to gain a bit more education to understand this.
Unless, of course, you are playing at being stupid.

>
>When did this person agree to such an absurd "contract"? Do you have
>a copy of it? I'd like to see that contract, please.
>
>Jones

I refer you to Mr.'s Hobbes, Locke ans Rousseau. When you have
finished that a course in American history and the way the FF were
educated would be next.

Let me know when you have finished.

[Scout]

"�Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
news:q44kl81pbphineqrv...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
> John-Melb <mcnama...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No, I don't see gun ownership as a basic human right.
>>
>>I see the right to self defence as a human right, and the right to own
>>property as a human right.
>>
>>As I said, all rights require some form of control, the question is
>>where on the "reasonable scale" should this control be positioned.
>>
>>I do believe that US citizens have the "right" to own arms, as per
>>their constitution, however, I am not a US citizen.
>
> That's fine. If gun possession isn't a basic human right, then one
> clearly does not gain such a right by committing a crime.
>
> One point upon which most of us seem to agree is that a constitution
> simply recognizes rights; however, it is not the source of the rights.
> Constitutional rights apply to all human beings who are subject to the
> authority of that document. For example: in a few weeks, I will step
> off of an airplane in Australia; the moment I do, I become subject to
> the Constitution of Australia and will immediately gain all human
> rights protected by that document.

"it is not the source of the rights"

What you gain is those protections of your rights that the Constitution of
Australia provides.

> I don't need to earn these rights
> because they existed before your Founding Fathers ever took a pen in
> their hands.

Or the Founding Fathers of Australia.

> The other point I have noticed about rights is that they tend to be
> universally recognized.

I disagree on this one. Many rights are recognized, and many more are not,
at least not to the point of saying you can exercise them.

Try going to North Vietnam and holding a speech critical of the government.

> By this, I mean that, if you hold the
> constitutions of Australia, Germany, the United States, and Bolivia
> side by side and compare them, they all sound pretty much alike in
> terms of semantics.

Sure, and others are vastly different both in language and more importantly
in application.

> It comes as a shock to most US citizens to learn
> that laws protecting individual rights are much stronger in Europe
> than they are here in the US... particularly in the areas of personal
> privacy wrt information mining and the rights of a person accused of a
> crime.

Agreed, but in other areas the laws protecting individual rights in America
are stronger than they are in Europe.

Not sure I see your point other than perhaps both infringe some rights more
excessively than others.

> While US citizens are copious consumers of guns and ammunition, gun
> possession has never been considered a "right" in practice.

Nothing has been a "right" in practice, since all have been subject to
infringements by every government at some time or another.

> Each
> state has its own set of laws; many of them practically nonexistent
> and many quite Draconian... then, individual cities will pass their
> own local laws.

Yep, and now with the acknowledgement of the 2nd and the incorporation of it
under the 14th such laws are being challenged and in some cases overturned.

> Compound that with the fact that no two people will
> ever quite agree on what that sentence actually says and you have a
> mess in which everyone is walking around armed to the teeth and nobody
> pays much attention to the laws.

Sort of like in Europe?

> It isn't really a "right" here; I really don't have any choice but to
> strap on a 9mm and put two extra magazines in my pocket before I go to
> the store because I know the loon next to me in the produce isle is
> armed... and he feels the same way. I suppose it's a right; however,
> it doesn't feel very much like freedom to me.

So you're afraid simply because someone is armed?

Wow, bet you piss yourself when confronted by an armed police officer.

FYI, what you are describing is known as "paranoia".

> We've pretty much made our bed in the US and I doubt anything will get
> better.

Please describe what you consider would be getting better?

> Most people believe that we made a serious mistake;

Freedom is a serious mistake?

> I
> certainly do; however, I don't want to be the first person to be
> disarmed.

Why not? Don't you have the strength of your convictions, or are you just a
blow hard hypocrite?

> Methinks the Aussies have the right general idea with
> fairly strict laws; however, one can obtain a gun... but I doubt it's
> as simple as passing a law. I'd certainly trade with you, though.

Hmm.. and yet we see no real improvement in their crime situation that can
be attributed to gun control laws, or the massive number confiscated and
destroyed.

So where is the benefit from these fairly strict laws other than violating
the rights of people?

[�Jones]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 21:28:55 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>"it is not the source of the rights"
>What you gain is those protections of your rights that the Constitution of

>Australia provides. Or the Founding Fathers of Australia. I disagree on

>this one. Many rights are recognized, and many more are not, at least
>not to the point of saying you can exercise them. Try going to North

>Vietnam and holding a speech critical of the government. Sure, and

>others are vastly different both in language and more importantly in

>application. Agreed, but in other areas the laws protecting individual rights in America

>are stronger than they are in Europe. Not sure I see your point other than perhaps

>both infringe some rights more excessively than others. Nothing has been a "right"

>in practice, since all have been subject to infringements by every government at

>some time or another. Yep, and now with the acknowledgement of the 2nd and

>the incorporation of it under the 14th such laws are being challenged and in some

>cases overturned. Sort of like in Europe? So you're afraid simply because someone

>is armed? Wow, bet you piss yourself when confronted by an armed police officer.

>FYI, what you are describing is known as "paranoia". Please describe
> what you consider would be getting better? Freedom is a serious mistake?

>Why not? Don't you have the strength of your convictions, or are you just a

>blow hard hypocrite? Hmm.. and yet we see no real improvement in their

>crime situation that can be attributed to gun control laws, or the massive
>number confiscated and destroyed. So where is the benefit from these fairly
>strict laws other than violating the rights of people?

When I was a kid, I grew up in Lawton, Oklahoma. One year, I saved my
grass cutting money and bought an almost new J.C. Higgins bicycle with
an honest to gosh Bendix "kick-down" rear hub. Back in those days,
the Bendix was the hottest thing on the road... and no self respecting
*faggot* would be caught wearing Spandex!

Now, Altus, Oklahoma is a little town about 40 miles west of Lawton
and we heard that there was to be a big bicycle race there one
Saturday with a large cash prize over a thousand dollars! Three of us
got up at 5:00 AM and hit the road. Later, we rolled into Altus like
a bunch of wild west gunslingers just as the parade was kicking off
down main street... I guess it was "Main Street"... it was the only
paved one they had, anyway.

We registered for the race, lined up with the rest of the kids, and
<BANG!> we took off with much cheering and yelling.

I'll make a long story short... we came in #1, #2, and #3 by a wide
margin. But there wasn't any cash prize. It was, like, backpacks
full of school supplies donated by the local merchants, only kids
didn't carry backpacks in those days.

Anyway, one of our group had participated in a real bicycle race
before; therefore, we were declared to be *professional* bicycle
racers and, for this reason, not eligible to compete. Well, we were
just fit to blow bubbles! Professional bicycle racers? One of their
junior-high cheerleaders asked me for my autograph!!!

It was one of the greatest days of my life, Scout.

Jones

[�Jones]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:25:37 -0500, in talk.politics.guns
ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:

>The right to life - and the means to protect it is a basic,

>fundamental right. Sadly you will have to gain a bit more

>education to understand this. Unless, of course, you are playing at

>being stupid. I refer you to Mr.'s Hobbes, Locke ans Rousseau. When

>you have finished that a course in American history and the way the FF were
>educated would be next.
>
>Let me know when you have finished.

Hobbes and Locke were English and Rousseau was French, I believe.

I'm not trying to argue with you, sir; quite honestly, I don't know
what the fuck you're talking about.

I think your first sentence is reasonably clear: "The right to life
and the means to protect it [are] basic, fundamental right[s]."

Are you saying that all human beings have a basic, fundamental right
to a gun?

Jones

[Scout]

"�Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:dsdkl89mq78un1v9c...@4ax.com...

IOW, ignore what was said, and change the subject with an irrelevant story.

I acknowledge your capitulation on all the points I raised.

[�Jones]

Well, yeah. Try to imagine a block of granite 100 miles long by 100
miles wide by 100 miles high.Once every 10,000 years a small bird
alights on it to sharpen it's beak.After the last bird has worn away
the last granule of the block this will represent the first second of
Eternity.

Now imagine a mountain of that sand, a million miles high, reaching
from the earth to the farthest heavens, and a million miles broad,
extending to remotest space, and a million miles in thickness; and
imagine such an enormous mass of countless particles of sand
multiplied as often as there are leaves in the forest, drops of water
in the mighty ocean, feathers on birds, scales on fish, hairs on
animals, atoms in the vast expanse of the air: and imagine that at the
end of every million years a little bird came to that mountain and
carried away in its beak a tiny grain of that sand. How many millions
upon millions of centuries would pass before that bird had carried
away even a square foot of that mountain, how many eons upon eons of
ages before it had carried away all? Yet at the end of that immense
stretch of time not even one instant of eternity could be said to have
ended. At the end of all those billions and trillions of years
eternity would have scarcely begun.

It's an allegory, Scout. Do you see my point?

That's OK, buddy... I can't find yours, either.

Jones

[Scout]

"�Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:6ckkl85nj9musp5s6...@4ax.com...

No, because I really don't see how your story about riding bikes has
anything to do with the nature of rights, their protections, or the points I
raised.

I mean really are you telling me the type of hub you boys had on your bikes
really had any connection to the issues under discussion?

Yet you spend an inordinate amount of time telling me how you worked to buy
one and how they let you and your buddies win the race only to be
disqualified because one of you didn't meet the rules even though I
seriously doubt that a child's bike race would be a team event as you seemed
to claim.

Anyway, I suggest you go back and try again and this time without the
bullshit diversions. You can either address my points directly...or you've
lost.

[�Jones]

OK. I have just never learned to read that style of posting wherein
one pastes his... err... "points" all over and into the existing text,
that's all. Then, my reader tries to clean it up and your writing
ends up as a single paragraph which makes no more sense than the
original.

I'm not telling you how to write, mind you; I'm just saying that I'm
unable (and unwilling) to follow noncontiguous sentences in an attempt
to derive what you're trying to say. You may continue to paste
sentence fragments into my writing if that brings you fulfillment;
just don't get your panties in a wad when I can't read it because I
have told you that explicitly.

So... what was this point you would like for me to address?

Jones

[ozark...@yahoo.com]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:26:01 -0500, �Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:25:37 -0500, in talk.politics.guns
>ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>The right to life - and the means to protect it is a basic,
>>fundamental right. Sadly you will have to gain a bit more
>>education to understand this. Unless, of course, you are playing at
>>being stupid. I refer you to Mr.'s Hobbes, Locke ans Rousseau. When
>>you have finished that a course in American history and the way the FF were
>>educated would be next.
>>
>>Let me know when you have finished.
>
>Hobbes and Locke were English and Rousseau was French, I believe.
>
>I'm not trying to argue with you, sir; quite honestly, I don't know
>what the fuck you're talking about.

Quite apparent.

>
>I think your first sentence is reasonably clear: "The right to life
>and the means to protect it [are] basic, fundamental right[s]."
>
>Are you saying that all human beings have a basic, fundamental right
>to a gun?

As I said earlier:

The right to defend one's self is a fundamental right. For a
government to recognize that right - yet to take away the very means
to do so is the problem.

[Scout]

"�Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:74hll8541rajk5ojr...@4ax.com...

Come back when you wish to hold a real discussion.

[︰ones]

I can't read your mind, Scout.

I think that the issue is that we have divergent definitions of the
term "discussion". You have been on this forum for at least fifteen
years that I know of; it might be closer to twenty. During that
period of time, I have never seen you post an original essay. Your
version of discussing a topic is limited to sniping at the edges of
other people's writing.

I don't usually take your "points" seriously, Scout, because they tend
to come across as a wad of one-line, sticky notes as opposed to
serious writing. You can't develop an idea in a pasted sentence
fragment, sir; yet, you seem to expect me to write to each phrase you
paste into my writing as if it makes sense.

My newsreader, by default, strips out previous text. The problem here
is that a sticky note loses its meaning if it's removed from the
object to which it was adhered. Now, I believe you have some points
to make and I do not think you're stupid. I just can't make sense of
your writing when it's pasted all over another document. Yes, I know
many people write thus... *many* people should learn to write.

Now, if you want to make a point, please feel free to do so at this
time.

Jones

[Scout]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
news:ic0ol8hbd21vkbj26...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:51:48 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> So... what was this point you would like for me to address?
>>
>>Come back when you wish to hold a real discussion.
>
> I can't read your mind, Scout.

Apparently you can't read what I write either.

> I think that the issue is that we have divergent definitions of the
> term "discussion". You have been on this forum for at least fifteen
> years that I know of; it might be closer to twenty. During that
> period of time, I have never seen you post an original essay.

So you think an essay is a 'discussion'?

Discussion - n - 1. talk between people: a talk between two or more people
about a subject, usually to exchange ideas or reach a conclusion, or talk of
this kind

Essay - n - 1. short nonfiction prose piece: a short analytic, descriptive,
or interpretive piece of literary or journalistic prose dealing with a
specific topic, especially from a personal and unsystematic viewpoint

And essay isn't a discussion. It may lead to a discussion, but it's not a
discussion.

<snip>

Try again when you can show you know what you're talking about and willing
to hold a discussion.

[︰ones]

OK, I'll agree with you... for the sake of the discussion, anyway.
Actually, case in point: my essay about our trip to Altus, OK wasn't a
discussion and I'm aware of that. Of course, it's not a pile of
sticky notes, either, is it, Scout?

What point is it, exactly, that you'd like to discuss? Now, I'm
offering you the chance to suggest a topic... you know, dude, you did
raise that issue in your last sentence, above.

You see, Scout, every day, I face a classroom full of uneducated,
unwilling, undergraduates and I try to teach them how to write good...
this is not an easy task.

But, then... they, like you, lack a clue how to begin.

OK, consider Joe. Joe gets popped with a trunk loaded full of bricks
fresh out of Mexico... the dogs sniff 'em out. Joe is charged, pleads
guilty, and is sentenced by a jury to two years of which he serves
sixteen months and eight months on parole.

Joe goes to community college, gets his associates degree and a job.
He works hard, gets married, has three kids, buys a house, and so on.

Now, under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America, what, exactly, are Joe's rights? Does he have the
right to defend himself? If so, does he have a basic right to the
means by which to defend himself and his family?

I say that he does. What do you think? Would you care to discuss
that?

Jones

[Scout]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:tgfpl89u773dje0ci...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 18:14:31 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>So you think an essay is a 'discussion'?
>>
>>Discussion - n - 1. talk between people: a talk between two or more people
>>about a subject, usually to exchange ideas or reach a conclusion, or talk
>>of
>>this kind
>>
>>Essay - n - 1. short nonfiction prose piece: a short analytic,
>>descriptive,
>>or interpretive piece of literary or journalistic prose dealing with a
>>specific topic, especially from a personal and unsystematic viewpoint
>>
>>And essay isn't a discussion. It may lead to a discussion, but it's not a
>>discussion.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Try again when you can show you know what you're talking about and willing
>>to hold a discussion.
>
> OK, I'll agree with you... for the sake of the discussion, anyway.
> Actually, case in point: my essay about our trip to Altus, OK wasn't a
> discussion and I'm aware of that. Of course, it's not a pile of
> sticky notes, either, is it, Scout?

No, it was simply an evasion. As is this whole thread at this point. You are
desperately looking for reasons to talk about anything other than the
subject that was under discussion because you simply could no longer refute,
address or even handle the points I was making.

>
> What point is it, exactly, that you'd like to discuss? Now, I'm
> offering you the chance to suggest a topic... you know, dude, you did
> raise that issue in your last sentence, above.

Ok...How about you go back to my response just prior to your long winded
evasion about your trip to Altus and actually address the points I made?

If you won't then clearly you're not interested in a discussion.

[︰ones]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:01:25 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>No, it was simply an evasion. As is this whole thread at this point. You are
>desperately looking for reasons to talk about anything other than the
>subject that was under discussion because you simply could no longer refute,

>address or even handle the points I was making. Ok...How about you go

>back to my response just prior to your long winded evasion about your trip
>to Altus and actually address the points I made?
>
>If you won't then clearly you're not interested in a discussion.

That style of writing is called "stream of consciousness"; I call it
unrelated sentence fragments. I suppose it worked for Joyce and
Pynchon, but I couldn't read your contribution. Read back over your
"points" and choose one of them; develop that point. Start with your
thesis sentence and support it.

*You* know what these points are to which you refer; however, I do
not. You have to write them out for me because I have never been a
fan of Joyce... he's real work for me to read.

Jones

[Scout]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message

news:11pql8p4ufajlv21d...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:01:25 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>No, it was simply an evasion. As is this whole thread at this point. You
>>are
>>desperately looking for reasons to talk about anything other than the
>>subject that was under discussion because you simply could no longer
>>refute,
>>address or even handle the points I was making. Ok...How about you go
>>back to my response just prior to your long winded evasion about your trip
>>to Altus and actually address the points I made?
>>
>>If you won't then clearly you're not interested in a discussion.
>
>
> That style of writing is called "stream of consciousness"; I call it
> unrelated sentence fragments.

I acknowledge your lack of desire for further conversation.

<plonk>

[︰ones]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:21:57 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>I acknowledge your lack of desire for further conversation.
>
><plonk>

I will certainly acknowledge the obvious: I cannot read your writing.
I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse; I just can't find any of
these "points" you apparently wish to discuss anywhere in your
postings.

Try this: copy the following line and paste it into a reply:
"My point is "

Now, to that line, append the point that you would like me to discuss
with you. Please use complete sentences. Take as many lines as you
need to develop your point.

But, Scout... don't walk out in a snit until you have told me what
your point actually is because I do not know that critical bit of
information.

Crap! I believe that the lad has "plonked" me! I *hate* it when that
happens!

Jones

[Gray Guest]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in
news:11pql8p4ufajlv21d...@4ax.com:

Considering you started out on this group with a big lie, phuque off.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Gray Guest]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:gbnrl8thkfl41vis3ojb0m8ugj4kej1q3r@
4ax.com:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:21:57 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>I acknowledge your lack of desire for further conversation.
>>
>><plonk>
>
> I will certainly acknowledge the obvious: I cannot read your writing.
> I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse; I just can't find any of
> these "points" you apparently wish to discuss anywhere in your
> postings.

Then you're an ass. Or the lies have corrupted your mind.

[︰ones]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 01:58:07 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:

>Considering you started out on this group with a big lie, phuque off.

I was here many years before you were here, Laddie.

I say... where are you on this one:

Consider Joe. Joe gets popped back in the '70s with a trunk loaded

full of bricks fresh out of Mexico... the dogs sniff 'em out. Joe is
charged, pleads guilty, and is sentenced by a jury to two years of
which he serves sixteen months and eight months on parole.

Later, Joe goes to community college, gets his associates degree and a

job. He works hard, gets married, has three kids, buys a house, and so

on and so fourth.

Now, under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America, what, exactly, are Joe's rights? Does he have the
right to defend himself? If so, does he have a basic right to the
means by which to defend himself and his family?

Now, it's my position that Joe has the basic right to self defense.
This means that I absolutely support arming convicted felons.

Will you tell Joe that he must, because of a conviction 40 some odd
years ago, stand by and watch his wife be raped by a gang of home
invaders simply because you dislike the idea of him being armed? Is
his wife somehow at fault? How did she deserve that fate?

I say that convicted felons have absolute constitutional rights the
same as yours or mine. I say that, if they were ever rights in the
first place, they cannot lose them.

Are you any better than Scout was? I hope so... that girl was about
to bore the tits offa me: "Oh noooo... you won't discuss my points,"
she wailed.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:11esl8h87varmblev2527ut3jp281hhjnu@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 01:58:07 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
> Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Considering you started out on this group with a big lie, phuque off.
>
> I was here many years before you were here, Laddie.
>
> I say... where are you on this one:
>
> Consider Joe. Joe gets popped back in the '70s with a trunk loaded
> full of bricks fresh out of Mexico... the dogs sniff 'em out. Joe is
> charged, pleads guilty, and is sentenced by a jury to two years of
> which he serves sixteen months and eight months on parole.
>
> Later, Joe goes to community college, gets his associates degree and a
> job. He works hard, gets married, has three kids, buys a house, and so
> on and so fourth.
>
> Now, under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United
> States of America, what, exactly, are Joe's rights? Does he have the
> right to defend himself? If so, does he have a basic right to the
> means by which to defend himself and his family?
>
> Now, it's my position that Joe has the basic right to self defense.
> This means that I absolutely support arming convicted felons.

Yet, currently, loss of RKBA is part and parcel of his conviction. Now,
in some states, he can get that right back in time. In other states, he
must petition the court for a hearing.

In any case, he is not prohibited if (1) under the law where the
conviction occurred, the person has been pardoned, the conviction has
been expunged or set aside, or the person has had civil rights (the right
to vote, sit on a jury or hold public office) restored AND (2) the person
is not prohibited by the law where the conviction occurred from receiving
or possessing firearms.


I, too, support felons getting their RKBA back except in the case of a
violent crime conviction. In that situation they have shown a tendency
to "fix" problems with violence. That case would take a lot longer to
arrive at the conclusion that incarceration "cured" him of his
wrongdoing.

> Will you tell Joe that he must, because of a conviction 40 some odd
> years ago, stand by and watch his wife be raped by a gang of home
> invaders simply because you dislike the idea of him being armed? Is
> his wife somehow at fault? How did she deserve that fate?

There is no reason his wife could not be armed.

> I say that convicted felons have absolute constitutional rights the
> same as yours or mine. I say that, if they were ever rights in the
> first place, they cannot lose them.

However, they can lose the option of exercising them.

> Are you any better than Scout was? I hope so... that girl was about
> to bore the tits offa me: "Oh noooo... you won't discuss my points,"
> she wailed.
>
> Jones
>
>

--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Gray Guest]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:11esl8h87varmblev2527ut3jp281hhjnu@
4ax.com:

> I was here many years before you were here, Laddie.

Lesse, the first I heard of you you were in here lieing about being and
insurance anaylyst telling us statitically dangerous it was to own a gun.

So yeah, phuque off.

[︰ones]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:30:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Yet, currently, loss of RKBA is part and parcel of his conviction. Now,
>in some states, he can get that right back in time. In other states, he
>must petition the court for a hearing.
>
>In any case, he is not prohibited if (1) under the law where the
>conviction occurred, the person has been pardoned, the conviction has
>been expunged or set aside, or the person has had civil rights (the right
>to vote, sit on a jury or hold public office) restored AND (2) the person
>is not prohibited by the law where the conviction occurred from receiving
>or possessing firearms.
>
>
>I, too, support felons getting their RKBA back except in the case of a
>violent crime conviction. In that situation they have shown a tendency
>to "fix" problems with violence. That case would take a lot longer to
>arrive at the conclusion that incarceration "cured" him of his

>wrongdoing. There is no reason his wife could not be armed.

>However, they can lose the option of exercising them.

I understand that your posting reflects the current legal facts...
what you write is an accurate summation. Whether or not his wife
could have been armed or not is a thorny issue in a community property
state. Right now, I think she could be; however... well, always try
to anticipate the other side's argument, I say. He owns everything
his wife owns. In reality, if she has possession, so does he. That
logic is right around the corner, anyway. I can get from where we are
now to that point pretty quickly... but that wasn't my point.

Here is my problem: the loss of rights is accomplished via legislative
fiat. I.e.: regardless of the jury's sentence, the loss of rights is
simply tacked onto the sentence administratively. Now, if the jury
had decided that the person was to lose these rights for a period of
time (including life,) then I would accept that the person had, in
fact, received his or her day in court and had, through due process,
lost those rights.

When a person is convicted by a jury of any crime, the jury may also
assess a reasonable punitive consequence... examples of that might
include a fine (loss of property,) jail time (loss of freedom,) in the
most egregious cases, death (loss of life.) It would certainly be
reasonable, in my opinion, to include the loss of the right to own a
gun for whatever period of time the jury should impose; I don't have a
bit of problem with that.

My issue stems from arbitrarily tacking it on as "part and parcel of
[the] conviction." I suggest that this was not part of the jury's
decision, but something the legislature decided to do. Yes, I suppose
that the legislature can make such a decision because they obviously
did.

This means that the precedent has been set.

Jones

[︰ones]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 00:33:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:

>Lesse, the first I heard of you you were in here lieing about being and
>insurance anaylyst telling us statitically dangerous it was to own a gun.
>
>So yeah, phuque off.

Well, I am knowledgable about insurance form a former life, I suppose;
however... what causes you to bring that up? On Usenet, you will
always run into the "expert factor"; at least, one sees people waving
their degrees. Just for the record, I have never paid much attention
to these people and don't think you should, either.

Was there something in particular you wanted to say?

Oh, well... one sees lot's of *that*, also. Have a nice day.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in
news:sviul85jvi7tgocd9...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:30:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Yet, currently, loss of RKBA is part and parcel of his conviction.
>>Now, in some states, he can get that right back in time. In other
>>states, he must petition the court for a hearing.
>>
>>In any case, he is not prohibited if (1) under the law where the
>>conviction occurred, the person has been pardoned, the conviction has
>>been expunged or set aside, or the person has had civil rights (the
>>right to vote, sit on a jury or hold public office) restored AND (2)
>>the person is not prohibited by the law where the conviction occurred
>>from receiving or possessing firearms.
>>
>>
>>I, too, support felons getting their RKBA back except in the case of a
>>violent crime conviction. In that situation they have shown a
>>tendency to "fix" problems with violence. That case would take a lot
>>longer to arrive at the conclusion that incarceration "cured" him of
>>his wrongdoing. There is no reason his wife could not be armed.
>>However, they can lose the option of exercising them.
>
> I understand that your posting reflects the current legal facts...
> what you write is an accurate summation. Whether or not his wife
> could have been armed or not is a thorny issue in a community property
> state.

Even works in California.

Right now, I think she could be; however... well, always try
> to anticipate the other side's argument, I say. He owns everything
> his wife owns. In reality, if she has possession, so does he.

Pretty much true.

That
> logic is right around the corner, anyway. I can get from where we are
> now to that point pretty quickly... but that wasn't my point.
>
> Here is my problem: the loss of rights is accomplished via legislative
> fiat. I.e.: regardless of the jury's sentence, the loss of rights is
> simply tacked onto the sentence administratively. Now, if the jury
> had decided that the person was to lose these rights for a period of
> time (including life,) then I would accept that the person had, in
> fact, received his or her day in court and had, through due process,
> lost those rights.

Same when that situation is written into the law via legislation and
there is an opportunity to get a hearing on it after sentence is served.

> When a person is convicted by a jury of any crime, the jury may also
> assess a reasonable punitive consequence... examples of that might
> include a fine (loss of property,)

That is a civil remedy.

jail time (loss of freedom,) in the
> most egregious cases, death (loss of life.)

These last two are criminal remedies.

It would certainly be
> reasonable, in my opinion, to include the loss of the right to own a
> gun for whatever period of time the jury should impose; I don't have a
> bit of problem with that.
>
> My issue stems from arbitrarily tacking it on as "part and parcel of
> [the] conviction." I suggest that this was not part of the jury's
> decision, but something the legislature decided to do. Yes, I suppose
> that the legislature can make such a decision because they obviously
> did.

It has been that way for decades. It is not new. Felons have been
prohibited possessors of firearms, holding public office, etc.. since
1968 or longer.

> This means that the precedent has been set.
>
> Jones
>
>

[Gray Guest]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:961vl8doui9650scl468eovroht44h9iai@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 00:33:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
> Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Lesse, the first I heard of you you were in here lieing about being and
>>insurance anaylyst telling us statitically dangerous it was to own a gun.
>>
>>So yeah, phuque off.
>
> Well, I am knowledgable about insurance form a former life, I suppose;
> however... what causes you to bring that up? On Usenet, you will
> always run into the "expert factor"; at least, one sees people waving
> their degrees. Just for the record, I have never paid much attention
> to these people and don't think you should, either.

You lied consistently for some time. Your credibility is zilch.

> Was there something in particular you wanted to say?

Yes you have zero cred.

>
> Oh, well... one sees lot's of *that*, also. Have a nice day.
>
> Jones
>
>

[︰ones]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:43:37 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:

>You lied consistently for some time. Your credibility is zilch. Yes you have zero cred.

That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about your opinions of
me, personally. But, please... this is not our topic of discussion.

I meant: did you want to contribute anything to *that*. Nobody cares
what we think of each other.

Jones

[︰ones]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:16:10 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Even works in California. Pretty much true. Same when that situation

>is written into the law via legislation and there is an opportunity to get

>a hearing on it after sentence is served. That is a civil remedy. These
>last two are criminal remedies. It has been that way for decades. It is

>not new. Felons have been prohibited possessors of firearms, holding
>public office, etc.. since 1968 or longer.

Sorry. What works in California?

Jones

[︰ones]

By the way, I have the same issue with *all* legislatively mandated
punishments. For example: some states automatically doubled a second
offender's sentence; however, state supreme courts have usually ruled
that this isn't binding on the judicial system.

My problem with a legislative body actually passing a sentence goes to
separation of powers; the legislature writes the law and places an
upper bound on a sentence; however, within that range, the sentence
comes from the jury. The legislature may double the upper bound for a
repeat offender, but they cannot arbitrarily double the sentence.

I don't know what SCOTUS would do with it; however, state supreme
courts have certainly thrown out mandatory sentences when the jury has
chosen to return a lesser sentence.

Jones

[Gray Guest]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in
news:kbm3m8d9qunq13uph...@4ax.com:

It has to do with your veracity.

Since we know you are a known liar, why should anything you say be
beleived?

[︰ones]

Being you must be a bitch, Guest... you just have to live with people
like me in your world.

But... hey, I believe in inclusion. Mind that door on your way out;
it hit some kid in the arse last week and I wouldn't want to see that
happen again.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in
news:dhm3m8hc9n9amri8i...@4ax.com:

If you hadn't snipped the paragraph just before my comment, you would
have known. Here it is:

> I understand that your posting reflects the current legal facts...
> what you write is an accurate summation. Whether or not his wife
> could have been armed or not is a thorny issue in a community property
> state.

Make more sense now? ;)

[RD Sandman]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:qi04m81u45hu88lmttougfe2ilqgcr71cd@
4ax.com:

Well, Loughner, here in Tucson, was given seven consecutive life terms
plus 140 years for the shooting where Gabby Giffords was shot.

[�Jones]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:25:40 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>If you hadn't snipped the paragraph just before my comment, you would

>have known. Here it is: Make more sense now? ;)

No, but I'll manage to get over it.

Jones

[�Jones]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:28:19 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Well, Loughner, here in Tucson, was given seven consecutive life terms
>plus 140 years for the shooting where Gabby Giffords was shot.

Awwwww... !

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the sentence of a jury? I
lack a bit of issue with it. I said that my problem occurred when a
sentence is *automatically* increased by the legislature. If the
legislature increases the upper bound and the jury thinks that it's
appropriate, then I'm fine with it.

I do have a problem with the idea that, should Loughner actually serve
his sentence, he couldn't legally own a gun because that's something
tacked onto the sentence by our law makers, not part of the jury's
decision.

Jones

[Dechucka]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 03:05:02 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in

news:kbm3m8d9qunq13uph...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:43:37 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
> Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You lied consistently for some time. Your credibility is zilch. Yes you
>>have zero cred.
>
> That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about your opinions of
> me, personally. But, please... this is not our topic of discussion.
>
> I meant: did you want to contribute anything to *that*. Nobody cares
> what we think of each other.
>
> Jones
>
>

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:49:32 PM UTC-4, Dechucka wrote:
>
> Simple principle you cannot fight the US military with the weaponry you are
> allowed

Who said we would restrict ourselves to the weaponry we are allowed.
If it comes to civil war, we aren't going to fight by the rules the
other side made.

[Dechucka]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:43:37 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in

news:961vl8doui9650scl468eovroht44h9iai@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 00:33:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Gray
> Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Lesse, the first I heard of you you were in here lieing about being and
>>insurance anaylyst telling us statitically dangerous it was to own a gun.
>>
>>So yeah, phuque off.
>
> Well, I am knowledgable about insurance form a former life, I suppose;
> however... what causes you to bring that up? On Usenet, you will
> always run into the "expert factor"; at least, one sees people waving
> their degrees. Just for the record, I have never paid much attention
> to these people and don't think you should, either.

"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
news:ia35m8146867ufmqu...@4ax.com...
> On 8 Apr 2013 04:12:18 -0500, "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"FEMA Camp Commander. Welcome to Agenda 21" <smapper...@gmail.com>
>>wrote
>>in message news:0cea8509-5bab-4a83...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:55:46 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 7:38:01 PM UTC-4, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Interesting to note that law enforcement has been able to stop a
>>>> > number of planned school shootings before they have
>>>> > occurred...congrats to said departments for a great job.
>>>> > You folks have a tough, tough job.
>>>> > Unfortunately it is only time before another one happens...innocent
>>>> > children to be murdered by a gun loon with a NRA sanctioned gun.
>>>> > So what happens after the next mass murder gun loons...I predict that
>>>> > it will be yet another nail in the coffin of the wet dreams of gun
>>>> > loons who want their toy guns.
>>>> > America and I are okay with that...grown men playing with toys
>>>> > instead
>>>> > of working to benefit society...what the hell is wrong with you?
>>>> > TMT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know where the next mass school shooting will be but it is a
>>>> stone cold lead pipe lock that it will be in a >>Gun Free, Free-Fire,
>>>> Defenseless Victim Zone.
>> >>one of the million businesses, 100,000 public schools, or 1000
>> >>colleges
>>.. 76m homes?
>>> Americans don't want to live in a Iraq war zone shit hole like the one
>>> the
>>> NRA wants to endorse to sell more guns.
>>
>>The NRA doesn't sell guns. American buy them because it is their right to
>>own them for target
>>shooting, hunting and self defense.
>>A right that has been confirmed by recent Supreme Court decisions.
>>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/nra-gun-manufacturers_b_2468565.html
>
> The NRA is actually a hybrid organization. It is primarily a corporate
> lobby group working on behalf of the gun and ammo manufacturers,
> similar to the trade associations that represent car manufacturers,
> chemical companies, banks, insurance companies, and other industries.
> All of them claim to do what's best for the consumers of their
> products -- indeed, for many years the tobacco lobby funded astro-turf
> "smokers' rights" groups -- but everyone knows that they primarily
> serve the interests of the corporations who fund and govern them.
>
> Unlike these other trade associations, the NRA is also a membership
> organization of gun owners, which the media frequently point out.
> Reporters often quote NRA members or mention that political candidates
> and office-holders are NRA members, giving the impression that the
> organization speaks for Americans who own guns. For example, a May 5
> Times piece said, "Teachers have the American Federation of Teachers.
> Gun owners have the N.R.A. The older population has AARP," emphasizing
> the NRA's role as a membership organization. Another Times story, from
> December 20, described the NRA as "a four-million-member group that
> has one of Washington's most powerful, well-financed lobbying arms."
> On December 21, the Daily News called the NRA a "4.3 million member
> gun owners group." In an April 1 article about CEO pay among lobby
> groups, the Washington Post reported that its "analysis was limited to
> trade organizations charged with representing the interests of
> industries, and excluded single companies or pressure groups backed by
> individual paid members, such as the National Rifle Association."
>
> The Post's description is exactly what NRA officials want the public
> to believe. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's combative $970,000-a-year CEO,
> typically describes the organization as the voice of gun owners or as
> a "gun owners rights" organization that works to protect and defend
> the Second Amendment rights of Americans to buy and own guns.
>
> But this is a misleading description of the NRA. Whereas almost every
> gun and ammo manufacturer has close ties to the NRA, only a tiny
> proportion of the nation's gun owners are NRA members. About 90
> million Americans own guns. The NRA claims to have about four million
> members, although the media have never bothered to verify that figure.
> Even if this number is accurate, however, it represents only 4.4
> percent of all gun owners.

Of course the NRA has close ties to the gun and ammo manufactures,
without the Second Amendment they would be out of business.
Need I remind you of past efforts by the gun grabbers to force gun
manufacturers to produce the "safe gun", that only the owner of the
gun could fire? A gun so riddled with potential technical failures as
to
make it
useless. And how about bullet microstamping, totally useless in
tracing
a bullet but would significantly drive up the cost of ammunition.
So it makes perfect sense for the industry and the NRA to have close
ties.


> And, according to recent surveys -- including one by Republican
> pollster Frank Luntz -- very few NRA members agree with the
> organization's stances on gun control. According to Luntz's survey,
> for example, 82 percent of gun owners -- and 74 percent of NRA members
> -- said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun
> purchasers, contrary to the NRA's position on the issue.

NRA members support background chest for mental issues but NOT for
all the other requirements being proposed, like background checks for
private sales and transfers between family members. All this is just
more
red tape designed to make gun ownership more difficult by creating new
crimes
for failing to follow the rediculous law.

> Despite the NRA's best efforts, gun ownership has been declining. The
> media has reported that gun sales have increased since the Newtown
> shooting, and that some gun owners have been stockpiling guns and
> ammunition out of fear, stoked by the NRA, that the Obama
> administration and Congress might soon pass tougher gun control laws.
> But these short-term trends mask a wider reality. The number of
> American households that own guns declined from almost 50 percent in
> 1973 to just over 32 percent in 2010, according to a 2011 study by
> National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

I doubt anything coming out of the University of Chicago, the anti-gun
state.
Illinois is one oof the few states that has no recipical agreement
with
other
states for concealed carry. I doubt the liberals at the U of C would
produce
a pro-gun survey result.
Nationwide gun ownership has been climbing since the 1994 Assault
Weapons
Ban awakened people to the threat to their Second Amendment Rights.

> Moreover, gun ownership is highly concentrated. Twenty percent of gun
> owners possess about 65 percent of the nation's guns. The NRA is able
> to mobilize a small but very rabid and vocal group of gun owners -- as
> well as owners of gun shops -- to attend rallies, write letters to
> newspapers and comments on blog sites, and contact elected officials.
> Josh Sugarman, executive director of the nonprofit Violence Policy
> Center who has written extensively about the NRA, says that the
> organization's most vocal members -- the NRA's "public face" -- are a
> small proportion of its members for whom "guns are their life."

That has become the main purpose of the NRA, to lobby for gun rights.
Currently there are about 13,000 lobbyists in Washinton representing
thousands of special interest groups, among them the NRA.
And individual gun owners certainly have a right to speak out against
any restrictions on their constitutional right to own guns and use
them for
any legal purpose including self defense from the criminal element in
our
society.

> But when the NRA has had to choose between the interests of its
> corporate sponsors and the safety of its gun-owning members, its
> loyalty to the gunmakers reveals its true colors.

Oh, Hogwash!

> In 2005, the NRA and the firearms manufacturers successfully lobbied
> for a law that provided gun manufacturers and distributors immunity
> from lawsuits from victims of gun violence -- legislation sponsored by
> GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, an NRA board member, and signed by
> President George W. Bush in October of that year. Little remembered,
> however, is that the NRA also lobbied for an amendment to that bill to
> limit the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries to consumers
> caused by defective guns, a provision (which ultimately didn't pass)
> that would make it impossible for gun owners to sue the manufacturers.

That idiotic legislation was designed to allow lawsuits against gun
manufacturers
for the illegal uses of their products, not for any product deficiency
reason.
We don't sue auto or any other manufacturers for the illegal use of
their
products,
so it would be insane to allow suing gun manufacturers for the misuse
of
their
products over which they have no control. The whole purpose of that
legislation was to sue gun manufacturers out of business.

> This is not surprising. Rank-and-file NRA members have no significant
> voice in the organization's decision-making, which is the province of
> its highly-paid staff and board.

NRA members vote with their wallets, by joining or quiting the
organozation.

> They don't decide which candidates the NRA should endorse or what
> legislation it should support or oppose. In fact, the NRA has
> disenfranchised its rank-and-file by limiting the right to vote for
> board members to those who have been NRA members for at least five
> years or who are lifetime members, a fraction of its overall
> membership.
>
> There are few rank-and-file gun owners on the NRA 75-member board,
> which is dominated by representatives of gun and ammunition makers,
> staffpersons for industry-affiliated organizations and publications,
> and lobbyists, politicians, and ex-politicians with links to the
> industry. (The board also includes such celebrities as actors Tom
> Selleck, and Church Norris, radio host Oliver North, former NBA star
> Karl Malone, and singer Ted Nugent).
>
> For example NRA board member Steve Hornady is President of Hornady
> Ammunition, which manufacturers "FMJ" armor piercing bullets for sale
> on the civilian market.
>
> Board member Ronnie Barrett is founder and CEO of Barrett Firearms
> Manufacturing Inc., and designer of the .50 caliber sniper rifle.
>
> Pete Brownell, president of Brownells, Inc., the world's largest
> supplier of firearm parts, gunsmithing tools, equipment and
> accessories, also sits on the NRA board.
>
> Over the past decade, the NRA has increasingly relied on contributions
> from "corporate partners" to fund its political activities, which are
> designed to elect politicians who oppose restrictions on gun sales and
> use and scare gun owners that the government may soon restrict sales
> of, or even confiscate, weapons, hoping to mobilize them to buy more
> guns, donate to the NRA, and vote for the "pro-gun" candidates its
> leaders decide to endorse.

It's no secrest that the government is intent upon eliminating the
Second
Amendment, so quit your whining.


> Among the NRA's "corporate partners" are both large and small gun and
> ammunition manufacturers, including Arsenal, Inc., Benelli, Beretta
> USA, Corporation, Browning, Freedom Group (making of the Bushmaster
> rifle used in the Newtown, CT massacre), Glock Inc., Marlin Firearms,
> Midway USa (distributor of high-capacity magazine clips), Remington
> Arms Co., Smith & Wesson Corporation, Springfield Armory, and, Sturm,
> Ruger & Co.

[RD Sandman]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:17d6m8p6bc3h166v7oqdhqfhm84s6dm6uc@
4ax.com:

YOu snipped it again. No wonder you are having trouble. ;)

We had mentioned a wife owning firearms if her husband was a felon and I
said, yes, she could:

You said:

"Whether or not his wife
> could have been armed or not is a thorny issue in a community property
> state.

I said:

Even works in California.

OK?

Trust me I know........

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:l9d6m8lpss9lqc9qhsh3hmd9862b15maf0@
4ax.com:

Good luck changing it. It has been that way for decades. Used to be in
the 1800s that you got your gun(s) back when you got let out but those
days have been gone for awhile.

FWIW, as I said, I agree with you on crimes other than violent ones.
That person has already shown a tendency to solve crimes with force.

[Gray Guest]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:fvc5m89qs8i3e0an8mt5h3bftadteroitg@
4ax.com:

I don't. Liars are right out.

[�Jones]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:36:25 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>YOu snipped it again. No wonder you are having trouble. ;)
>
>We had mentioned a wife owning firearms if her husband was a felon and I
>said, yes, she could:
>
>You said:
>

>"Whether or not his wife I said:
>
>Even works in California.
>
>OK?
>
>Trust me I know........

Well, my reader strips out older text. I noticed that it is easier
now to find the other person's actual writing; some people, for some
reason, will let a posting grow to hundreds of lines and the actual
payload will be a single sentence. On the other hand, when the other
person's writing depends on mine for its meaning and mine gets
stripped out, the other person's writing is garbled... lots of people
also do that.

There isn't any perfect solution.

Jones

[�Jones]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:38:29 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Good luck changing it. It has been that way for decades. Used to be in
>the 1800s that you got your gun(s) back when you got let out but those
>days have been gone for awhile.
>
>FWIW, as I said, I agree with you on crimes other than violent ones.
>That person has already shown a tendency to solve crimes with force.

I'm not on board with the "other than violent [crimes]," bit... if
it's a part of the punishment, then let the jury do it. I don't care
if we confiscate people's guns for parking tickets; however, the
legislative branch passes the law and the judicial branch will decide
on a reasonable punitive action up to the limit provided.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:e618m81e7pml5294clibtjrvracblb83am@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:36:25 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>YOu snipped it again. No wonder you are having trouble. ;)
>>
>>We had mentioned a wife owning firearms if her husband was a felon and
I
>>said, yes, she could:
>>
>>You said:
>>
>>"Whether or not his wife I said:
>>
>>Even works in California.
>>
>>OK?
>>
>>Trust me I know........
>
> Well, my reader strips out older text.

It was right above your response......oh, well, blame it on your reader.
Forte Agent version 1.8, I see. I used to use Agent.

I noticed that it is easier
> now to find the other person's actual writing; some people, for some
> reason, will let a posting grow to hundreds of lines and the actual
> payload will be a single sentence. On the other hand, when the other
> person's writing depends on mine for its meaning and mine gets
> stripped out, the other person's writing is garbled... lots of people
> also do that.
>
> There isn't any perfect solution.
>
> Jones
>
>

[RD Sandman]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:kn18m85dhs5q31k4bmgl5n617b0qe5dlj2@
4ax.com:

How would you handle a non-jury trial? Or a judicial hearing?

[�Jones]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:15:37 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>It was right above your response......oh, well, blame it on your reader.
>Forte Agent version 1.8, I see. I used to use Agent.

Yeah, that was an open source version. It's almost 15 years old;
however, it's a simple little reader with which you can do anything.
I don't "blame" it... I thought it was pretty good programming,
personally. I'm proud of it.

You post however you please and I'll post as *I* please... fair
enough?

Jones

[�Jones]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:16:51 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>How would you handle a non-jury trial? Or a judicial hearing?

A person may choose not to have a jury. In that case, the accused
person has a right to a jury trial; however, there may be a reason he
or she makes a different choice. It's like non-judicial punishment
under the UCMJ; the individual has to accept it freely. If that's not
so, then I would oppose it.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in
news:ueh9m8denop0oh6va...@4ax.com:

Has it or I ever been unfair to you?

[�Jones]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:56:05 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Has it or I ever been unfair to you?

Absolutely not, sir! I am a firm believer in a person's rights as an
individual. You have yours and I have mine... may it always remain
thus!

Jones

[RD Sandman]

�Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:8uebm8l4o7u0g1i06akj25jiae4e08fbqv@
4ax.com:

Cheers!!