Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 10
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 129

Thread: Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    USAM > Title 9 > USAM Chapter 9-110.000 - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Read it, and print out a copy for your lazy-ass cop friend who, even with a whole US Code section devoted to fighting organized crime, still wants to trash the Constitution to make his job easier. This law was good enough to bring down the Gotti gang, as well as many other highly organized criminal enterprises since its enactment in 1970. It ought to be a plenty big "tool box" to take down a bunch of crack-addled kids and ex-cons without trampling any further on the Constitution.

    I am sure I will regret replying again, but the consistent mistakes and erroneous statements of "fact" that are 180° out of phase with real facts is more than I can sit quietly by for. One of them being, "I'm certainly not going to try to portray the Supreme's as omnipotent, but their decisions are final."

    I thought you said you "love" the Constitution. If that were true, surely you would oppose one of the three "co-equal" branches of government having the authority to make final decisions. Don't you even see that the two premises are mutually-exclusive?

    Whether you see it or not, the writer(s) of the Constitution foresaw that which you have managed to remain woefully ignorant of.

    Article III, Section II, Clause II of The Constitution of the United States of America says:

    "2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


    The above is precisely why Marbury was such a flawed ruling. It was nothing more than a power-grab by SCOTUS. It allowed SCOTUS to insert itself in Congress' purview without a single American citizen having been harmed or otherwise affected by the laws Congress generates. The Framers made it so that Congress could overrule SCOTUS in all but specific issues covered in Clause I of the above Article, and only 12 years after ratification that granted SCOTUS any authority, they usurped that authority and changed the balance of power forever. Now people actually believe what SCOTUS wanted them to believe; that their word is final.

    You need to wake the heck up BuddhaKat. Put down the keyboard and pick up your Constitution. Read through it a couple of times and then start on the Federalist Papers to answer any residual questions that the King's English and old fashioned syntax left lingering in your mind. You are getting nowhere pulling "factual" statements out of your nether-regions, and then basing your arguments on those baseless musings. Garbage in, garbage out, and while I have no idea where you were when you allowed all that garbage in, I've got a 90-post long thread to see where you're dumpin' a lot of it.

    Blues
    No my friend, it is you that needs to wake up. You keep trying to throw federal at a state issue. Now, don't fall off your chair, but I agree with you about the Supreme's. In particular, Maybury was, in my mind, an unabashed grab at ultimate power and is the single defining moment in our history where the people lost control over our government.

    Do I bask in the warmth that is the light of the Supreme Court? Not on your life. I've been so pissed off at some of their decisions as of late that I don't even know where to start. Why won't they put to rest the issue of our right to keep and bear arms once and for all? They keep dancing around the edges when addressing the issue head on would solve the problem forever, (or start a civil war). HOW THE F**K DID THEY VALIDATE OBAMACARE!!!!!!! So no, I'm not in love with the Supreme's.

    But that doesn't mean I hate every decision they make either. At times I even think they get it right. One of the things I think they did get right was the decision that states can place reasonable restrictions on gun possession and ownership. Now, they dropped the ball on determining what is 'reasonable', but that little line made it so that the fed and the state can not prohibit us from having a gun, at least in our home. Now before you get all riled up, let me assure you we both believe that law abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms, without a license, CCW permit, concealed or openly carried, anywhere you want including schools, post offices and court rooms, without having to register or apply for permission.

    So......I'm sure we're kindred spirits as far as law abiding citizens go, I'm not sure that you stop there. It sound to me like you've got yourself all wrapped up in the Constitutional right of criminals having guns. Now if you're not, they you do support that it is reasonable for some people to be prohibited from owning or possessing a gun.

    But while you're schooling me on the Constitution, let me pose the same thing to you that I did to axeanda45:

    Shall not be infringed would technically mean that murderers and terrorists in prison, on death row, in solitary confinement because they're so dangerous, should be able to have a gun. Now if you don't believe that to the core of your soul, then you believe there are some circumstances when a person's right to have a gun can be infringed. Now if you truly believe murderers on death row should have a gun, then I have no respect for anything you say whatsoever because you're, well I don't need to say it.

    If you think murderers on death row should not be allowed to have a gun, then you DO believe there can be circumstances when gun possession should be regulated? If that's the case, then I would ask that you at least be intellectually honest enough with yourself to admit it and do something other than prove how silly you are by screaming so loudly about what an idiot I'm not.
    So if you're all in favor of criminals having guns, then I care little about anything you have to say. You would just be a crackpot, devoid of any credibility whatsoever. But since I don't think you believe that, why don't you contribute something worthwhile to the discussion other than trying to feebly beat me up with your personal understanding of the Constitution.

    You've actually made some good points here that I have agreed were important. You could do it more civilly mind you, but I do think you do make some good points that are worthy of discussion. That you arbitrarily pronounce something as unconstitutional and draw the line that I should just shut up is rather conceited. At times you come across as a tinfoil hat guy, others you seem rather well educated and knowledgeable. You impressed the hell out of me in using a word I'd never even heard of. I had to go look it up. I was impressed.

    You mentioned RICO. So did I earlier. It's federal. Very hard to do and the fed's don't have any interest in applying it to small time street gang stuff. We do get the occasional RICO case, but they're pretty rare. What I'm discussing is something on the state level.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    No my friend, it is you that needs to wake up. You keep trying to throw federal at a state issue.... In particular, Maybury....
    It's official, you're a moron. On the ignore list you go.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    I especially like the part where Budadude thinks someone who is convicted of something AND IS IN PRISON SERVING HIS TIME FOR IT is a full citizen at the time, It is especially hilarious..... Makes me giggle each time I think about it....

  5. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    It's official, you're a moron. On the ignore list you go.

    Blues
    Oh thank you, thank you, thank you.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    I especially like the part where Budadude thinks someone who is convicted of something AND IS IN PRISON SERVING HIS TIME FOR IT is a full citizen at the time, It is especially hilarious..... Makes me giggle each time I think about it....
    Oh, Im sorry Mr. Constitutional genius, please tell me what version of the 2nd reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless you're in prison.

    Please tell me where in the 2nd it even says someone needs to be a citizen? Please tell me of any law, anywhere in the entire United States, State or Commonwealth, County, City, or dog pound that says that a natural born U.S. citizen can lose any part of their citizenship by being in prison. If you, or anyone else here can show me one single statute that says a natural born US citizen can be stripped of all or part of their US citizenship for anything and I'll leave this forum, never to return here again.

    Gee, I wonder if the fact that you keep making these moronic declarations that I don't understand the Constitution by citing example after example that are completely wrong, could be the reason I cannot take anything you say seriously.

    Lest we forget............​You took our jobs!!!!!!!!!!!
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    I especially like the part where Budadude thinks someone who is convicted of something AND IS IN PRISON SERVING HIS TIME FOR IT is a full citizen at the time, It is especially hilarious..... Makes me giggle each time I think about it....
    It was the part about SCOTUS having the "final" say that did it for me.

    "SCOTUS has the final say."

    "Article III, Section II, Clause II says you're wrong."

    "Yeah, well that 'Maybury' case was a state issue, so YOU need to wake up!"

    "Huh?"

    Ignore.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Maybury the case where the Supreme's gave themselves the final say so in legal matters, essentially usurping power from the other two branches of government? We can argue the particulars of Maybury till the cows come home, but there won't be a single second of time that you and I are not in agreement, it's B.S.

    As far as the Supreme's having the final say, well you and I may not like it, we may not even agree with it, but short of picking up a gun and starting a revolution, there's nothing we can do about it. It's the law of the land. It would take another Constitutional Amendment or Impeachment of the court and the matter being overturned by a new court to change the way it is.

    When I was a young man I used to believe that a revolution in this country would never be possible. Now I'm actually scared that it's inevitable. You and I would be fighting side by side by the way.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    But that doesn't mean I hate every decision they make either. At times I even think they get it right. One of the things I think they did get right was the decision that states can place reasonable restrictions on gun possession and ownership. Now, they dropped the ball on determining what is 'reasonable', but that little line made it so that the fed and the state can not prohibit us from having a gun, at least in our home. Now before you get all riled up, let me assure you we both believe that law abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms, without a license, CCW permit, concealed or openly carried, anywhere you want including schools, post offices and court rooms, without having to register or apply for permission.
    Correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't it you who stated earlier and in other threads that the reason you can own a firearm is because you didn't get caught for the really bad things in life? I find it humorous but not surprising a faux law abiding citizen think's "reasonable restrictions" are a good thing and plausible. I mean even Axe is fighting more for your Rights being as it seems you have committed much more criminal acts in your life.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat
    What I said was, they're record is clean enough that they can still be in possession of a gun.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat
    All in all I just got lucky and never got busted for the serious crap that I really should have gone to jail for so my "Record" is clean.
    Oh the irony. :-)
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  10. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't it you who stated earlier and in other threads that the reason you can own a firearm is because you didn't get caught for the really bad things in life? I find it humorous but not surprising a faux law abiding citizen think's "reasonable restrictions" are a good thing and plausible. I mean even Axe is fighting more for your Rights being as it seems you have committed much more criminal acts in your life.





    Oh the irony. :-)
    Never committed a felony. did lots of drugs, never sold drugs, (swear to Gawd). Drove drunk a few times when I was a very young man, but never got caught. Probably more stuff but it was the 70's man, it's still a little fuzzy. I sleep ok at night thank you.

    And I wasn't purporting that anyone convicted of a minor crime be prohibited from possession, I said those convicted of crimes related to gang stuff, then I refined that and refined it and refined it. I also thought it was reasonable to time bomb how long someone's name can be on the list in order to give them a break if they change their ways.

    I don't know anyone that doesn't have a few sins in their past and I'm not even remotely trying to pass myself off as someone that doesn't.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Never committed a felony. did lots of drugs, never sold drugs, (swear to Gawd). Drove drunk a few times when I was a very young man, but never got caught. Probably more stuff but it was the 70's man, it's still a little fuzzy. I sleep ok at night thank you.

    And I wasn't purporting that anyone convicted of a minor crime be prohibited from possession, I said those convicted of crimes related to gang stuff, then I refined that and refined it and refined it. I also thought it was reasonable to time bomb how long someone's name can be on the list in order to give them a break if they change their ways.

    I don't know anyone that doesn't have a few sins in their past and I'm not even remotely trying to pass myself off as someone that doesn't.
    Oh...that's pretty neat.

    Didn't realize drugs and drunk driving were minor...mentality goes right along with your 2A support...Good for you you honest law abiding citizen you.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast