Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 11
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 129

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

  1. #101
    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.
    Fuzzy your mind still is! Residual effects of your drug use is apparent!
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  2.   
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    According to mr genius here ( everyone knows who that is, right?) people in prison have 100% constitutional freedom, like freedom of movement, freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom to bear arms, simple stuff like that, because it is in the Constitution doncha know?????

    Now, EVERYONE else has the brains to realize that someone who is in prison is there specifically to keep them from having those freedoms, because they have shown they dont play well with others and need to be supervised and punished for what they have been convicted of.....

  4. #103

    Talking Strecthing to make them fit.

    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.
    Is this a description of what the law would call a pattern of criminal activity, after all what he is describing are crimes in anyone's sense of the law and with his description of their repeated occurrence they should stand the test of criminal activity. Does this mean that he should not have the same rights under the law that a law abiding citizen does?
    ~
    Even if it was in the 70's one would surmise that he didn't necessarily act out alone during the course of his acts against the law, would one now consider this as being out with the gang as it was often referred to back then.
    ~
    So we have criminal activity associated with gang activity, so actually where does that place this individual regarding what the cops want.
    ~
    This has been an exercise in stretching the facts which is what the law often does to make them fit their definition of the laws available to them at the time a crime is committed. It doesn't really seem fair when it is applied to your particular set of circumstances, DOES IT.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  5. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Here's an eye opener. While an IL senator, Obama voted against the death penalty for anyone who kills an innocent person while engaged in gang activity. He reasoned that such a law was discriminatory because more minorities were in gangs than other ethnic groups.
    .
    IL bill HB1812: Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 and the Unified Code of Corrections. Expands the offenses of aggravated battery, aggravated battery with a firearm, and aggravated discharge of a firearm to include offenses committed by gang members upon persons who are not gang members, and provides that anyone convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm or aggravated discharge of a firearm and sentenced to a term of imprisonment must serve the entire sentence imposed by the court. Provides that a person who is convicted of first degree murder may be sentenced to death if he or she committed the murder in furtherance of the activities of an organized gang or by his or her membership in or allegiance to an organized gang, and the murdered victim was not a member of an organized gang.
    .
    FEB-15-2001 H REFERRED TO HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE
    APR-05-2001 S CHIEF VETO SPONSOR - OBAMA
    NOV-15-2001 H TOTAL VETO STANDS
    .
    There you have it.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    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.
    I didn't say they were. I said people convicted of minor offenses. Now I can see that that generalization was above the grasp of some people, so let me clarify. What I was referring to was people not convicted of a felony. I consider felonies to be major, other crimes, such as misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors, aren't major. Since they're considered 'less', how do you think I should have stated it?

    Thank you for your post that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. And welcome to the "You took our jobs" clan.
    "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. #106
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeya View Post
    Fuzzy your mind still is! Residual effects of your drug use is apparent!
    Can't say that I don't wonder that myself some days my friend.
    "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

  8. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by dogshawred View Post
    Is this a description of what the law would call a pattern of criminal activity, after all what he is describing are crimes in anyone's sense of the law and with his description of their repeated occurrence they should stand the test of criminal activity. Does this mean that he should not have the same rights under the law that a law abiding citizen does?
    A pattern of criminal activity? Well, yeah, I guess you could say I had a pattern of criminal activity. At that time in my young life, I can't think of pretty much any day that I didn't break the law. (I didn't carry car insurance after all.) If you took them individually, I couldn't begin to count how many times I broke a law. I jaywalked, I exceeded the speed limit, I had an expired drivers license yet I drove every day, I frequently had empty beer cans in the car, and on and on. Hell, I undoubtedly masturbated more than the legal limit. My Gawd, the list is just endless isn't it? Oh the horror of it all. How did society survive my youth.

    But in all seriousness, I've been honest here. It can't even be said that I've lied by omission. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I had a misguided youth. However, what I did as a pre-teen, a teenager, and a hormone crazed young man is hardly a measure of the MAN I've been for my adult life. As a boy, I should have had my ass kicked up between my shoulder blades. I wish someone would have done it. Someone other than my drunken Dad that is, who would easily have be jailed for felony child abuse by today's standards.

    However, I was at least fortunate enough to get my ****** together at a fairly young age. I got off drinking and drugs by the time I was 25 and the more I sobered up, the more I started leading a 'straight' life. Many people don't. My brother is one of them. Violent beyond measure. I have no idea how many people he murdered, but I'm sure it was more than the one he's wanted for. He embraced drugs, drug dealing, bike gangs, and the whole lifestyle that goes with it, fight up to the day HE got murdered for it. My beautiful sister, so bright, so much potential, so sad. She's about to turn 50. She went from being an office manager with no limits on where she could go, so living for free in a dilapidated old trailer in the back of some guys property. She hasn't had a job for the last 20 years and will screw whoever she needs to to get by. But she's not sorry she won't give up drugs. In fact, she's rather proud of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogshawred View Post
    Even if it was in the 70's one would surmise that he didn't necessarily act out alone during the course of his acts against the law, would one now consider this as being out with the gang as it was often referred to back then.
    So....guilt by association then. Hmmm......you better be careful even talking about that. Look what's happened to me. I've said over and over that I DON'T support that, yet it keeps getting twisted that I somehow do, and then I get excoriated for it. Be careful, you'll be attacked by the very people that you agreed with.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogshawred View Post
    So we have criminal activity associated with gang activity, so actually where does that place this individual regarding what the cops want.
    Except what I said was criminal gang, a distinction you're conveniently disregarding so you can dump on my rather than add to the discussion that I asked for in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogshawred View Post
    This has been an exercise in stretching the facts which is what the law often does to make them fit their definition of the laws available to them at the time a crime is committed. It doesn't really seem fair when it is applied to your particular set of circumstances, DOES IT.
    It can't be applied to my particular set of circumstances, no matter how hard you try to convolute the circumstances. It certainly can't be applied to the conditions, restrictions and legal standards that I agreed need to be protected and practiced.
    "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. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    According to mr genius here ( everyone knows who that is, right?) people in prison have 100% constitutional freedom, like freedom of movement, freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom to bear arms, simple stuff like that, because it is in the Constitution doncha know?????

    Now, EVERYONE else has the brains to realize that someone who is in prison is there specifically to keep them from having those freedoms, because they have shown they dont play well with others and need to be supervised and punished for what they have been convicted of.....
    Uh, Mr. Einstein....excuse me, but I never said that. What I did was prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

    You said:
    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....
    I challenged you to find any statute anywhere in our country to back up that statement. I'm waiting..............Chirp, chirp, chirp.........I'll leave if you can dig even one up. Chirp, chirp, chirp......... Blues, you seem to be able to find legal thangs, wanna play? C'mon, help out your buddy. I'm waiting. Chirp, chirp, chirp.........I'll leave. Chirp, chirp, chirp.........

    You add nothing intelligent to the conversation. Zero. All you attempt to do is portray me as an idiot by proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Oops, almost forgot.......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

  10. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Here's an eye opener. While an IL senator, Obama voted against the death penalty for anyone who kills an innocent person while engaged in gang activity. He reasoned that such a law was discriminatory because more minorities were in gangs than other ethnic groups.
    .
    IL bill HB1812: Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 and the Unified Code of Corrections. Expands the offenses of aggravated battery, aggravated battery with a firearm, and aggravated discharge of a firearm to include offenses committed by gang members upon persons who are not gang members, and provides that anyone convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm or aggravated discharge of a firearm and sentenced to a term of imprisonment must serve the entire sentence imposed by the court. Provides that a person who is convicted of first degree murder may be sentenced to death if he or she committed the murder in furtherance of the activities of an organized gang or by his or her membership in or allegiance to an organized gang, and the murdered victim was not a member of an organized gang.
    .
    FEB-15-2001 H REFERRED TO HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE
    APR-05-2001 S CHIEF VETO SPONSOR - OBAMA
    NOV-15-2001 H TOTAL VETO STANDS
    .
    There you have it.
    A sad fact of life. This would be an example of a tool that I was talking about. Adding a death sentence provision if done in furtherance of a criminal gang activity, etc. would probably not be much of a deterrent to a gangsta, but it certainly does give society a final solution as far as the particular criminal is concerned.
    "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. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Yep, well I guess that once you've declared me to be the most Constitutionally ignorant person in the universe, well that's it for me.

    *snip*

    Here is what YOU WROTE and what I responded to that got you to your latest post of me above......



    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.

    and..................You took our jobs!!!!!!!!!!!
    So.... YOU, in your oh so enlightened understanding of everything....think that if we take it (constitution) literally (as some of us actually do, myself included), and as written (including using the federalist papers and all other evidence from the time) that a true outcome of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED would have to allow prisoners in jail the right to have firearms , RIGHT? That is what I got from your post..... At least that is what you were trying to accuse me of saying in this STUPID example you came up with...


    You have utterly failed to make a single point on anything..... You have tried to "catch" me on something
    I HAD ACTUALLY ALREADY CAUGHT YOU ON!!!!

    Other than proving time and time again (and again and again...........to infinity as my kids would say...) that you havent a solitary clue what you are saying..... You really are quite delusional.. are you seeing anyone for it?

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 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