Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 12
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 129

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

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Let me ask YOU something buda.... Please explain to all of us, as I am sure some of the others, not just myself is wondering this also..

    What "statutes" or "laws" or anything at all proves/shows/says that someone in prison IS a "full" citizen with all of their "Rights" intact?


    It is on YOU to prove your point, You are the one that inferred what I wrote was wrong.... PROVE IT WRONG!!!!!


    What is that incessant sound I hear? oh, its your crickets......

  2.   
  3. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    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?
    No, what happened was you completely, utterly and thoroughly missed the point. You say you take the Constitution literally, yet you say the part of the 2nd that says "Shall not be infringed" can actually be infringed when there is a good reason. Please tell me where in the 2nd Amendment is says 'unless incarcerated'. Common sense says you have to disarm these people. You and I agree they should be disarmed, yet the Bill Of Rights does not literally authorize the disarmament of anyone. So the truth is, there is some validity to the concept that laws can be made beyond those listed in the Bill Of Rights. That the legitimate disarmament of prisoners is a good thing cannot be denied, but in the literal sense of it, it is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment since the 2nd doesn't make an exception for anyone. That was my point, not that you want prisoners to have guns. I may not think you're all that bright, but I seriously doubt you're that stupid.
    "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

  4. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    No, what happened was you completely, utterly and thoroughly missed the point. You say you take the Constitution literally, yet you say the part of the 2nd that says "Shall not be infringed" can actually be infringed when there is a good reason. Please tell me where in the 2nd Amendment is says 'unless incarcerated'. Common sense says you have to disarm these people. You and I agree they should be disarmed, yet the Bill Of Rights does not literally authorize the disarmament of anyone. So the truth is, there is some validity to the concept that laws can be made beyond those listed in the Bill Of Rights. That the legitimate disarmament of prisoners is a good thing cannot be denied, but in the literal sense of it, it is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment since the 2nd doesn't make an exception for anyone. That was my point, not that you want prisoners to have guns. I may not think you're all that bright, but I seriously doubt you're that stupid.

    No, the point is YOU THINK THAT PRISONERS NOT BEING ALLOWED GUNS IS AN INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd Amendment....

    You cannot fathom that a PRISONER IS NOT a citizen with all his "Rights" intact..... HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL CAN IT BE AN INFRINGEMENT when it is something THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE (rights)????

    Prisoners are not citizens who have Constitutional rights... The ONLY rights they have are Human rights... Like they shouldnt be beaten or tortured..... Is that so hard for you to understand?

    The baseline or foundation of ALL of your arguments on this thread are faulty because you dont know the first thing about what you are trying to discuss, this is painfully obvious to everyone but you......

  5. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Let me ask YOU something buda.... Please explain to all of us, as I am sure some of the others, not just myself is wondering this also..

    What "statutes" or "laws" or anything at all proves/shows/says that someone in prison IS a "full" citizen with all of their "Rights" intact?


    It is on YOU to prove your point, You are the one that inferred what I wrote was wrong.... PROVE IT WRONG!!!!!


    What is that incessant sound I hear? oh, its your crickets......
    Sure. It's called the 14th Amendment of that Constitution thingy that you'e so familiar with and I'm so ignorant of.

    Here's some interesting reading on the subject. Citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Also, read Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I might suggest that you pay particular attention to the part that says:

    Loss of citizenship Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

    • Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a United States citizen.
    • Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship.[22]

    For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship.[23] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), as well as Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.

    With respect to your statement that it's on me to prove my point, my point was a challenge to you to find a statute anywhere in the United states that says some part of a natural born citizen's citizenship can be taken away. I wasn't making a point, I was triple dog daring you to prove your point.

    But if it'll make things easier for you, I'll take up your challenge that it's up to me to prove my point. To that I say this, I proved my point by the fact that neither you or anyone else here were successfully able to provide a single statute citing a process for revocation of all or part of a natural born US citizen's citizenship. Your silence is all the proof I need to prove you're talking out your ass.

    I never knew poking a wolverine could be so much fun.

    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

  6. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    No, the point is YOU THINK THAT PRISONERS NOT BEING ALLOWED GUNS IS AN INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd Amendment....

    You cannot fathom that a PRISONER IS NOT a citizen with all his "Rights" intact..... HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL CAN IT BE AN INFRINGEMENT when it is something THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE (rights)????

    Prisoners are not citizens who have Constitutional rights... The ONLY rights they have are Human rights... Like they shouldnt be beaten or tortured..... Is that so hard for you to understand?

    The baseline or foundation of ALL of your arguments on this thread are faulty because you dont know the first thing about what you are trying to discuss, this is painfully obvious to everyone but you......
    Ahh, it's facinating how you can win an argument by changing the facts of what you said or did. I simply asked where in the 2nd it gives anyone the right to take a gun away from anyone. In particular, the words "Shall not be infringed" are used to browbeat anyone that does or says anything you percieve to diminish the right to keep and bear arms. You use "Shall not be infringed" like the hammer of Thor when it suits you, but when someone presents you with an untenable circumstance in which "Shall not be infringed" should reasonably be infringed, well you back that up wholeheartedly. So, should "Shall not be infringed" be inviolate, or are there certain circumstances where it's reasonable to limit?

    Well I for one think it's reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of certain people and that means that I have to be intellectually honest enough to admit, there's some merit to concept of Shall not be infringed, except....

    Axe, can you be that intellectually honest, or are you going to try to tell me you do believe in the literal meaning of the phrase?

    A natural born citizen is a full citizen no matter where they are in the world. That a US citizen is a prisoner doesn't mean they're not a citizen, it just means they're a citizen that through due process, has had some of their rights or freedom restricted or in some cases, taken away.

    Either way, you try and try to school me abbout how wrong I am or how I don't know about the Constitution, and they you use completely false or wrong examples to illustrate your position. The baseline for all my arguments are based on facts and truth. The baseline for all your arguments is based on........

    wait for it.........

    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. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    OP said (in part):

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    "I would ask for a law prohibiting the ownership or possession of any firearm by any person KNOWN to be an active member of a 'criminal' gang." he said.

    ...The officer pointed out that there are known gang members who are committing serious crimes, but are crafty enough to stay just 'legal' to possess a firearm. In other words, they just haven't been caught.
    The first quote is the entire inspiration for this train wreck of a thread.

    The second quote says specifically that who the targets are of this idiotic "GIP" law have not been convicted of a crime. The only criteria judged worthy of disarming them is their alleged, as-yet unproven associations with gangs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Personally, I don't have a problem keeping guns out of these people's hands. They're bad people, even if they're smart enough to not get convicted.
    Again, the only criteria that makes a person one of "these people" is an alleged association with gang members, meaning as-yet unproven association, untried against the due process of being able to face your accuser in open court and test the strength of evidence against you with a vigorous defense before any life, liberty or property can be taken from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    But I also have to recognize that we're a society that's supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty. But I dunno if I'm entirely comfortable with the premise of guilt by association either.
    Yes, we're "supposed" to be that society, with or without your cop-friend's or your "entire" comfort.

    And now:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    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.
    The bold text is a lie. Not being "entirely comfortable" with a given premise is decidedly not the same as saying you DON'T support it.

    The next post said in response to the one and only poster to agree with a word this fascist said regarding the guilt by association he has promoted from the OP on:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    I think CarryNM hit the nail on the head by calling this a sticky wicket.
    "Stickey wicket" is decidedly not the same as saying you DON'T support it.

    And now:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    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.
    The bold text is still a lie.

    Next post:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    ...Taking ANY right away from anyone is serious business. On one hand I like to scream and wave the flag in opposition to government oppression, then on the other hand I look at these scumbag gangs and I could care less about their rights. Any of them. Scrape em off the street, lock em up and throw away the key as far as I'm concerned.
    Three posts in, and every single word describes a scheme of guilt by association to use as a "tool" to disarm as-yet innocent people. That would be "innocent" in that everyone in the criminal justice system is considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

    And now:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    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.
    The bold text is still a lie.

    Post #17:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    As far as validating whether someone is actually a gang member or not, well, they don't guess. Like I said above, they don't want to waste resources. A lot of what gangsters do is chronicled in their graffiti and tattoos, plus, they're all about earning respect on the street. That translates to blabbing about your accomplishments. Flagging someone as an active member of a criminal gang is much more that just seeing someone talking to another known gang member. It's not something they do lightly. Bear in mind, they're not talking about taggers, graffiti artists, and a small group of friends, they're talking about honest to gawd criminal enterprises. In fact, they've actually prosecuted several of them around here under the RICO Act. I wouldn't want these guys to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun any more than I'd want someone being investigated for potential terrorist activities. When someone goes on that watch list they're not buying a legit gun either.

    As far as enforcement goes, it's simply a matter of "Oh, you're a known gang member in possession of a gun. You get a free trip to jail."
    "A free trip to jail" based only on the word of cops about their associations. NO due process, NO trial by a jury of their peers, NO opportunity to challenge the evidence against them, just the word of jaded and lazy cops trying to get laws passed to allow them to circumvent the Constitution to make their jobs easier.

    And now:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    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.
    The bold text is still a lie.

    Post #21:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    To the list we can add:

    Due process; Maybe something along the lines of: Gangsta notified they're now on the list and are no longer allowed to be in possession of a firearm.
    "Due process" is a call from the cops who put them on the list to notify them that the notification is their "due process" to this moron. Brilliant!

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Due process; Gangsta has a period of time to contest their name being put on the KGM list. Maybe at first through the department that named them, then through the court.
    Then the alleged "perp" (who is no perp at all because he hasn't been convicted of anything...yet) can actually petition the court for the due process he was denied when he got arrested for nothing more than his associations while carrying a gun. More brilliance!

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Maybe time bomb the length of time a person's name stays on the list, say 2 years, unless it's renewed by an agency. Or, it could automatically be extended for two years after a valid gang related activity observation or occurrence.
    More "due process" that the non-perp can count on is having to wait two freakin' years before the same lazy-ass cops renew his name on their own volition! But maybe not! Maybe we'll just give 'em the "due process" of automatically renewing their names on the list after cops say they've observed them indulging in a "valid" gang related activity! Screw judges and juries! Associations trump everything!

    And now:

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    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.
    After 21 posts in, not a single mention of opposing guilt by association "law enforcement," much less having said it "over and over" that he doesn't support it.

    The text in bold is still a lie, and we're still on the first page of this idiocy!

    I have my settings to show 30 posts on each page. If anyone else wants to scour through the other three pages to find the times he's said "over and over" that he doesn't support guilt by association prosecution, have at it. I have read through the whole thread though, and I'm pretty comfortable in saying it's not there.

    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. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Buda,
    I guess it is hopeless, I see no hope in you ever acknowledging your ignorance.... So, You go on the ignore list.....
    Dont worry though, I will still ridicule your ignorance in the future.... Every chance I get... Because I cannot allow it to go unnoticed, because if I did, some unsuspecting newbie might get misled by you.

  9. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Common sense says you have to disarm these people. You and I agree they should be disarmed, yet the Bill Of Rights does not literally authorize the disarmament of anyone.
    The Fifth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America says:

    "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."

    Even life itself is subject to denial as long as due process is applied. Certainly the liberties described in the Bill of Rights are likewise at risk for anyone being criminally tried by a jury of their peers and sentenced by a duly sworn judge. Likewise, such property as Congress and/or the judge may deem appropriate can be seized as long as due process precedes the seizure. A gun is property. The 2nd Amendment is a defined liberty. Either can (and routinely are) seized under the 5th Amendment.

    I'll guarantee that Axeanda45 knew that before I typed it. I seriously doubt you had sussed that out for yourself.

    And by the way, I reject any assertion that puts you and me on the same side of a landmark Supreme Court case for which you don't even possess the knowledge of its commonly-referred-to name. Unless there actually is a landmark case named "Maybury" and you can articulate the principles and issues decided in it. Best of luck with that.

    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...

  10. #119
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    OP said (in part):
    **snip**
    And now:
    After 21 posts in, not a single mention of opposing guilt by association "law enforcement," much less having said it "over and over" that he doesn't support it.

    The text in bold is still a lie, and we're still on the first page of this idiocy!

    I have my settings to show 30 posts on each page. If anyone else wants to scour through the other three pages to find the times he's said "over and over" that he doesn't support guilt by association prosecution, have at it. I have read through the whole thread though, and I'm pretty comfortable in saying it's not there.

    Blues
    So you want to go back to the start and rehash all this crap eh? Thought you were going to ignore me. You got me all excited there for a second. I thought the thread might be able to actually stay on topic for a change.

    But let me see if I get your beef this time. We'll deal with the gist of your post. You think I didn't mean it when I said I don't support guilt by association, in spite of the fact I addressed it over and over. right?

    Well, let's take a look shall we. From the start:

    Post #3:
    Quote Originally Posted by tcox4freedom View Post
    Who says what constitutes a person affiliated with a gang?

    Many in our government call people like me potential terrorists because I am a white conservative "Christian" male who supports my local Tea Party. Will Tea party members find themselves listed as "gang members"?
    My reply in Post #4:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    This course that I'm going through makes me privy to some information that's not generally available to the public, but the question of identifying a gang member did come up and I can say that as far as our RGU is concerned, there is a definite criterion that must be met before someone is put on their list. Wannabe's are separated from the real thing.
    Post #6:
    Quote Originally Posted by Greggatshack View Post
    I'm guessing that defining an "active member of a criminal gang" requires you to establish (with due process) that the person in question is in fact a member of the gang and that the gang is in fact criminal. How many "gangs" have been convicted of being criminal? Is it even possible to convict the whole gang of a crime? Wouldn't you have to establish proof of individual involvement?

    So, you have quite a burden of proof to establish that someone is such a person worthy of removing the right to bear arms. Not to mention that law-makers and law-enforcers often have their own agendas about different parts of society. Many cops have been convicted of criminal behaviour - does that mean the law enforcement community can be considered a criminal gang?
    My Reply in Post #7:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    I think those concerns are quite legitimate and should be a heavy burden to overcome. Taking ANY right away from anyone is serious business.
    Moving on to post #13:
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I like your line of demarcation better than the cop's answer. Guilt by association is anathema to a free society. However, if someone is a known violent criminal and they have a criminal record that backs up that knowledge, then parole and probation conditions kick in and associations are fairly strictly enforced in that case (at least in some jurisdictions).
    *snip*
    Back in the 80's I worked with an older guy (like around my age now, 58) who had gotten a rap for two freakin' joints in the 50's. He did 5 years for two joints, lost his right to vote and his right to own or be in possession of a gun. It wasn't a huge deal for him, but when he told me the story, I was incredulous. If it had been 10 or 15 years later that he got caught with two joints in CA, he would've gotten a ticket, yet the change in the laws didn't go retroactive to restore pot-felons' rights.
    *snip*
    My reply to you in post #18:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    That's why I think there has to be a way to get off the list. It doesn't happen very often, but every once in a while a gangsta gets his **** together and drops out of the lifestyle. Good for them. Hell, I've been drug free for 30 years now, I'd hate to be branded as a druggie for life because of something stupid I did when I was a kid. (In fact, I'm MASSIVELY​ anti-drug now.)
    (Ok, that one's not about the guilt by association subject, but I couldn't resist pointing out that I am able to agree with you.)

    How about post #20:
    Quote Originally Posted by farsidefan1 View Post
    Innocent till proven guilty. Due process. These are the thoughts that come to mind. I think back on that Tom Cruise movie where he would arrest people BEFORE they committed a crime. Sticky wicket indeed. When the gansta type are convicted THEN take away their right to bear arms. Until then, watch but verify.
    My I address this in Post #21:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    *snip*
    So you make some good points that can be added to the points already made.

    So far we have:
    1. GIP-Gun siezed, gangsta goes to jail.
    2. Legislature establishes criteria that must be met before gangsta's name can be added to the Known Gangsta Member list.
    3. Legislature establishes criteria for gangsta to get their name off the list if they change their wicked ways.


    To the list we can add:
    • Due process; Maybe something along the lines of: Gangsta notified they're now on the list and are no longer allowed to be in possession of a firearm.
    • Due process; Gangsta has a period of time to contest their name being put on the KGM list. Maybe at first through the department that named them, then through the court.
    • Maybe time bomb the length of time a person's name stays on the list, say 2 years, unless it's renewed by an agency. Or, it could automatically be extended for two years after a valid gang related activity observation or occurrence.

    *snip*
    Next we have another jewel from you in post #22:
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    *snip*
    All for the "crime" of his/her associations. Not a single other bit of criteria precedes this grotesquely fascist tripe. If this is what you're learning in your 12-week "course," you'd do better to get out from under the influence of that Nazi Brownshirt you're riding around with and go back inside, sit down at your computer, and start studying the history of the founding of this once-great nation. Quite obviously, the deviation from our local-run, independent, self-sustaining founding principles in the area of education has failed you miserably.
    *snip*

    Persecution based solely on ideology, associations, race and ethnicity has been known to be effective "tools" in making fascists more comfortable throughout history. That's exactly what you're describing here. It's disgusting.
    *snip*

    They also know that they're breaking the law when they harass people for nothing more than their associations. But you don't care, do you? One man's gangsta is another man's citizen until they actually commit a crime that the cops and prosecutors can make a case against them for. All that due process stuff is so yesterday, ain't it.
    Blues
    Here's what I said in reply in post #30:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    *snip*
    Crime by association. Yes, that is the sticky wicket. It's been discussed and I think we all agree that some constitutional protections are warranted. I think there's been some reasonable suggestions made to insure that non-com's are protected. Don't think for a second that I don't want that. As far as Nazi Brownshirts, I haven't met any in our LE departments. What I heard was a lot of dialog from them about the importance of respecting peoples rights. They talked about probable cause and making sure they comply with the legal requirements. Your inference that cops just want to willy-nilly kick down peoples doors in the middle of the night without a warrant, drag them into the street and execute them is just something out of the fantasy narrative you desperately want to believe is prevalent in the law enforcement community. And before you light your keyboard on fire, yes, I'll admit, there have been a few problems.
    *snip*

    That is NOT what I'm describing here at all. It is what you're reading, but I think your glasses only see what fits your anti government narrative. Coffee Blues, coffee. You need more coffee.
    *snip*

    Again...READ THE POSTS. How many times to we have to clarify CRIMINAL gangs. How many times do we have to clarify the need for specific, irrefutable evidence of criminal gang involvement. How many times do we need to clarify that this discussion is just that, a discussion. It's evolving. It encompasses the concerns of more than just one person. I should note, during that initial Q&A session, the officer was quite emphatic that they can't just stop people for nothing. They have to have a reason. To me, that doesn't mean it has to be a felony in progress, it can be something as simple as a bulb out on a license plate, or a failure to use a turn signal, jaywalking, pants hanging around your knees in public, or whatever. Personally, the more people they hassle about flashing their dirty ass in public the better.
    *snip*
    I think I might have found an easier way to get through all this cutting and pasting. Let's see if this works:

    In Post #36:
    Originally Posted by Rhino: You'll find lots of agreement on violent offenders, criminals and people who are mentally incompetent but you're going to have a problem arguing that people who have committed no crime should be denied gun rights because that potentially includes every law abiding citizen in the US. All they have to do is tweak the definition in the law a little bit, which is easy since the criteria is so subjective and ill defined. You make it even easier for them if they get to use a secret list. Then they never have to explain anything to anyone.
    My Reply:
    I never said people that committed no crimes should be on the list. It seems to me I've taken the approach that it's reasonable to establish a rather detailed set of factors that must be met before anyone could even be placed on the list. What I said was, the cops are pretty darn good at determining who is actually an active member of a criminal gang and who is a wannabe. In furtherance of that, maybe it's reasonable to propose that before anyone can be placed on that list they have to be convicted of a crime and have some kind of caveat about the crime being committed as part of a criminal gang activity or something of the sort. For example, robbing a gas station is bad, robbing a gas station with a gun is much worse. Selling drugs is bad. Selling drugs on behalf of your gang is really bad. Insert your own example here. I'm talking in generalities here, not specifics. You get my point.
    Originally Posted by Rhino: It's something to be scared ****less about, because the day anything even remotely resembling that passes anywhere in the US is the day this country ceases to exist. Even though you've committed no crime, the government is going to declare you a criminal based on who you associate with and remove your God given rights that the Constitution says they have no right to infringe upon. All of this is done with absolutely zero due process and if you want your rights back it is up to you to fight back and attempt to regain what was unconstitutionally taken away from you without due process in the first place, at great expense and trouble of course. Oh, and the politicians who write the laws criminalizing these associations get to decide which ones are bad, such as associating with the eeeeeeevil National Rifle Association maybe. We all know how bad those people are!
    My Reply:
    Ok, once more, this is a discussion, not legislation. I want debate. I want contrary opinions. I want people telling me I'm FOS. I'd like someone to say, "Yah fat boy, you might be on to something there. Needs work though."

    A law abiding citizen is a person I'm going to defend to the death here, on any other forum, and everywhere I go in my life. LAC's have nothing to fear from me. What I fear is how quickly people have jumped to the conclusion that I have some interest in taking some freedom away from some deserving soul. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's the criminals I don't give a crap about.
    Post #42:
    Originally Posted by BluesStringer: Even if they did actually have such a duty though, under the rubric of "protecting" us, you would give them authority to prosecute us for our associations.
    My Reply:
    No I wouldn't.
    Post #44:
    Originally Posted by zeebea: Really, if these gangbangers have not been in trouble then they are either not a problem or are much smarter than these cops. If the latter is true then fellas its time for a career change. Ant law that prohibits you from a right based on someone's opinion is the definition of stupid.
    My Reply:
    Can't say as I disagree with you. That's why the concept of establishing a set of parameters, such as a conviction in court with documented proof of gang activity, is reasonable to me. Not saying that's the only thing, but it's an idea that can be added to other ideas to come up with a law that gets guns out of the hands of gangsters while still protecting people's rights to due process.
    Post #48:
    Originally Posted by Rhino: You're pushing for a law that grants the government one power that is characteristic of a police state, the ability to criminalize people based on their association and the ability to remove their rights without due process based on that association, an association that can be redefined or reinterpreted at will since it has no clear definition.
    My Reply:
    Yes, but I accepted that the concerns people had stated here about due process and guilt by association were reasonable and I proposed addressing those very concerns. I can see why y'all think I'm being so closed minded.
    Originally Posted by Rhino
    Yet again, the 2nd amendment is not a loophole. Neither is the 5th or 14th, which both contain due process clauses. If you really consider those loopholes, may I suggest North Korea as a new residence for you?
    My reply:
    Nope. I think I'm on record as agreeing due process is reasonable to add to this.
    Originally Posted by Rhino
    You've established no factors whatsoever. The only thing you've given us is 'if the cops say he's a bad guy'. That's highly subjective hearsay, not a quantifiable, measurable or verifiable legal factor.
    My reply:


    I think I've been open and agreeable to factor after factor after factor.
    Originally Posted by Paul53
    Nope, nope, nope. Laws and rights deal in facts which must be undeniable. What's a gang? I belong to The Emergency Nurses Association. They have backed in writing actions against hospitals that put profit ahead of patients best interest. If just one of these has been ruled illegal, then I can't have a weapon? 60 years old, muscular dystrophy which is why I believe I need help with self defense, clear background checks, CCL, numerous local and state awards, The Presidents Volunteer Action Award, but as an ENA member I'm a gang member? I sympathize with police officers, but wishing weapons would only work for good people and that unicorns will help us is just as good as anybodies opininon of what "a gang" is.
    My reply:
    Actually, there's legalese to define what a gang is:

    The modern notion of organized crime in the United States has expanded beyond the prototypical paradigm of family operations. Organized crime in the early 2000s refers to any group of persons in a continuing operation of criminal activity, including streetGangs. To combat the violence and other illegal activity of street gangs, federal and state legislatures have passed laws pertaining specifically to street gangs. Many states provide extra punishment for persons in street gangs who are convicted of certain crimes.
    On the federal level, a street gang is defined as an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons formed for the purpose of committing a violent crime or drug offense, with members who have engaged in a continuing series of violent crimes or drug law violations that affect interstate or foreign commerce (18 U.S.C.A. 521). Any person in a street gang convicted for committing or conspiring to commit a violent federal crime or certain federal drug offenses receives an extra ten years in prison beyond the prison sentence for the actual crime.

    Nevada has a legal definition of a criminal gang, I'll dig it up tomorrow.
    Here's a part of my post #60 that pertains to this particular post:
    I don't keep insisting that if you change one thing everything is all hunky dory. What I said was people brought up legitimate concerns. Lack of judicial oversight, due process, specific criteria based of facts admissible in court, arbitrary placement on the list, abuse of authority, notification of being placed on the list, appeals, and expiration, convictions of prior criminal acts, valid legal proof of criminal gang membership, are all valid points. Every one of these concerns can be addressed, yet all you want to hear is that I want to unconstitutionally take guns away from people who should be able to have them.
    Here's my post #62:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    *snip*
    I suppose in simple terms all I'm asking for is to lower the bar on who can have a gun a little bit. It turns out that my state already has riders on laws that add penalties if a crime involves some sort of criminal gang element. I'm thinking these statutes could be broadened to include GIP's once the gangsta meets the prescribed criterion.
    Here's a snippet from my post #70:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Blues,

    Thank you for this post. It is exactly the discussion I was talking about.

    To that end, let my respectfully respond and I hope you will continue to do so as well.

    *snip*

    But I think you can agree on one thing, the thought of cops being able to write laws is chilling. I'll stick with the naive hope that the people we elect to make our laws would do a better job.

    *snip*

    Thank you, thank you, thank you for the discussion. This is good and I appreciate your post.
    Post #73:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    *snip*
    Personally, if a GIP law can be legally and constitutionally enacted, I'd like it to be a felony, forever ending the right of the felon to ever possess a gun, vote, etc. (I'm hard on crime though so before anyone tears me apart for that, don't bother, you won't get me to feel sorry for criminals. I won't try to get you to get tough on crime.)

    Thank you for your post JG.
    My post #82:
    Originally Posted by Axeanda45: As far as who schooled who on Constitutional rights, you very obviously lost to EVERYONE in this thread, not just to me....
    My Reply:
    Lost how? By agreeing that due process must be respected? By agreeing that guilt by association isn't enough? By agreeing an appeals process and a way to contest one's name being placed on the 'list' should be included? Those, and others were all objections raised on Constitutional grounds, and I agreed they all had merit. So I guess you're trying to say I lost because I agreed?

    *snip*
    From my post #89:
    Originally Posted by tcox4freedom: That's your problem right there. Being associated with a known gang member doesn't mean you are a criminal; which brings us back to "WHO" decides what constitutes a dangerous gang member or criminal?
    *snip*
    My reply:
    I'd say we're pretty much on the same page here. Association with a criminal gang shouldn't be grounds for pulling your right to possess. When that was pointed out I suggested that rather than spank people for their associations we make it something along the lines of "People convicted of crimes that have a gang activity associated with that crime. It turns out that Nevada already has a bunch of statutes that increase penalties for crimes when it can be proven the crime was committed in furtherance of a criminal gang enterprise. So no, I wouldn't support flagging someone merely for knowing someone in a gang or being their friend.

    *snip*
    From post #107:
    Originally Posted by dogshawred: 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.
    My reply:
    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.
    OK, so my declaration that I've had to defend this a couple dozen times appears to be a bit of an embellishment, but it changes nothing. I never proposed anything illegal, I merely offered a question that was asked to a cop, and stated that I thought it might have merit. I thought it was interesting and asked for discussion. Not one time did I infer that if you don't agree with me you can't post here. I asked for discussion, pro and con. When people, yourself included, brought up credible questions about the Constitutionality of a law like this, I didn't attack, I listened. That I didn't always agree isn't something I should be scorned for, it is exactly the same thing our founding fathers went through when they built this country, They had more than their fair share of outright arguments, but they got through the problems and differences of opinions and invented something the likes of which the world will never see equaled. I have never discouraged anyone from participation here. I have openly and on multiple occasions asked for dialog, pro or con.
    "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. #120
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The Fifth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America says:
    "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."

    Even life itself is subject to denial as long as due process is applied. Certainly the liberties described in the Bill of Rights are likewise at risk for anyone being criminally tried by a jury of their peers and sentenced by a duly sworn judge. Likewise, such property as Congress and/or the judge may deem appropriate can be seized as long as due process precedes the seizure. A gun is property. The 2nd Amendment is a defined liberty. Either can (and routinely are) seized under the 5th Amendment.

    I'll guarantee that Axeanda45 knew that before I typed it. I seriously doubt you had sussed that out for yourself.

    And by the way, I reject any assertion that puts you and me on the same side of a landmark Supreme Court case for which you don't even possess the knowledge of its commonly-referred-to name. Unless there actually is a landmark case named "Maybury" and you can articulate the principles and issues decided in it. Best of luck with that.

    Blues
    Well, you finally did it. you caught a mistake. Where I was focusing on the subject, the part of the 2nd Amendment that says "Shall not be infringed", I made the unfathomable error of either forgetting to insert the words 2nd Amendment in front of the Bill Of Rights, or I just used Bill Of Rights when I should have said 2nd Amendment. Either way, I can see how you could equate this with something along the lines of Roberts switching his vote at the last minute on ObamaCare. Man, you caught a biggie. You've probably singlehandedly saved the nation from the tyranny of the happy fat kat. I mean, there's just no denying that I incorrectly referenced 'Bill Of Rights' that one time in a single, 8 sentence paragraph that actually did mention the 2nd 4 times. Gawd I hope nobody is permanently scarred.

    On a serious note, I couldn't figure out what your beef was with me regarding Maybury, so I went and looked. I'd actually gone through several references to it before I finally spotted my fatal flaw. It's Marbury. For some reason whenever I'd run across this topic over the years I'd always see it as Maybury. A trick on the eyes I suppose. I certainly can understand how you would completely reject any notion that you and I still agree on the horrific consequences to our nation of that one decision, even though you knew exactly what I was talking about. Doesn't make you look petty and small at all. No, really, seriously, it doesn't.

    Would you please start ignoring me now. I'm willing to box post for post till the end of time if you want. It's not like it takes a lot of mental effort, but I have arthritis in my hands and it kinda hurts. I'll still do it if I have to tho, or you can start being civil. I will too, I promise.
    "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

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 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