Official Nuthouse Retirement Relocation Discussion Thread

[davebucknut]

What does shall not be infringed mean to you?  Does that mean some Lefty politicians in NYC can tell you that you can't buy a firearm without first jumping through dozens of hoops, each step of which must be approved by a government bureaucrat?

Obviously, since those laws havenâ€t been fully struck down there is some disagreement in the US of A. Same argument that is always made: what does the first part (well regulated militia) mean? We can go round and round and round. Nothing will change. Biden isnâ€t a far left loon that will take your guns. Heâ€s a middle of the road dem. You have to worry about some of the younger dem pols doing that in 20 years.

See?  You are willing to violate the clear wording of the Constitution with regard to the Second Amendment, which was arguably one of the most important rights to the Founders, but for invented rights like abortion and same sex marriage, you believe those are iron clad across the board that states can't touch.  That is the problem with the country and how the Left has rendered the Constitution meaningless.  They did the same thing with religious freedom.

Me?  Nope. Locales?  Sure. Are open carry restrictions an infringement?  4 states outright ban open carry and more restrict it according to local custom. Do you bitch about that, too. Many of those states are not traditionally “liberal”. 

As for those other “rights” and my feelings, youâ€re either wrong or a liar as Iâ€ve never stated a position on either. I donâ€t care what other people do with their bodies, so again I would prefer the government stay out of those personal decisions but I donâ€t advocate for either.

Why not take the same approach for the 2nd Amendment that we do with the 13th?  The 13th completely bans slavery in all forms and we don't try and say otherwise by allowing a little bit of slavery here and there.  The 2A should mean the same thing in NYC that it does in Kentucky with no infringement.  We should not have to pass laws allowing either open carry or concealed carry since those should be considered unalienable rights.  Of course, the Left would have a meltdown over that.

Exactly

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[P1tchblack]

I think thereâ€s an outright prohibition against slavery. 13th Amendment. So thatâ€s a negative. Thereâ€s no outright ban on guns like that. You can own guns, you just canâ€t do anything you want with that gun. You might believe that an infringement but others disagree with you, obviously.

What does shall not be infringed mean to you?  Does that mean some Lefty politicians in NYC can tell you that you can't buy a firearm without first jumping through dozens of hoops, each step of which must be approved by a government bureaucrat?

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to you?  What about a convicted violent felon who's done is time and is not back in society?  Can he buy/own a gun?

[Hightop77]

I think thereâ€s an outright prohibition against slavery. 13th Amendment. So thatâ€s a negative. Thereâ€s no outright ban on guns like that. You can own guns, you just canâ€t do anything you want with that gun. You might believe that an infringement but others disagree with you, obviously.

What does shall not be infringed mean to you?  Does that mean some Lefty politicians in NYC can tell you that you can't buy a firearm without first jumping through dozens of hoops, each step of which must be approved by a government bureaucrat?

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to you?  What about a convicted violent felon who's done is time and is not back in society?  Can he buy/own a gun?

Depending on what you mean by "violent felon" and the type of violent behavior involved, a criminal statute could be written to include prohibiting possession of a gun as a lifetime punishment.  Many violent felons today have multiple violations and in my opinion should never be allowed back into society.

[P1tchblack]

I think thereâ€s an outright prohibition against slavery. 13th Amendment. So thatâ€s a negative. Thereâ€s no outright ban on guns like that. You can own guns, you just canâ€t do anything you want with that gun. You might believe that an infringement but others disagree with you, obviously.

What does shall not be infringed mean to you?  Does that mean some Lefty politicians in NYC can tell you that you can't buy a firearm without first jumping through dozens of hoops, each step of which must be approved by a government bureaucrat?

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to you?  What about a convicted violent felon who's done is time and is not back in society?  Can he buy/own a gun?

Depending on what you mean by "violent felon" and the type of violent behavior involved, a criminal statute could be written to include prohibiting possession of a gun as a lifetime punishment.  Many violent felons today have multiple violations and in my opinion should never be allowed back into society.

As I said on the other thread, I bet I support more gun rights than you.  I was right.  You, like the pro-thin-blue-line authoritarian that you are, don't really believe that gun rights shall not be infringed upon... you, like Democrats and all Republican politicians that I'm aware of, rationalize infringing on rights for LIFE in this case, even though the person has paid their debt to society and is now a free person.

[Hightop77]

I think thereâ€s an outright prohibition against slavery. 13th Amendment. So thatâ€s a negative. Thereâ€s no outright ban on guns like that. You can own guns, you just canâ€t do anything you want with that gun. You might believe that an infringement but others disagree with you, obviously.

What does shall not be infringed mean to you?  Does that mean some Lefty politicians in NYC can tell you that you can't buy a firearm without first jumping through dozens of hoops, each step of which must be approved by a government bureaucrat?

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to you?  What about a convicted violent felon who's done is time and is not back in society?  Can he buy/own a gun?

Depending on what you mean by "violent felon" and the type of violent behavior involved, a criminal statute could be written to include prohibiting possession of a gun as a lifetime punishment.  Many violent felons today have multiple violations and in my opinion should never be allowed back into society.

As I said on the other thread, I bet I support more gun rights than you.  I was right.  You, like the pro-thin-blue-line authoritarian that you are, don't really believe that gun rights shall not be infringed upon... you, like Democrats and all Republican politicians that I'm aware of, rationalize infringing on rights for LIFE in this case, even though the person has paid their debt to society and is now a free person.

No. Rights come with the responsibility of obeying the law.  People who are in prison lose most of their rights because you can't incarcerate someone and allow them to do whatever they want.  If a person shows they cannot be allowed to be in a civilized society because they are too violent they should be removed and even if they aren't removed, the punishment for their crime can include no access to firearms.  Law abiding citizens have rights too.

[somenole]

So, are you leaving and when?

[Jacketbuckeye]

My wife and I are hopefully going to buy a house soon. Finally. Living in a shoebox is getting old. We want to stay in the same general area in Atlanta. We also live about 3 miles from cincy, though we have yet to meet up with him.

[P1tchblack]

What does shall not be infringed mean to you?  Does that mean some Lefty politicians in NYC can tell you that you can't buy a firearm without first jumping through dozens of hoops, each step of which must be approved by a government bureaucrat?

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to you?  What about a convicted violent felon who's done is time and is not back in society?  Can he buy/own a gun?

Depending on what you mean by "violent felon" and the type of violent behavior involved, a criminal statute could be written to include prohibiting possession of a gun as a lifetime punishment.  Many violent felons today have multiple violations and in my opinion should never be allowed back into society.

As I said on the other thread, I bet I support more gun rights than you.  I was right.  You, like the pro-thin-blue-line authoritarian that you are, don't really believe that gun rights shall not be infringed upon... you, like Democrats and all Republican politicians that I'm aware of, rationalize infringing on rights for LIFE in this case, even though the person has paid their debt to society and is now a free person.

No. Rights come with the responsibility of obeying the law.  People who are in prison lose most of their rights because you can't incarcerate someone and allow them to do whatever they want. 

Correct.  If you break the law and are found guilty, your rights are suspended while you are incarcerated.

If a person shows they cannot be allowed to be in a civilized society because they are too violent they should be removed and even if they aren't removed, the punishment for their crime can include no access to firearms.  Law abiding citizens have rights too.

Except, that's now how rights work.  If you break the law, you are punished.  Once your punishment is served, you have paid your debt to society and there is no justification for denying rights and longer.  As you said, "shall not be infringed".

[Hightop77]

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to you?  What about a convicted violent felon who's done is time and is not back in society?  Can he buy/own a gun?

Depending on what you mean by "violent felon" and the type of violent behavior involved, a criminal statute could be written to include prohibiting possession of a gun as a lifetime punishment.  Many violent felons today have multiple violations and in my opinion should never be allowed back into society.

As I said on the other thread, I bet I support more gun rights than you.  I was right.  You, like the pro-thin-blue-line authoritarian that you are, don't really believe that gun rights shall not be infringed upon... you, like Democrats and all Republican politicians that I'm aware of, rationalize infringing on rights for LIFE in this case, even though the person has paid their debt to society and is now a free person.

No. Rights come with the responsibility of obeying the law.  People who are in prison lose most of their rights because you can't incarcerate someone and allow them to do whatever they want. 

Correct.  If you break the law and are found guilty, your rights are suspended while you are incarcerated.

If a person shows they cannot be allowed to be in a civilized society because they are too violent they should be removed and even if they aren't removed, the punishment for their crime can include no access to firearms.  Law abiding citizens have rights too.

Except, that's now how rights work.  If you break the law, you are punished.  Once your punishment is served, you have paid your debt to society and there is no justification for denying rights and longer.  As you said, "shall not be infringed".

My example was that people deemed to be inherently criminally violent can qualify for a permanent punishment including no lawful access to guns.  The punishment can never be completed because the individual can't be trusted to be civilized.

[3rdgensooner]

Dumb. Part of the punishment is loss of some rights and privileges and the law will state when that ends or not. So the punishment hasn't ended.

[P1tchblack]

Depending on what you mean by "violent felon" and the type of violent behavior involved, a criminal statute could be written to include prohibiting possession of a gun as a lifetime punishment.  Many violent felons today have multiple violations and in my opinion should never be allowed back into society.

As I said on the other thread, I bet I support more gun rights than you.  I was right.  You, like the pro-thin-blue-line authoritarian that you are, don't really believe that gun rights shall not be infringed upon... you, like Democrats and all Republican politicians that I'm aware of, rationalize infringing on rights for LIFE in this case, even though the person has paid their debt to society and is now a free person.

No. Rights come with the responsibility of obeying the law.  People who are in prison lose most of their rights because you can't incarcerate someone and allow them to do whatever they want. 

Correct.  If you break the law and are found guilty, your rights are suspended while you are incarcerated.

If a person shows they cannot be allowed to be in a civilized society because they are too violent they should be removed and even if they aren't removed, the punishment for their crime can include no access to firearms.  Law abiding citizens have rights too.

Except, that's now how rights work.  If you break the law, you are punished.  Once your punishment is served, you have paid your debt to society and there is no justification for denying rights and longer.  As you said, "shall not be infringed".

My example was that people deemed to be inherently criminally violent can qualify for a permanent punishment including no lawful access to guns.  The punishment can never be completed because the individual can't be trusted to be civilized.

If you are incarcerated, you lose your rights.  If you have paid your debt to society, and are a free man, there is no basis for denying rights.  "Shall not be infringed".

[Hightop77]

As I said on the other thread, I bet I support more gun rights than you.  I was right.  You, like the pro-thin-blue-line authoritarian that you are, don't really believe that gun rights shall not be infringed upon... you, like Democrats and all Republican politicians that I'm aware of, rationalize infringing on rights for LIFE in this case, even though the person has paid their debt to society and is now a free person.

No. Rights come with the responsibility of obeying the law.  People who are in prison lose most of their rights because you can't incarcerate someone and allow them to do whatever they want. 

Correct.  If you break the law and are found guilty, your rights are suspended while you are incarcerated.

If a person shows they cannot be allowed to be in a civilized society because they are too violent they should be removed and even if they aren't removed, the punishment for their crime can include no access to firearms.  Law abiding citizens have rights too.

Except, that's now how rights work.  If you break the law, you are punished.  Once your punishment is served, you have paid your debt to society and there is no justification for denying rights and longer.  As you said, "shall not be infringed".

My example was that people deemed to be inherently criminally violent can qualify for a permanent punishment including no lawful access to guns.  The punishment can never be completed because the individual can't be trusted to be civilized.

If you are incarcerated, you lose your rights.  If you have paid your debt to society, and are a free man, there is no basis for denying rights.  "Shall not be infringed".

That isn't always how incarceration and punishment works.  People are often granted early release from prison provided they obey the rules that limit their conduct and behavior.  No drinking or no firearms might be part of that.

[P1tchblack]

No. Rights come with the responsibility of obeying the law.  People who are in prison lose most of their rights because you can't incarcerate someone and allow them to do whatever they want. 

Correct.  If you break the law and are found guilty, your rights are suspended while you are incarcerated.

If a person shows they cannot be allowed to be in a civilized society because they are too violent they should be removed and even if they aren't removed, the punishment for their crime can include no access to firearms.  Law abiding citizens have rights too.

Except, that's now how rights work.  If you break the law, you are punished.  Once your punishment is served, you have paid your debt to society and there is no justification for denying rights and longer.  As you said, "shall not be infringed".

My example was that people deemed to be inherently criminally violent can qualify for a permanent punishment including no lawful access to guns.  The punishment can never be completed because the individual can't be trusted to be civilized.

If you are incarcerated, you lose your rights.  If you have paid your debt to society, and are a free man, there is no basis for denying rights.  "Shall not be infringed".

That isn't always how incarceration and punishment works.  People are often granted early release from prison provided they obey the rules that limit their conduct and behavior.  No drinking or no firearms might be part of that.

I understand how thing work now.  That doesn't mean it's how they should work.  If you are incarcerated, which means you have infringed on someone else's rights, then you lose your rights as part of being incarcerated.  If you are out of jail/prison, there is no basis for disallowing a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.


As I said previously.... doesn't matter if you're R or D, both sides come up with their own reasons to take away our liberties and infringe on our rights.  Hell, I can't even drive a car without a seatbelt on for fear of having the government take money from me.

[TcSoup]

So a person with a long history of driving impaired should never lose their right to drive even if they caused a accident that involved a charge of involuntary manslaughter and were eventually released from prison.?
And continued drinking and driving.?

[P1tchblack]

So a person with a long history of driving impaired should never lose their right to drive even if they caused a accident that involved a charge of involuntary manslaughter and were eventually released from prison.?
And continued drinking and driving.?

Why would the government have the power to tell you that you can't own a car and operate it on roads that you paid for?