Does The NRA Represent Sane Gun Owners Anymore?

[Paddy O Fernature]

And since he's not being charged with illegal possession as part of shooting the girl dead, I can only come to the conclusion that he was never convicted of all those arrests. Responsible Gun Owner by technicality.

Do you go out of your way to post stupid shit or does it just happen naturally?

^So much this.

[Gauthier]

And since he's not being charged with illegal possession as part of shooting the girl dead, I can only come to the conclusion that he was never convicted of all those arrests. Responsible Gun Owner by technicality.

We tend not to punish people for crimes for which they are not convicted.

You know, it's kind of the basis of our justice system - innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

That's what happened, and he eventually committed a crime he will be certainly be convicted of. Of course a little girl had to die, but them's the breaks right?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Do you go out of your way to post stupid shit or does it just happen naturally?

Hey, isn't it a gun fetishist talking point that criminals would never be allowed to legally own guns?

Yeah, because criminals aren't allowed to legally own fucking guns.

If he was never convicted of anything then he wouldn't be disallowed from owning weapons. And no, going around shooting people doesn't make you 'Responsible Gun Owner', stop shitposting.

[Fartsniffage]

We tend not to punish people for crimes for which they are not convicted.

You know, it's kind of the basis of our justice system - innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

That's what happened, and he eventually committed a crime he will be certainly be convicted of. Of course a little girl had to die, but them's the breaks right?

Actually, yes. That's exactly how it works in any civilised justice system.

[Gauthier]

Hey, isn't it a gun fetishist talking point that criminals would never be allowed to legally own guns?

Yeah, because criminals aren't allowed to legally own fucking guns.

If he was never convicted of anything then he wouldn't be disallowed from owning weapons. And no, going around shooting people doesn't make you 'Responsible Gun Owner', stop shitposting.

Hey, a history of being constantly arrested for violent acts might be a sign that a guy might not be the best person to own a gun. As a dead 4-year old girl proved.

[Imperializt Russia]

And since he's not being charged with illegal possession as part of shooting the girl dead, I can only come to the conclusion that he was never convicted of all those arrests. Responsible Gun Owner by technicality.

We tend not to punish people for crimes for which they are not convicted.

You know, it's kind of the basis of our justice system - innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

The critical problem of "better to let 10 guilty men go free than imprison an innocent" is the whole "ten guilty men free" thing.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hey, isn't it a gun fetishist talking point that criminals would never be allowed to legally own guns?

Yeah, because criminals aren't allowed to legally own fucking guns.

If he was never convicted of anything then he wouldn't be disallowed from owning weapons. And no, going around shooting people doesn't make you 'Responsible Gun Owner', stop shitposting.

In the eyes of the law, he was a "responsible gun owner" right up until the point he shot a four year old child over a road rage incident.
Clearly can't have been that responsible, innocence over previous arrests or no.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Lot's of normal, sane people own guns for legitimate reasons. Granted, I'm not one of those people, but I'm sure plenty exist out there

Nonsense, you seem normal and sane to me.

Can one scientifically correlate normalcy, and sanity because from what I have seen you actually cannot.

[Galloism]

We tend not to punish people for crimes for which they are not convicted.

You know, it's kind of the basis of our justice system - innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

That's what happened, and he eventually committed a crime he will be certainly be convicted of. Of course a little girl had to die, but them's the breaks right?

And that's why we should just dispense with trials. if a person gets arrested we just throw em in jail. They wouldn't have been arrested if they weren't guilty y'know.

Better to imprison the world. Obviously.


Are you fucking hearing yourself?

[Gauthier]

That's what happened, and he eventually committed a crime he will be certainly be convicted of. Of course a little girl had to die, but them's the breaks right?

And that's why we should just dispense with trials. if a person gets arrested we just throw em in jail. They wouldn't have been arrested if they weren't guilty y'know.

Better to imprison the world. Obviously.


Are you fucking hearing yourself?

Or you could hear that the guy had a history of being arrested repeatedly for violent acts but because they didn't lead to convictions, it was conveniently ignored up until a little girl died.

[Galloism]

And that's why we should just dispense with trials. if a person gets arrested we just throw em in jail. They wouldn't have been arrested if they weren't guilty y'know.

Better to imprison the world. Obviously.


Are you fucking hearing yourself?

Or you could hear that the guy had a history of being arrested repeatedly for violent acts but because they didn't lead to convictions, it was conveniently ignored up until a little girl died.

On what basis can we take rights from someone not convicted of any crime?

Think about that for a moment.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I think I'd trust the decision of someone whose JOB it is to interpret US law, than some Canadian with an agenda.

so appeal to authority?

I see...

Well, the alternative is an anonymous person on an internet forum who CLAIMS to be a law student in another country.

[Infected Mushroom]

so appeal to authority?

I see...

More like a rejection of falsity. *shrugs*

Not so much

This is really just an appeal to formalism (''what the Courts say is the law''), as opposed to looking at the reasoning employed by the Court and whether or not its the most logical interpretation that utilises the words in a natural way

[Gauthier]

Or you could hear that the guy had a history of being arrested repeatedly for violent acts but because they didn't lead to convictions, it was conveniently ignored up until a little girl died.

On what basis can we take rights from someone not convicted of any crime?

Think about that for a moment.

So as long as you avoid being convicted you can be a violent asshole and have legal access to firearms. Lovely message being sent.

[Imperializt Russia]

Or you could hear that the guy had a history of being arrested repeatedly for violent acts but because they didn't lead to convictions, it was conveniently ignored up until a little girl died.

On what basis can we take rights from someone not convicted of any crime?

Think about that for a moment.

By having not had the appalling lack of forethought to enshrine it as a personal right in the first place.

But that misstep has long since been made and now we must live with it.

[Galloism]

On what basis can we take rights from someone not convicted of any crime?

Think about that for a moment.

So as long as you avoid being convicted you can be a violent asshole and have legal access to firearms. Lovely message being sent.

That's kind of the way the justice system works. If you don't get convicted, you don't get punished.

I mean, I understand the complaint, but the solution - to make it so we can legally punish people without conviction - is worse than the disease.

[Washington Resistance Army]

On what basis can we take rights from someone not convicted of any crime?

Think about that for a moment.

So as long as you avoid being convicted you can be a violent asshole and have legal access to firearms. Lovely message being sent.

Yeah, lets remove someones rights even if they aren't convicted. Hell, lets keep going with that and apply it to other things. Not convicted of rape? Too bad! Welcome to the Sex Offender Registry!

[Fartsniffage]

On what basis can we take rights from someone not convicted of any crime?

Think about that for a moment.

So as long as you avoid being convicted you can be a violent asshole and have legal access to firearms. Lovely message being sent.

Yes, it is. Seriously, have you heard yourself? The path you're talking about leads to restrictions of rights on suspicion rather than conviction. There's a reason civilised countries operate a beyond reasonable doubt criteria for restriction of liberty.

[Gauthier]

So as long as you avoid being convicted you can be a violent asshole and have legal access to firearms. Lovely message being sent.

Yes, it is. Seriously, have you heard yourself? The path you're talking about leads to restrictions of rights on suspicion rather than conviction. There's a reason civilised countries operate a beyond reasonable doubt criteria for restriction of liberty.

Unless you happen to be of the wrong ethnicity, in which case suspected possession of firearms is a capital crime.

[Galloism]

Yes, it is. Seriously, have you heard yourself? The path you're talking about leads to restrictions of rights on suspicion rather than conviction. There's a reason civilised countries operate a beyond reasonable doubt criteria for restriction of liberty.

Unless you happen to be of the wrong ethnicity, in which case suspected possession of firearms is a capital crime.

Here's the thing. Most of us here think black people oughtta be treated like white people, NOT the other way around. Treating them the other way around is insanity.

If you want to argue that we need to undermine the very foundations of criminal justice, any respect that I ever held for you is gone. And it should be for everyone here.

You have literally just argued the exact same damn position as Chessmistress, just about guns instead of rape, and that should fucking give you pause.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes, it is. Seriously, have you heard yourself? The path you're talking about leads to restrictions of rights on suspicion rather than conviction. There's a reason civilised countries operate a beyond reasonable doubt criteria for restriction of liberty.

Unless you happen to be of the wrong ethnicity, in which case suspected possession of firearms is a capital crime.

Which is a problem that should be dealt with by the trial and imprisonment of police officers found to have shot people without cause. Trials conducted with a reasonable doubt burden of proof. But you don't lock up the officers suspected of doing that without them being found guilty. Nor do you restrict access to firearms for people who haven't been convicted of a crime in the US.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

On what basis can we take rights from someone not convicted of any crime?

Think about that for a moment.

So as long as you avoid being convicted you can be a violent asshole and have legal access to firearms. Lovely message being sent.

If you aren't convicted you aren't considered guilty of a fucking crime. That's how the law works.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

More like a rejection of falsity. *shrugs*

Not so much

This is really just an appeal to formalism (''what the Courts say is the law''), as opposed to looking at the reasoning employed by the Court and whether or not its the most logical interpretation that utilises the words in a natural way

"What the court says is the law" is not a fallacy of any kind. It's just fucking fact.

[Gauthier]

Unless you happen to be of the wrong ethnicity, in which case suspected possession of firearms is a capital crime.

Here's the thing. Most of us here think black people oughtta be treated like white people, NOT the other way around. Treating them the other way around is insanity.

If you want to argue that we need to undermine the very foundations of criminal justice, any respect that I ever held for you is gone. And it should be for everyone here.

You have literally just argued the exact same damn position as Chessmistress, just about guns instead of rape, and that should fucking give you pause.

It's reading like the Onion article on mass shootings. If there's going to be no real, meaningful steps taken to keeping unstable people from being able to get a hold of firearms, well as might just have a nationwide blackout on shooting incidents. Out of sight, out of mind. And I can't wait to hear someone defend this douchebag as being stable.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Here's the thing. Most of us here think black people oughtta be treated like white people, NOT the other way around. Treating them the other way around is insanity.

If you want to argue that we need to undermine the very foundations of criminal justice, any respect that I ever held for you is gone. And it should be for everyone here.

You have literally just argued the exact same damn position as Chessmistress, just about guns instead of rape, and that should fucking give you pause.

It's reading like the Onion article on mass shootings. If there's going to be no real, meaningful steps taken to keeping unstable people from being able to get a hold of firearms, well as might just have a nationwide blackout on shooting incidents. Out of sight, out of mind. And I can't wait to hear someone defend this douchebag as being stable.

Holy shit, you actually are on the same level as CM just about a different topic. This is incredible.