Does The NRA Represent Sane Gun Owners Anymore?

[Gauthier]

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.

Fine. I give up. Even if someone has a documented propensity for violence and arrests, avoiding conviction gives them the same right to guns as well-adjusted people.

[Fartsniffage]

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

Fine. I give up. Even if someone has a documented propensity for violence and arrests, avoiding conviction gives them the same right to guns as well-adjusted people.

Yes, it has to. That's how the justice system works. Can't you see that what you're asking for is worse than the alternative?

[Keyboard Warriors]

Fine. I give up. Even if someone has a documented propensity for violence and arrests, avoiding conviction gives them the same right to guns as well-adjusted people.

Yes, it has to. That's how the justice system works. Can't you see that what you're asking for is worse than the alternative?

I don't see how restricting people with a documented propensity for violence from owning guns can possibly be worse than allowing anybody to own a gun right up until they receive a criminal conviction. What Gauth is asking for is really not that extreme.

[Galloism]

Yes, it has to. That's how the justice system works. Can't you see that what you're asking for is worse than the alternative?

I don't see how restricting people with a documented propensity for violence from owning guns can possibly be worse than allowing anybody to own a gun right up until they receive a criminal conviction. What Gauth is asking for is really not that extreme.

Because of the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

You charge a person a few times with something, then drop the charges before ever reaching trial. there's no cause for complaint because they were never convicted - possibly never even jailed - but you've taken their guns away.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes, it has to. That's how the justice system works. Can't you see that what you're asking for is worse than the alternative?

I don't see how restricting people with a documented propensity for violence from owning guns can possibly be worse than allowing anybody to own a gun right up until they receive a criminal conviction. What Gauth is asking for is really not that extreme.

It really is in the US. The right to keep and bear arms is a right afforded by the constitution. If that right could be curtailed based on suspicion alone then what other rights could be suspended?

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

no its not a binary

there are variations of agreements (to varying degrees) with the SC point of view and there are others too

its not a Yes or a No. Don't oversimplify the issue.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I don't see how restricting people with a documented propensity for violence from owning guns can possibly be worse than allowing anybody to own a gun right up until they receive a criminal conviction. What Gauth is asking for is really not that extreme.

Because of the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

You charge a person a few times with something, then drop the charges before ever reaching trial. there's no cause for complaint because they were never convicted - possibly never even jailed - but you've taken their guns away.

In the US, is there such a thing as being found guilty without conviction?

I don't see how restricting people with a documented propensity for violence from owning guns can possibly be worse than allowing anybody to own a gun right up until they receive a criminal conviction. What Gauth is asking for is really not that extreme.

It really is in the US. The right to keep and bear arms is a right afforded by the constitution. If that right could be curtailed based on suspicion alone then what other rights could be suspended?

Depending on the outcome of those legal cases, there could very well be a lot more than just a suspicion behind the assessment of Torrez's mental state.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see how restricting people with a documented propensity for violence from owning guns can possibly be worse than allowing anybody to own a gun right up until they receive a criminal conviction. What Gauth is asking for is really not that extreme.

Because of the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

You charge a person a few times with something, then drop the charges before ever reaching trial. there's no cause for complaint because they were never convicted - possibly never even jailed - but you've taken their guns away.

For... what purpose exactly?

[Galloism]

Because of the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

You charge a person a few times with something, then drop the charges before ever reaching trial. there's no cause for complaint because they were never convicted - possibly never even jailed - but you've taken their guns away.

In the US, is there such a thing as being found guilty without conviction?

Not... particularly.

In a civil trial, you can be found liable but that's not the same as guilty.

[Galloism]

Because of the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

You charge a person a few times with something, then drop the charges before ever reaching trial. there's no cause for complaint because they were never convicted - possibly never even jailed - but you've taken their guns away.

For... what purpose exactly?

Prosecutor who doesn't want guns in his town. Police chief who agrees. Takes away guns from anyone they don't like.

Sells guns confiscated to make up the cost.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Because of the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

You charge a person a few times with something, then drop the charges before ever reaching trial. there's no cause for complaint because they were never convicted - possibly never even jailed - but you've taken their guns away.

For... what purpose exactly?

Presumably the same purpose any agent of the government has when they abuse their power.
It's usually some form of personal prejudice or the like rearing its head. Or outright corruption and the like, though that tends to be more rare.

[Fartsniffage]

Depending on the outcome of those legal cases, there could very well be a lot more than just a suspicion behind the assessment of Torrez's mental state.

And?

[Gun Manufacturers]

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?

Show me the conviction.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Nonsense, you seem normal and sane to me.

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

Perhaps you missed the smiley? I was trying to be funny.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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

Show me the conviction.

Exactly.

If he hasn't been convicted of a crime, he isn't a criminal. So the talking point stands.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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

no its not a binary

there are variations of agreements (to varying degrees) with the SC point of view and there are others too

its not a Yes or a No. Don't oversimplify the issue.

The DOJ has also interpreted the 2nd Amendment being an individual right (check my sig for the link), as have others. Hell, Obama has gone on record as saying he believes the 2nd Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

[Infected Mushroom]

no its not a binary

there are variations of agreements (to varying degrees) with the SC point of view and there are others too

its not a Yes or a No. Don't oversimplify the issue.

The DOJ has also interpreted the 2nd Amendment being an individual right (check my sig for the link), as have others. Hell, Obama has gone on record as saying he believes the 2nd Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

So?

Obama is a politician and the DOJ wants to be in the administration's good books. None of them give any better reasons than the SC.

[Galloism]

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

Fine. I give up. Even if someone has a documented propensity for violence and arrests, avoiding conviction gives them the same right to guns as well-adjusted people.

You know what's funny about this?

It would disproportionately affect ethnic minorities - especially African Americans. They are far more likely to be arrested at a much lower level of suspicion than white people. This results in far more arrests among black people than white people, and although this is an issue that needs correcting in its own right, the effect of this issue combined with "multiple arrests without conviction means no guns" would result in stripping the rights of many black people who have done no wrong.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

no its not a binary

there are variations of agreements (to varying degrees) with the SC point of view and there are others too

its not a Yes or a No. Don't oversimplify the issue.

The DOJ has also interpreted the 2nd Amendment being an individual right (check my sig for the link), as have others. Hell, Obama has gone on record as saying he believes the 2nd Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

Yeah, this is a fairly done-and-dry issue.

Everyone whose opinion matters - and most of those who are educated on the subject but can't enforce their opinion regardless - take the wording to mean that an individual has the right to own guns. It's blatant, it's simple, and there is no stark reasoning to strip us of it.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Fine. I give up. Even if someone has a documented propensity for violence and arrests, avoiding conviction gives them the same right to guns as well-adjusted people.

You know what's funny about this?

It would disproportionately affect ethnic minorities - especially African Americans. They are far more likely to be arrested at a much lower level of suspicion than white people. This results in far more arrests among black people than white people, and although this is an issue that needs correcting in its own right, the effect of this issue combined with "multiple arrests without conviction means no guns" would result in stripping the rights of many black people who have done no wrong.

Especially considering some of the more racist roots of gun control in America.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The DOJ has also interpreted the 2nd Amendment being an individual right (check my sig for the link), as have others. Hell, Obama has gone on record as saying he believes the 2nd Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

So?

Obama is a politician and the DOJ wants to be in the administration's good books. None of them give any better reasons than the SC.

Obama was a Harvard Law scholar, the DOJ is full of working lawyers, and the DOJ memorandum is well sourced. What do you have, besides your personal opinion? Why don't you ATTEMPT to refute the DOJ memorandum? Have you even read it?

[Infected Mushroom]

So?

Obama is a politician and the DOJ wants to be in the administration's good books. None of them give any better reasons than the SC.

Obama was a Harvard Law scholar, the DOJ is full of working lawyers, and the DOJ memorandum is well sourced. What do you have, besides your personal opinion? Why don't you ATTEMPT to refute the DOJ memorandum? Have you even read it?

I have read it. You have sent it to me before.

It chooses to look at examples of there being prefatory clauses in other documents as opposed to looking at the surrounding amendments by the same authors in the same context, in which there is a complete absence of prefatory language (its 100% operative).

This is a prime example of choosing where you want to go and then putting the pieces there as opposed to looking at the pieces and drawing the logical conclusion.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Obama was a Harvard Law scholar, the DOJ is full of working lawyers, and the DOJ memorandum is well sourced. What do you have, besides your personal opinion? Why don't you ATTEMPT to refute the DOJ memorandum? Have you even read it?

I have read it. You have sent it to me before.

It chooses to look at examples of there being prefatory clauses in other documents as opposed to looking at the surrounding amendments by the same authors in the same context, in which there is a complete absence of prefatory language (its 100% operative).

This is a prime example of choosing where you want to go and then putting the pieces there as opposed to looking at the pieces and drawing the logical conclusion.

That's really rich, considering you've been doing exactly that. You started from the position of "ban all firearms", and are attempting to interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit your purpose.

Again, what legal precedent, ruling, etc do you have, other than your personal opinion to support your position?

[Infected Mushroom]

I have read it. You have sent it to me before.

It chooses to look at examples of there being prefatory clauses in other documents as opposed to looking at the surrounding amendments by the same authors in the same context, in which there is a complete absence of prefatory language (its 100% operative).

This is a prime example of choosing where you want to go and then putting the pieces there as opposed to looking at the pieces and drawing the logical conclusion.

That's really rich, considering you've been doing exactly that. You started from the position of "ban all firearms", and are attempting to interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit your purpose.

Again, what legal precedent, ruling, etc do you have, other than your personal opinion to support your position?

No, I'm just reading the Amendment at face value and giving economic effect to each and every single word in it (like all the surrounding Amendments).

I'm not cherry-picking and choosing to ignore 50% of what the actual text says

[Gun Manufacturers]

That's really rich, considering you've been doing exactly that. You started from the position of "ban all firearms", and are attempting to interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit your purpose.

Again, what legal precedent, ruling, etc do you have, other than your personal opinion to support your position?

No, I'm just reading the Amendment at face value and giving economic effect to each and every single word in it (like all the surrounding Amendments).

I'm not cherry-picking and choosing to ignore 50% of what the actual text says

So again, just the personal opinion of an anonymous forum poster who claims to be a law student about a law in another country. Got it.