Jill Stein demands recount in 3 states

[Foxtrapper]

If a means of ID whether free or paid was indeed to identify yourself as eligible to vote was indeed declared unconstitutional, then it was a bad decision just like other bad decisions in my opinion.

How so is if you are ineligible to bear arms that you should be locked up over the top? If you are a danger to society, shouldn't you NOT be emersed in society? If you are a criminal that cannot be trusted to bear arms because you will hurt or kill someone, than you should be locked up. A criminal can always get a gun or another dangerous weapon. If you are a mental deficient that cannot be trusted in society for the same reasons, than you should be in a mental institution.

There are lots of people living in the US that are not eligible to carry who do not belong in jail just for that reason. Not all ineligible people are a danger to society. Wow, just bat shit crazy, wow, not even sure how anyone could think along lines such as these...

Just because something has been upheld or struck down by the courts doesn't mean it really is constitutional/unconstitutional.

Our history is replete with examples of the courts (including SCOTUS) being on the wrong side of correct.

You've got that backwards. What he's saying is that only people in jail should be ineligible. As in, if you can't trust them with a gun, don't let them out.

Naw, I think I got it right the first time..

 

[Marine Cpl]

There are lots of people living in the US that are not eligible to carry who do not belong in jail just for that reason. Not all ineligible people are a danger to society. Wow, just bat shit crazy, wow, not even sure how anyone could think along lines such as these...



Naw, I think I got it right the first time..

Can you give me examples of who these people may be?

 

[GOPerfect]

Two points in regards to this discussion:

First, end all early voting. If there is a chance that you cannot vote on election day, get an absentee ballot.

Second, voting in the US is a Right for citizens only. You should need to prove that you are one prior to voting.

 

[Foxtrapper]

Can you give me examples of who these people may be?

Drug users, ex-convicts, people who have felony dwi's, mentally ill, and anybody else who may have had their eligibility to own a gun removed. There are so many different classes of people made ineligible to carry, and that doesn't mean they belong in jail. Some of the current ideas are to make the no-fly list ineligible, so if someone gets on that for whatever reason, they should be in jail? Sorry, but your idea of anyone who shouldn't have a gun should be in jail is just bullshit..

 

[Robin]

Jill,
you give me a thrill,
do you still,
need the pill,
please,
say you will.

Robin Burns

 

[GOPerfect]

Drug users, ex-convicts, people who have felony dwi's, mentally ill, and anybody else who may have had their eligibility to own a gun removed. There are so many different classes of people made ineligible to carry, and that doesn't mean they belong in jail. Some of the current ideas are to make the no-fly list ineligible, so if someone gets on that for whatever reason, they should be in jail? Sorry, but your idea of anyone who shouldn't have a gun should be in jail is just bullshit..

I think what Will is getting at is a simple idea...

If these people (Crims) are no longer a danger to society, why can't they own guns after the Paid their debt to society?
A felon does not lose his/her 1A, 3A, 4A, 5A and so on, why only the 2A?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Drug users, ex-convicts, people who have felony dwi's, mentally ill, and anybody else who may have had their eligibility to own a gun removed. There are so many different classes of people made ineligible to carry, and that doesn't mean they belong in jail. Some of the current ideas are to make the no-fly list ineligible, so if someone gets on that for whatever reason, they should be in jail? Sorry, but your idea of anyone who shouldn't have a gun should be in jail is just bullshit..

If certain violent drug users and the violent mentally ill cannot be trusted with a firearm because they might kill someone, they should be removed from society.

Felons who paid the price and are released back to society should have their rights restored. What does drinking and driving have to do with carrying a gun for self defense, hunting, or sporting purposes? What does a white collar felony have to do with the same in regards to a gun?

As far as violent criminals who have been released for serving their time and being rehabilitated, there should be a probation period. After no violent crimes are committed within that probationary period, his rights are restored.

As far as drug users go, the minute they commit a crime, they are locked up and pay for that crime or are shot by a good guy that he's committing the crime against like it should be.

 

[Foxtrapper]

I think what Will is getting at is a simple idea...

If these people (Crims) are no longer a danger to society, why can't they own guns after the Paid their debt to society?
A felon does not lose his/her 1A, 3A, 4A, 5A and so on, why only the 2A?

They can have them back if they petiction to get them back, they are the ones who screwed up, and there oughta be a penalty for that. They should have to prove they deserve the right to carry again.

If certain violent drug users and the violent mentally ill cannot be trusted with a firearm because they might kill someone, they should be removed from society.

Felons who paid the price and are released back to society should have their rights restored. What does drinking and driving have to do with carrying a gun for self defense, hunting, or sporting purposes? What does a white collar felony have to do with the same in regards to a gun?

As far as violent criminals who have been released for serving their time and being rehabilitated, there should be a probation period. After no violent crimes are committed within that probationary period, his rights are restored.

As far as drug users go, the minute they commit a crime, they are locked up and pay for that crime or are shot by a good guy that he's committing the crime against like it should be.

I don't write the laws, however under our current laws, these people do not have the right to carry. What oughta be and what is is two different things. Drug users, whether their use is legal (Maryjane) or illegal ( coke, crack, ect) are automaticaly ineligible to carry, but you would lock them up anyways? There is a system in place for convicts to get their rights back. But, failure to do that shouldn't cause them to be locked up for doing nothing wrong. Your idea, or solution is impractical and unconstitutional. There's a name for acts like this, it's called dictatorship, and that's not how we as Americans roll..

 

[GOPerfect]

They can have them back if they petiction to get them back, they are the ones who screwed up, and there oughta be a penalty for that. They should have to prove they deserve the right to carry again.

Funny, there is no need to petition all the other Rights. This is all part of the Left Propaganda. This is why the Left wins so many battles. So many Americans fall for this crap; hook, line and sinker!

 

[Marine Cpl]

They can have them back if they petiction to get them back, they are the ones who screwed up, and there oughta be a penalty for that. They should have to prove they deserve the right to carry again.



I don't write the laws, however under our current laws, these people do not have the right to carry. What oughta be and what is is two different things. Drug users, whether their use is legal (Maryjane) or illegal ( coke, crack, ect) are automaticaly ineligible to carry, but you would lock them up anyways? There is a system in place for convicts to get their rights back. But, failure to do that shouldn't cause them to be locked up for doing nothing wrong. Your idea, or solution is impractical and unconstitutional. There's a name for acts like this, it's called dictatorship, and that's not how we as Americans roll..

Why should you have to go through red tape to only get one of your rights back?

As far as drug addicts go, not all of them are violent. In Amsterdam where it is legal, drug related violence is really low. Stripping the rights of some for the greater good is what you are for?

You fail to grasp what I'm saying. I do not want all drug addicts or mental deficients locked up. I only want those aforementioned locked if they committed crimes. How about dealing with criminals as they commit crimes and not before?

What's unconstitutional about locking up a criminal releasing him after time served, locking him back up after failing probation or restoring his rights after passing probation. Probation can be many years.

 

[Foxtrapper]

Why should you have to go through red tape to only get one of your rights back?

As far as drug addicts go, not all of them are violent. In Amsterdam where it is legal, drug related violence is really low. Stripping the rights of some for the greater good is what you are for?

You fail to grasp what I'm saying. I do not want all drug addicts or mental deficients locked up. I only want those aforementioned locked if they committed crimes. How about dealing with criminals as they commit crimes and not before?

What's unconstitutional about locking up a criminal releasing him after time served, locking him back up after failing probation or restoring his rights after passing probation. Probation can be many years.

I grasp what you are saying perfectly. It is quoted below, there really is nothing more to say on the subject....

If you are ineligible to carry an arm, you should be in prison.

 

[Foxtrapper]

Funny, there is no need to petition all the other Rights. This is all part of the Left Propaganda. This is why the Left wins so many battles. So many Americans fall for this crap; hook, line and sinker!

Yeah, sorry, I don't believe anyone who commits a violenat crime with a weapon should ever have that right back. Has nothing to do with a left or a right, and everything to do with plain ole common sense. Besides, most of these people commited the crime of their own accord, and yes, there needs to be a penalty for that action. Everyone knows they lose their 2nd Amendment right if convicted of a felony, if they commit that crime anyways, well, they just didn't care enough about the effects of said crime on their rights..

 

[Marine Cpl]

I grasp what you are saying perfectly. It is quoted below, there really is nothing more to say on the subject....

I explained what I meant yet you still quote my ill choice of words knowing good and well what I meant even after further explanation in a later post. But hey, in order to defend your point, you must act like you don't know.

Here it is again in case you really do not understand. I phrased what I meant wrong. For that, I apologize. I chose the word "ineligible" instead of saying "too dangerous".

What I meant to say is that if you are too dangerous to carry a gun, you should still remain in prison and never get out. A criminal can always find a way to kill. You know that good and well as evidenced by criminals getting guns and using alternative weapons like cars, trucks, and knives.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yeah, sorry, I don't believe anyone who commits a violenat crime with a weapon should ever have that right back.

I actually agree with you. They should never have have that right back. They should remain in jail. Prisoners have no rights.

In an seriousness, do you think they should be released from jail where they can commit the same crime with a knife?

 

[GOPerfect]

Again, I ask a simple question...

Why do they only lose one Right? Why not all of them. Why is the 2A so special?

 

[Snappo]

If certain violent drug users and the violent mentally ill cannot be trusted with a firearm because they might kill someone, they should be removed from society.

Finally you said something that makes sense. Grats. And add "recidivists / rapists / murderers / pedophiles" to that list. So drug abusers, mental defects, a substantial amount of priests, and violent criminals that clearly cannot be rehabilitated. And how to remove them? Grind them down into dog food and cat food. Why should our taxes have to carry those shitstains through life?

 

[Darth]

Finally you said something that makes sense. Grats. And add "recidivists / rapists / murderers / pedophiles" to that list. So drug abusers, mental defects, a substantial amount of priests, and violent criminals that clearly cannot be rehabilitated. And how to remove them? Grind them down into dog food and cat food. Why should our taxes have to carry those shitstains through life?

A) They are already removed via due process.

If you mean "If we lock one of them up, how can we be sure they won't do it again!?"

The same way we ensure squeaky clean citizens don't ever do any of those things.

A) Impossible.

But if you THINK there is a good CHANCE they might do it again? Keep them locked up. Free society is NOT a testing ground for violent criminals. This statement will get quoted and misconstrued to mean something it does not, but the original statement is true.

"If you can't be trusted with a gun, you shouldn't be in free society." Correct.

"If you cannot be trusted with women (rape), you shouldn't be in free society." Correct.

 

[GOPerfect]

A) They are already removed via due process.

If you mean "If we lock one of them up, how can we be sure they won't do it again!?"

The same way we ensure squeaky clean citizens don't ever do any of those things.

A) Impossible.

But if you THINK there is a good CHANCE they might do it again? Keep them locked up. Free society is NOT a testing ground for violent criminals. This statement will get quoted and misconstrued to mean something it does not, but the original statement is true.

"If you can't be trusted with a gun, you shouldn't be in free society." Correct.

"If you cannot be trusted with women (rape), you shouldn't be in free society." Correct.

And....

If society and the courts deem these people to be safe and they fulfilled their "Debt" to us, ALL Rights should be granted.

 

[GOPerfect]

And....

If society and the courts deem these people to be safe and they fulfilled their "Debt" to us, ALL Rights should be granted.

Please do not confuse my statement, I am not saying that we should arm the worst of our citizens, I am only saying that if they are too dangerous to own a gun then they should not be free to walk among us!

 

[Darth]

Please do not confuse my statement, I am not saying that we should arm the worst of our citizens, I am only saying that if they are too dangerous to own a gun then they should not be free to walk among us!

TFW you quote yourself and argue with yourself...

xD

 

[GOPerfect]

TFW you quote yourself and argue with yourself...

xD

I'm bored. If I argue with myself, I always win, one way or another!

 

[Darth]

I'm bored. If I argue with myself, I always win, one way or another!

Yeah, well, as of 1hr 46min ago, I'm a big 26 yr old.

YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

 

[GOPerfect]

Yes I can, I have a badge!

Happy Birthday!

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Foxtrapper]

I actually agree with you. They should never have have that right back. They should remain in jail. Prisoners have no rights.

In an seriousness, do you think they should be released from jail where they can commit the same crime with a knife?

Every crime has a penality, when that has been met they have paid their debt to sociality. It is unconstitutional to hold them longer than they have been sentenced to. Also, prisoners do very much have rights. In fact they have almost as many as we do. There are very few rights they actually lose as a result of being convicted of a crime..

Again, I ask a simple question...

Why do they only lose one Right? Why not all of them. Why is the 2A so special?

They lose more than one right. The reason the 2A is so special is it allows one to carry a weapon that can kill your ass from a distance...

A) They are already removed via due process.

If you mean "If we lock one of them up, how can we be sure they won't do it again!?"

The same way we ensure squeaky clean citizens don't ever do any of those things.

A) Impossible.

But if you THINK there is a good CHANCE they might do it again? Keep them locked up. Free society is NOT a testing ground for violent criminals. This statement will get quoted and misconstrued to mean something it does not, but the original statement is true.

"If you can't be trusted with a gun, you shouldn't be in free society." Correct.

"If you cannot be trusted with women (rape), you shouldn't be in free society." Correct.

Again with the can't be trusted with a gun crap. Really, is that the way all of you really feel, or are you parroting someone else? So you would be fine with locking up a functioning mental patient because they can't be trusted with a gun? Does that extend to toddlers as well? What about returning vets? Would you lock them up as well? You are starting to sound a lot like liberals. Lock up anyone who can't be trusted with a gun, that's sad.

Please do not confuse my statement, I am not saying that we should arm the worst of our citizens, I am only saying that if they are too dangerous to own a gun then they should not be free to walk among us!

All of you guys sound like good canidates for jobs at the Office Of Pre-Crime...

 

[Marine Cpl]

Unfortunately, you have been brainwashed by NY Liberals. You still don't get the point.

 

[Foxtrapper]

Unfortunately, you have been brainwashed by NY Liberals. You still don't get the point.

No, I get exactly what you are saying. And I am saying the founding fathers would not agree with you, and everything you are for is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If you wish to live in a dictatorship, move to another country...

 

[Darth]

Again with the can't be trusted with a gun crap. Really, is that the way all of you really feel, or are you parroting someone else? So you would be fine with locking up a functioning mental patient because they can't be trusted with a gun? Does that extend to toddlers as well? What about returning vets? Would you lock them up as well? You are starting to sound a lot like liberals. Lock up anyone who can't be trusted with a gun, that's sad.

I'd actually wager others are parroting me if you look at the real history.

It always moves on to the toddler and mental patient thing, to which I say they are already locked up for all intents and purposes and the cycle repeats.

 

[Marine Cpl]

No, I get exactly what you are saying. And I am saying the founding fathers would not agree with you, and everything you are for is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If you wish to live in a dictatorship, move to another country...

The Founding Fathers didn't take away someone's gun rights away after they went to jail. What are you talking about? They'd turn in their graves if they saw a guy get locked up for DWI and told he can never own a gun again.

Dictatorship? For being locked up for a violent crime? You don't answer the question that been asked over and over.

Pre Crime? No. You aren't getting the point. Nobody gets locked up until after they commit a crime just the same as us.

So you've answered GoPerfect's question that gun rights should be the only right taken away after being incarcerated for a felony or after being locked up in a mental institution because they could kill from a distance. I'm surprised that was the answer but okay.

Now answer this question. Should that same person after committing a violent crime be released from prison or a mental institution if he cannot be trusted to not kill someone else with a gun when he could do the same with a knife, vehicle, or other deadly weapon just like in Paris or Ohio?

 

[Foxtrapper]

The Founding Fathers didn't take away someone's gun rights away after they went to jail. What are you talking about? They'd turn in their graves if they saw a guy get locked up for DWI and told her can never own a gun again.

Dictatorship? For being locked up for a violent crime? You don't answer the question that been asked over and over.

I guess you do believe that someone who cannot be trusted to own a firearm because he may kill someone should be let loose from prison or a mental hospital and allowed to be free among us where he can commit the same crime with a knife, bat, of vehicle like they did in Paris and Ohio.

Really? You seem fixated on the whole violent crime thing, which is only one part of your statement. I've already made it clear on my views about violent criminals. So let's put all that off to the side for a moment. Instead, let's pick up your statement, and I quote, "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun needs to be locked up." Let's look at that for a moment. There are lots of people I don't trust with a weapon, liberals being at the top of the list. But I don't trust the mentally ill, the very young, and the completely stupid to carry a gun. Does that mean we should lock them up? NO, it doesn't, except of course in your world. I do not believe that just because you aren't responsible enough to carry a weapon that you automatically give up the right to freedom. Your statement is all inclusive of everyone, which IMHO is wrong, not everyone who shouldn't carry should be "locked up"....