posted
By the strict definition of the Constitution, the rights of the citizen to own and bare a weapon cannot be infringed, yet the citizen who commits a crime and serves his time, after release, has that right infringed upon.
But NOT if that infringement was an integral PART of his sentence. You can have your property rights removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to free association removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to freedom of movement removed as part of your sentence. Why make an exception for the right to own and carry a gun?
I still have objection to your view of the Constitution and how it applies to the Second Ammendment. I don't belief it's a realistic (in view of contemporary law) way of looking at the situation
Oh, so in other words, screw what the Constitution says, and just do whatever works? That's called facism, IIRC, and as a general rule, it doesn't work.
See, whether you personally like it or not doesn't really matter. What I'm describing is what the Constitution says, and is thus law.
Jay:
the Constiution gives Congress the right to regulate the militia and offers no guarantee to the ownership of firearms without an express connection with said militia
What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited April 01, 2001).]
quote:But NOT if that infringement was an integral PART of his sentence. You can have your property rights removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to free association removed as part of your sentence, and you can have your right to freedom of movement removed as part of your sentence. Why make an exception for the right to own and carry a gun?
Omega ... that's the whole point. Judges and juries DON'T make that an integral PART of anyone's sentence because the government already does it! The only way that this is legal (by your view of the Constitution) is because THE GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE! Get used to it. Hell, even your proposal gives the government the right to regulate the 2nd Ammendment. Christ, you gave in easily on this one.
quote:Oh, so in other words, screw what the Constitution says, and just do whatever works? That's called facism, IIRC, and as a general rule, it doesn't work.
When did I say that? I said your view of the Constitution, which is flawed. Oh, by the way ... as a general rule, your interpretations of the Constitution are very rarely correct.
See, Omega, whether you personally like Gov't regulation or not doesn't really matter. What Jay has described so perfectly is what the Constitution says, and is thus law.
quote:What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me.
Which you're restircting to those who've served terms! Ah, I know, horse = beat = dead.
We're simply discussing regulation of said guns (as the general purpose), not banishment. If the 2nd Ammendment is simply the right to own firearms, then government regulation does not endanger that, now does it? Thank you.
Now, for those of you who have read this thread:
You will find Omega usually prefers to bash his head into a brick wall about fifty times, thereby wasting not only his own time, but the time of anyone else who gets ensnared in the thread. He ignores things, ducks arguments, and avoids answering questions. He pretends not to see the holes in his arguments. But, hey, he's Omega, and he's fun to have around. You'll find he enjoys crying "foul!" when someone commits what is known as an "ad-hominem" (English: insult), yet he routinely throws them out himself. Now, forgive me for rambling, but essentially what happened in this thread was this:
Omega say government can't regulate handguns.
Omega supports government regulation of handguns to people who have served their prison term.
Omega recants earlier views to admit that the 2nd Ammendment (even by his extreme Constitutional views) only prohibits the Fed Gov't from banning private ownership of guns, and not regulation of said guns.
Now, what this means is that this thread has now ended. Until Omega begins posting more nonsense. But, hey, he's Omega, and we all love him for who he is.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 01, 2001).]
posted
Omega recants earlier views to admit that the 2nd Ammendment (even by his extreme Constitutional views) only prohibits the Fed Gov't from banning private ownership of guns, and not regulation of said guns.
Um... when did I do this?
Omega supports government regulation of handguns to people who have served their prison term.
You seem to equate "prison term" with "sentence". Punishment for a crime can be whatever the law says it is (short of being "cruel and unusual"). You can't name a legal punishment that doesn't involve restriction of rights. It's just a matter of WHICH rights, when, and for how long.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me.
Right there. You mention nothing of government regulations except that the government can not stop someone from owning a gun. Regulation doesn't prevent people from owning guns.
quote:You seem to equate "prison term" with "sentence". Punishment for a crime can be whatever the law says it is (short of being "cruel and unusual"). You can't name a legal punishment that doesn't involve restriction of rights. It's just a matter of WHICH rights, when, and for how long.
You seem to equate "someone who has finished their punishment" with something else. Current law says the government can regulate the 2nd Ammendment to prohibit guns to those who've been in jail. That's the "how long" part, but here's where it gets interesting: unless you believe the government has the right to legislate, then you've gotta admit that your interpretation of the Constitution requires those ex-cons to have the freedom to own a gun if they so desire.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
In all this talk about Gun Ownership and the right to bear arms, no one has brought up what the Constituion says about actually being a gun. Like a robot. Or Pistol Pete. Or Megatron.
------------------ "Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited April 02, 2001).]
posted
You mention nothing of government regulations except that the government can not stop someone from owning a gun.
You're just so desperate to have me agree with you that you'll do anything, aren't you? Ignore arguments, twist statements, anything. Tell me: did you actually read the discourse and ignore it; or did you just jump on an opportune phrase that you happened across while you were scrolling down past it all, and decide to take it out of context?
But for the rational among us, the statement in question was a response to a statement by Jay, in which HE didn't mention anything about regulation, but only about the right of ownership. Specifically:
"the Constiution gives Congress the right to regulate the militia and offers no guarantee to the ownership of firearms without an express connection with said militia".
This I responded to with:
"What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand? As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like a guarentee of the right to own firearms to me."
You seem to equate "someone who has finished their punishment" with something else.
This statement makes no sense.
Current law says the government can regulate the 2nd Ammendment to prohibit guns to those who've been in jail.
This is not regulation of the second ammendment. It's punishment for a crime, just like prison or fines. Would you call those regulation of the appropriate rights? Wait, of course YOU would. But would any rational person?
unless you believe the government has the right to legislate, then you've gotta admit that your interpretation of the Constitution requires those ex-cons to have the freedom to own a gun if they so desire.
OK, I am now typing slowly, for the benefit of the thinking impaired.
And yet again, I point out that the second ammendment applies to "The People", of which a criminal is not a part. If you break the social contract, as Rob puts is when HE tries to get something through your head, your rights are at the discression of the law and a judge and jury.
How many different ways can I say this? How 'bout this...
If there was no way to restrict the rights of criminals, why would have laws at all? There'd be no way to enforce them.
Jeff, ALL rights can be suspended for ANY length of time for ANY crime, dependant upon the applicable laws. You seem to associate not being in prison with having all your rights reinstated. This does NOT have to be the case. If someone's on parole, they're not in prison. Does that mean that they have all the rights they had before?
Prison isn't the single or a superceeding method of punishment. It's just the one that you've gotten stuck in your head as being the KEY method. You seem to think that once you're out of prison, everything's just hunky-dory. Well, WHY? What's so unique about prison? It's a removal of rights, like any other punishment, be it fines, or having your right to own a gun revoked.
Try to think outside the box you've created for yourself. There's a whole big world out there.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
UM: Megatron is banned in the US. So being a gun is also illegal in the US. Whenever Prime and him started one of their Big Fights, the cops should have "arrested his ass". And Prime's too, for being a big soppy do-gooder twonk.
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
quote:If there was no way to restrict the rights of criminals, why would have laws at all? There'd be no way to enforce them.
So, you're not in favor of ever forgiving them? Why not just press for life-sentences or the death penalty for everybody, then?
quote:Prison isn't the single or a superceeding method of punishment. It's just the one that you've gotten stuck in your head as being the KEY method. You seem to think that once you're out of prison, everything's just hunky-dory. Well, WHY? What's so unique about prison? It's a removal of rights, like any other punishment, be it fines, or having your right to own a gun revoked.
Not at all. I agree that those who have gone to jail shouldn't be allowed to own guns. HOWEVER, I understand that that is because the government regulates the 2nd Ammendment. We agree on the end result, just not on how we get there.
However, by YOUR definition of the 2nd Ammendment, people should be allowed to own guns once they get out of jail. Again, by your view, this could only be changed by an Ammendment. However, since the rest of us live in the "real-world", we recongize that the government has the right to regulate guns. This is why ex-cons don't own them.
Omega, you say if that becomes part of their sentence. Yet, you must admit that there are no cases (at least, none that I know of, and certainly this is not done in a uniform case) where a judge has added the "no guns!" to someone's sentence.
So, until your proposal becomes law, anyone who serves their time and gets out of jail should be allowed to have a gun (by your definition of the 2nd Ammendment). The fact that s/he is not allowed to is government regulation.
And like it or not, you agree to that in a degree if you do believe that ex-cons shouldn't have cons.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 02, 2001).]
posted
And you say that I don't know anything about Constitutional law?
The government can not regulate the free excercize of a right enumerated in the Constitution. This is by definition.
However, by YOUR definition of the 2nd Ammendment, people should be allowed to own guns once they get out of jail.
NOT if their legally imposed sentence says otherwise. You seem to imply that you know more about my views than I do, when you in fact have them quite wrong. Even though I've spelled them out half a dozen times, now. That's just sad.
Omega, you say if that becomes part of their sentence. Yet, you must admit that there are no cases (at least, none that I know of, and certainly this is not done in a uniform case) where a judge has added the "no guns!" to someone's sentence.
If it's in the legal code of the state that it's a manditory part of the sentencing for a given crime, the judge doesn't HAVE to say it, now does he?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Well, give us some examples then.
That's all JeffK is asking for anyways.
------------------ "Or maybe he was a real quack who got sick and tired of pissing people off, and decided to get a life and masterbate for the next 10 years." - Me to Antagonist on Red Quacker, 03/08/01 20:15
quote:NOT if their legally imposed sentence says otherwise. You seem to imply that you know more about my views than I do, when you in fact have them quite wrong. Even though I've spelled them out half a dozen times, now. That's just sad.
Bold is mine, BTW.
And that, Omega, is the crucial flaw in your argument. IF their sentence says otherwise. Please refresh my memory on how many sentences specificly restrict one's rights to own a firearm after their jail term has expired?
The only way it's possible to keep guns from these people is government regulation.
How many times have I spelled this out?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Printer-friendly view of this topic
