A suitable end to Thanksgiving weekend

On Monday, December 2, 2013 12:23:54 AM UTC-6, wrote:


I didn't know that. Bolt action rifles haven't been used by the
military since WW1.

Merry Christmas everyone. God bless us all.

God bless America.

A small emendation -- bolt action rifles haven't been used as the primary American service arm since WW1. Most everybody else used bolt action rifles through the end of WW2, and many Communist-sourced armies used bolt action rifles through the 1960s, until supplanted by Communist-sourced AK-47s.

Our current high-end military sniper rifles are bolt action, but those represent a very special use case.

wrote:
Indictment or conviction for a felony revokes your right to keep and
bear. By extension, so does the commission of a capital offense, but
when the enemy takes away your guns it's only temporary until the
proper legal machinations occur. Although ... "death by cop" isn't
something we regard as "temporary" or "proper." Only one's status as
an unindicted felon is temporary.

Do you know of a DA named Leslie Wolf in Austin?

On Monday, December 2, 2013 7:42:19 AM UTC-6, downhill wrote:


Do you know of a DA named Leslie Wolf in Austin?

No.

On Monday, December 2, 2013 7:59:39 AM UTC-5, wrote:

HAD. HAD.

OK, "had", give that he's 1) dead, and 2) would have been convicted on multiple capital offenses if he had lived.

State law regarding age to purchase notwithstanding, Lanza had the right to keep and bear arms up until when he killed his mother and stole her guns..

Exactly.

Indictment or conviction for a felony revokes your right to keep and bear..

Show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that it says that. It says "shall not be infringed", period. Does conviction of a felony, much less a mere indictment for one, take away any of your other constitutional rights? Does it take away your rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression? Does it take away right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? Does it take away your right not to be forced to incriminate yourself in legal testimony? Does it take away your right not to have soldiers quartered in your home during peacetime?

The answer to all these questions is no. So why should it take away your 2nd Amendment rights, which are the most fundamental of liberties, and the foundation and guarantee of all the others? Are you saying that convicted felons, once they're out of prison, don't have a need and a right and indeed a duty to protect themselves and their loved ones? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Dave

On Monday, December 2, 2013 10:33:40 AM UTC-6, Dave Stallard wrote:

Are you saying that convicted felons, once they're out of prison, don't have a
need and a right and indeed a duty to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Oh yeah, I forgot to address this point.

Once a person convicted of a crime has paid their "debt to society," they should have their rights returned -- or at least have a clear path to restoration.

At the state level, in all 50 states, non-violent felons who've completed their adjudicated course of punishment should be able to regain their abridged Constitutional rights to vote and to bear arms with a procedure as simple as filing a change-of address card. In the case of voter registration, it should be as simple as sending in a voter registration card. In fact, that would be perfect.

In the case of non-violent felons, this means that my arch-nemesis Tom DeLay should regain his right to vote as well as his right to keep and bear. Except that he's irresponsible when placed in political positions of public trust, he's a pretty level-headed, "well regulated" kind of guy. If I were a judge, absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd almost certainly restore his right to keep and bear, as well as his privilege to seek a concealed-carry permit.

However, violent felons should be required to appear before a judge to petition for restoration of their right to keep and bear. I trust the average judge to be able to review the record of a violent felon and make a just determination. My personal experience with violent felons is that most of them probably cannot be trusted with guns (or even freedom), but it's not my decision to make.

On Monday, December 2, 2013 10:33:40 AM UTC-6, Dave Stallard wrote:


Are you saying that convicted felons, once they're out of prison, don't have
a need and a right and indeed a duty to protect themselves and their loved
ones?



Dave, I forgot to address this point.

Once a person convicted of a crime has paid their "debt to society," they should have their rights returned -- or at least have a clear path to restoration.

At the state level, in all 50 states, non-violent felons who've completed their adjudicated course of punishment should be able to regain their abridged Constitutional rights to vote and to bear arms with a procedure as simple as filing a change-of address card. In the case of voter registration, it should be as simple as sending in a voter registration card. In fact, that would be perfect.

This means that my arch-nemesis Tom DeLay should regain his right to vote as well as his right to keep and bear. Except that he's irresponsible when placed in political positions of public trust, he's a pretty level-headed, "well regulated" kind of guy. If I were a judge, absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd almost certainly restore his right to keep and bear, as well as his privilege to seek a concealed-carry permit.

However, violent felons should be required to appear before a judge to petition for restoration of their right to keep and bear. I trust the average judge to be able to review the record of a violent felon and make a just determination. My personal experience with violent felons is that most of them probably cannot be trusted with guns (or even freedom), but it's not my decision to make.

On Monday, December 2, 2013 9:33:40 AM UTC-7, Dave Stallard wrote:

It's a very complicated issue. No one answer is right all the time. Common sense has to rule. Unfortunately political correctness has taken it's place..

It can be said that weapons in the hands of felons are more likely to result in the loss of more freedoms of those that are not criminally predisposed.. What more evidence do you need that these "norms" are set for the majority of well meaning people, not to protect the occasional nut bar like you know who.

On Monday, December 2, 2013 6:40:00 PM UTC-6, pigo wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2013 9:33:40 AM UTC-7, Dave Stallard wrote:

It's a very complicated issue. No one answer is right all the time. Common
sense has to rule. Unfortunately political correctness has taken its place.

It can be said that weapons in the hands of felons are more likely to result
in the loss of more freedoms of those that are not criminally predisposed..
What more evidence do you need that these "norms" are set for the majority of
well meaning people, not to protect the occasional nut bar like you know who.


Yeah, it's an unfortunate and unintended consequence of the unlawful acts of a few that curtail our freedoms -- or at least ruin stuff that we consider to be conveniences. My favorite example? Thanks to Ted Kaczinski, we cannot drop off packages for mailing that weigh more than 13 ounces without a face-to-face contact at the post office, or without some rather intrusive online labeling of the package.

As it is, the overwhelming majority of people know what's right and wrong, and they do the right thing. It's ust the maybe one in a million who go down the world-changing felony path -- people like Charles Whitman, the UT Tower shooter ... John Hinckley, the dweeb who attempted to assassinate Reagan ... Lee Harvey Oswald ... the recent rash of shooters and bombers ...

The kneejerk response isn't to focus on proactive mental health measures, but instead to make something that was already illegal -- more illegal.

At the expense of the 999,999 of us who obey the law and have a decent sense of morality and propriety.

On Monday, December 2, 2013 3:08:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Dave, it's not an infringement for states to add content like this: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.” to their state Constitutions. Incidentally, that's from the Texas state Constitution..

Then the Texas state constitution is unconstitutional. Could they add such "content" to the 1rst Amendment as freedom of religion, "provided you choose a mainline Protestant denomination", or freedom of speech, "provided you don't criticize the Texas legislature"? Could they force you to quarter members of the Texas National Guard in your home in peacetime, simply because they are not federal troops.

Your Second Amendment rights are actually a privilege of and a reward for maintaining responsible citizenship.

NONSENSE! It's not called "The Bill of Privileges and Rewards"; it's called "The Bill of RIGHTS"! Note that word: *rights*. Natural rights, inalienable rights, eternal rights, God-given rights. The rights our forefathers fought and died for. The rights of free peoples are not "privileges", sir..

I have a RIGHT to keep and bear whatever weapons I so choose, and neither the Federal government nor the Texas government has any legitimate say in the matter. Nor, I might add, does the government have any Big Brother prerogative to tell me what ordinance I may fire with my rifle. It doesn't matter whether it's a 5.56mm round fired from the barrel, or a 40mm round fired from an attachment. If I want to fire an XM1060 thermobaric grenade, I have the right to do so. Not a privilege. A RIGHT. A right given to me by my Creator, and enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, by His divine wisdom and guidance.

And when I say I have the right to bear any weapon, I mean ANY weapon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition

From my cold dead hands, Mr. Strohm!

Dave

On Monday, December 2, 2013 8:33:40 AM UTC-8, Dave Stallard wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2013 7:59:39 AM UTC-5, wrote:



HAD. HAD.



OK, "had", give that he's 1) dead, and 2) would have been convicted on multiple capital offenses if he had lived.



State law regarding age to purchase notwithstanding, Lanza had the right to keep and bear arms up until when he killed his mother and stole her guns.



Exactly.



Indictment or conviction for a felony revokes your right to keep and bear.



Show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that it says that.. It says "shall not be infringed", period. Does conviction of a felony, much less a mere indictment for one, take away any of your other constitutional rights? Does it take away your rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression? Does it take away right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? Does it take away your right not to be forced to incriminate yourself in legal testimony? Does it take away your right not to have soldiers quartered in your home during peacetime?



The answer to all these questions is no. So why should it take away your 2nd Amendment rights, which are the most fundamental of liberties, and the foundation and guarantee of all the others? Are you saying that convicted felons, once they're out of prison, don't have a need and a right and indeed a duty to protect themselves and their loved ones? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?



Dave

Prison inmates lose much of their rights to free speech and assembly, and many convicted felons lose thier right to vote, despite Consitutional Amendments to the contrary.

And not to belabor the point, but the Second Amendment starts with the words "A well regulated Militia...". In my personal opinion, someone who has not participated in at least some level of "militia" training by, say, his 25th birthday (even something as innocuous as an NRA firearms safety course) should have his 2A right revoked.