Man kills self at Dicks Sporting Goods

[Parker Duofold]

News from The Associated Press

Just another reason I won't ever be shopping at Dick's.

 

[Quiet]

Same reason that we don't let people leave their cell until their time is up even though SCOTUS has recognized "freedom of movement".

Free men can move about. In the same state, to another state, to another country.

Not while they have been removed from society and incarcerated.

If this gives you a boner because you think you've come upon some enlightenment that rights are not absolute. So be it. The rest of us think the fact that prisoners lose their rights while incarcerated is pretty strait forward.

So we're in agreement. The state can take every right away from you. So 2A is NOT absolute; none of the rights in the constitution are absolute.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble. But I just got a little tired of people claiming again and again that the right is absolute. It isn't.

Now, many of us want to draw the line at incarceration.
Others of us want to draw the line a little further away.
The grabbers want to draw that line ... well somewhere that none of us would like.
The people in the middle fall somehwere in between, and if we want more gun freedoms we have to appeal to those folks.

 

[seth72]

So it's OK to infringe on the God-given rights of men if you're "a threat to society"?

So I was like totally ripping on this fat spliff the other day after my professor was teaching us some so-crates and other philosophy stuff, and I was like.... confused as to why I would have the right to assault someone who is attempting to murder me, because like dude brah...aren't I like totally infringing upon his right to not be like..assaulted.... at that point? That stuffs just so heavy brah....

 

[xtry51]

So I was like totally ripping on this fat spliff the other day after my professor was teaching us some so-crates and other philosophy stuff, and I was like.... confused as to why I would have the right to assault someone who is attempting to murder me, because like dude brah...aren't I like totally infringing upon his right to not be like..assaulted.... at that point? That stuffs just so heavy brah....

 

[seth72]

The people in the middle fall somehwere in between, and if we want more gun freedoms we have to appeal to those folks.

Right. If we want more gun freedoms we have to appeal to people who believe we should have less gun freedoms than we believe we should. WTF. Why am I even reading this crap. Seriously, what are you smoking?

If we want more freedoms we have to start compromising them.

Please put down the hash pipe and contemplate the fact that you think we are going to achieve more gun freedoms by allowing the government to take away gun freedoms from free men. Please contemplate the fact that the reason for the 2A is for free citizens of this country to protect themselves from the government, and you think that its okay for that same government to restrict or control what free men can own guns and what type of guns they can own.

 

[Jason Flare]

Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I disagree immensely, only because I know how dumb the Justice system can be and good guys get sent to jail ad bad guys get freed sometimes. If he wasn't found guilty because of a clerical error or even a serious bad process issue (Miranda rights), doesn't change the fact he's psycho. We all know that and agree on that ( I hope). But I respect your point of view.

And your line of reasoning works great because criminals won't buy guns from other criminals and telling criminals not to break the law has worked well so far. /sarcasm.

 

[PrimusTactical]

I wouldn't sell to them because I feel they are going to harm someone. How is that hard for you to understand? He has the right to own a firearm if he is not in jail but not to harm someone. And, if he is in the process of harming someone I am going to take the appropriate action to prevent that, not sell him a F@$king gun you intellectually inbred POS.

I wouldn't scream profanities at the police after calling them to arrest someone who is making death threats and is in the process of carrying out a mass murder plot.

To your point about bad guys getting out of jail: Why don't you understand that this is the problem, not the fact that people who are not in jail have the right to be armed? The way to solve the problem is not to let murderers back into society. If you let them back into society, all of the gun laws in the world will not prevent them from reoffending. We know this because of the amount of felons who do reoffend, just as you suggest, despite laws that make it illegal for them to reoffend.

So, stop banging your head against the wall with laws that do nothing to prevent murderers from murdering and only prevent free men from exercising their rights. Start advocating for things that really make a difference, like keeping murderers and violent criminals incarcerated permanently.

aww.. u hurt me..

and your soloution with murders is what? kill them? hang them? ship them to an island? Wouldn't that infringe on their right to live? I mean we can go circles all day. Nothing is absolute other then you eat breath sleep and die. Period. EVERYTHING else can be taken away if you screw up. But again.. we can agree to disagree... or am I too intellectually inbred (is that like two related brains having sex and making a baby brain that's inbred?) to agree with me even to disagree on something

 

[HKdrummer]

So we're in agreement. The state can take every right away from you. So 2A is NOT absolute; none of the rights in the constitution are absolute.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble. But I just got a little tired of people claiming again and again that the right is absolute. It isn't.

Now, many of us want to draw the line at incarceration.
Others of us want to draw the line a little further away.
The grabbers want to draw that line ... well somewhere that none of us would like.
The people in the middle fall somehwere in between, and if we want more gun freedoms we have to appeal to those folks.

Again what the **** does this have to do with someone who's not in prison exactly?

 

[Boghog1]

So we're in agreement. The state can take every right away from you. So 2A is NOT absolute; none of the rights in the constitution are absolute.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble. But I just got a little tired of people claiming again and again that the right is absolute. It isn't.

Now, many of us want to draw the line at incarceration.
Others of us want to draw the line a little further away.
The grabbers want to draw that line ... well somewhere that none of us would like.
The people in the middle fall somehwere in between, and if we want more gun freedoms we have to appeal to those folks.

Why don't you go take a course at the local community college about the Constitution, take a look at the 13 original constitutions and the federalist papers as well as the anti federalist papers and then come back and talk about absolutes and rights, the only absolute thing in life is death but if you like we can even debate that via quantum theory as we may not even really be here.

 

[xtry51]

Are Primus and Quiet the same IP address? Titan is that you?

 

[Boghog1]

aww.. u hurt me..

and your soloution with murders is what? kill them? hang them? ship them to an island? Wouldn't that infringe on their right to live? I mean we can go circles all day. Nothing is absolute other then you eat breath sleep and die. Period. EVERYTHING else can be taken away if you screw up. But again.. we can agree to disagree... or am I too intellectually inbred (is that like two related brains having sex and making a baby brain that's inbred?) to agree with me even to disagree on something

I am going to suggest you do the same thing I suggested Quiet do. Come back in a few years when you understand what liberty freedom and social contracts are all about

 

[Quiet]

Right. If we want more gun freedoms we have to appeal to people who believe we should have less gun freedoms than we believe we should. WTF. Why am I even reading this crap. Seriously, what are you smoking?

What planet are you on? Who do you think is going to do the voting to get the politicians into place who will work to secure your freedoms?

Unless you're just here to plan your go time. In which case I guess we're just in different place on the approach to fixing things in this country.

 

[seth72]

aww.. u hurt me..

and your soloution with murders is what? kill them? hang them? ship them to an island? Wouldn't that infringe on their right to live? I mean we can go circles all day. Nothing is absolute other then you eat breath sleep and die. Period. EVERYTHING else can be taken away if you screw up. But again.. we can agree to disagree... or am I too intellectually inbred (is that like two related brains having sex and making a baby brain that's inbred?) to agree with me even to disagree on something

Yes, my solution with murderers is to put them to death. There is no such thing as the right to live. And, even if there was, it would be okay to infringe upon murderers right to live.

 

[Quiet]

Why don't you go take a course at the local community college about the Constitution, take a look at the 13 original constitutions and the federalist papers as well as the anti federalist papers and then come back and talk about absolutes and rights, the only absolute thing in life is death but if you like we can even debate that via quantum theory as we may not even really be here.

OK great. So we agree there is no absolute but death -- maybe.

 

[HTRN]

I am going to suggest you do the same thing I suggested Quiet do. Come back in a few years when you understand what liberty freedom and social contracts are all about

Can you email me a copy of my social contract? I seem to have misplaced mine.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Are Primus and Quiet the same IP address? Titan is that you?

Vigilance, you haz it.

 

[seth72]

Who do you think is going to do the voting to get the politicians into place who will work to secure your freedoms?

If its people like you, we're screwed. You and I do not agree on human rights. Why would I discuss a plan with you to secure things that we do not agree upon? I believe that all free men have the right to keep and carry all of the small arms of the military. If you don't believe that, I have no interest in discussing a political plan with you.

 

[PrimusTactical]

And your line of reasoning works great because criminals won't buy guns from other criminals and telling criminals not to break the law has worked well so far. /sarcasm.

This topic has been spouted a few times, so I'll take a stab at it.... the whole point of any laws is 2 things... 1 to hopefully deter SOMEONE to stop doing stuff. You know that one guy who goes to jail, gets beat up and actually never wants to do it again (happens). 2. If something is illegal, such as AR-15s (how dare i speak blasphemy) then there will be LESS of them around and harder to get. Before you freak out (too late) just listen. If law abiding people follow the law and not own anything (magazines, guns, etc.) then they won't be around to get. If your forced to go to your drug dealer to get a Pmag instead of online, then it may deter someone from getting it. So there's your deterrence.... Ok now respond with all kinds of stats and drug quotes yada yada yada.... I'm just explaining the PRINCIPLE behind the laws, thats all.

 

[Jason Flare]

I am going to suggest you do the same thing I suggested Quiet do. Come back in a few years when you understand what liberty freedom and social contracts are all about

IMHO all Quiteand PenusTactical have to do is figure out that criminals, whether you allow them to have guns or not, are going to sell or trade them with each other when they want to. Once they figure out that making a law telling criminals they can't have a guns is not worth the breath or the paper it's printed on they will have some idea what they are dealiing with in human society.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Yes, my solution with murderers is to put them to death. There is no such thing as the right to live. And, even if there was, it would be okay to infringe upon murderers right to live.

WTF? Did you really just say that? Did I read ANY of that right?

 

[xtry51]

This topic has been spouted a few times, so I'll take a stab at it.... the whole point of any laws is 2 things... 1 to hopefully deter SOMEONE to stop doing stuff. You know that one guy who goes to jail, gets beat up and actually never wants to do it again (happens). 2. If something is illegal, such as AR-15s (how dare i speak blasphemy) then there will be LESS of them around and harder to get. Before you freak out (too late) just listen. If law abiding people follow the law and not own anything (magazines, guns, etc.) then they won't be around to get. If your forced to go to your drug dealer to get a Pmag instead of online, then it may deter someone from getting it. So there's your deterrence.... Ok now respond with all kinds of stats and drug quotes yada yada yada.... I'm just explaining the PRINCIPLE behind the laws, thats all.

This is why you suck at life.

The purpose of law is to punish those who violate the natural rights of others.

The purpose of law is NOT to prevent crime or limit the availability of certain objects.

Here's some suggested reading: The Law by Frederic Bastiat

 

[center442]

No need, you guys are doing fine...

One question though .. while he's confined to a mental institution because you say he should be locked up or have his rights "restored", having committed no crime, please to tell me why he isn't allowed to carry his gun in there?

We confine or incarcerate people who have displayed behavior that is dangerous to themselves, or more importantly, to others. Once confined/incarcerated many of their rights are removed - freedom to move, travel, associate, etc. Even their 1st Amendment rights become limited to a great extent. I don't have a problem with limiting their 2nd Amendment rights while they are incarcerated or confined. Society has legal and mental health systems in place to determine when a person should be confined. Once the person has been determined to no longer be a danger they are released and their rights should be restored. All of their rights.

What I'm seeing in this thread are a lot of good arguments as to why the legal and mental health systems need a good overhaul. I also realize that no system is ever going to be perfect, which is why it is important that ordinary citizens should have every opportunity to possess the tools to defend themselves when the system does make an error.

Not everyone who is released from prison reoffends. Our institutions have made a determination that they are ready to rejoin society, but we treat all of them like second class citizens when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. The real irony is that those people who are released, who shouldn't have been, won't have an issue with violating any 2nd Amendment restrictions anyway. The only ones who are going to be limited by those restrictions are the ones who are now following the laws. Since they are now law-abiding, shouldn't they regain all of their rights? Or do we punish them forever?

It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[seth72]

This topic has been spouted a few times, so I'll take a stab at it.... the whole point of any laws is 2 things... 1 to hopefully deter SOMEONE to stop doing stuff. You know that one guy who goes to jail, gets beat up and actually never wants to do it again (happens). 2. If something is illegal, such as AR-15s (how dare i speak blasphemy) then there will be LESS of them around and harder to get. Before you freak out (too late) just listen. If law abiding people follow the law and not own anything (magazines, guns, etc.) then they won't be around to get. If your forced to go to your drug dealer to get a Pmag instead of online, then it may deter someone from getting it. So there's your deterrence.... Ok now respond with all kinds of stats and drug quotes yada yada yada.... I'm just explaining the PRINCIPLE behind the laws, thats all.

Speaking of drugs. Those have been pretty damn illegal for a long time now. Huh? Do I need to continue to type or do you get where I am going with this and why?

 

[Quiet]

Yes, my solution with murderers is to put them to death. There is no such thing as the right to live. And, even if there was, it would be okay to infringe upon murderers right to live.

I used to believe in the death penalty, too. I kind of am still on the line with it, but have leaned against it right now.

All life is sacred, but I'll make an exception for those who kill either prison guards (what else is there to protect them?) and police officers in the line of duty.

But I find myself leaning back towards capital punishment nowadays.


(and doesn't the preamble have something to say about "....inalienable rights.... among them are life, liberty ...." Why wouldn't life be THE most important right? You've confused me.)

 

[Jason Flare]

This topic has been spouted a few times, so I'll take a stab at it.... the whole point of any laws is 2 things... 1 to hopefully deter SOMEONE to stop doing stuff. You know that one guy who goes to jail, gets beat up and actually never wants to do it again (happens). 2. If something is illegal, such as AR-15s (how dare i speak blasphemy) then there will be LESS of them around and harder to get. Before you freak out (too late) just listen. If law abiding people follow the law and not own anything (magazines, guns, etc.) then they won't be around to get. If your forced to go to your drug dealer to get a Pmag instead of online, then it may deter someone from getting it. So there's your deterrence.... Ok now respond with all kinds of stats and drug quotes yada yada yada.... I'm just explaining the PRINCIPLE behind the laws, thats all.

"...hopefully deter SOMEONE to stop doing stuff." Newsflash. Laws do very little to deter people from committing crime.

For the rest of your statement:

MOLON LABE

 

[HTRN]

This topic has been spouted a few times, so I'll take a stab at it.... the whole point of any laws is 2 things... 1 to hopefully deter SOMEONE to stop doing stuff. You know that one guy who goes to jail, gets beat up and actually never wants to do it again (happens). 2. If something is illegal, such as AR-15s (how dare i speak blasphemy) then there will be LESS of them around and harder to get. Before you freak out (too late) just listen. If law abiding people follow the law and not own anything (magazines, guns, etc.) then they won't be around to get. If your forced to go to your drug dealer to get a Pmag instead of online, then it may deter someone from getting it. So there's your deterrence.... Ok now respond with all kinds of stats and drug quotes yada yada yada.... I'm just explaining the PRINCIPLE behind the laws, thats all.

Now I get it.
Infringe on the many law abiding, with the hope of inconvenience to the criminal.

Solid plan.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ColdDayInHell]

No, I'm not high. I've asked the same question in various ways at least 6 times without an actual answer. I don't see a circular reference in what I wrote either. but maybe I'm missing what you're seeing since I wrote it.

If the RKBA is absolute, should people who are incarcerated be allowed to carry their firearms? If not, justify it.

Ok, I wasn't gonna post another .gif but you're clearly asking for it.

 

[GunGrey]

Now I get it.
Infringe on the many law abiding, with the hope of inconvenience to the criminal.

Solid plan.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

There's your social contract, happy now ?

Ok, I wasn't gonna post another .gif but you're clearly asking for it.

fail

 

[Jason Flare]

Why is it that the post lanza members suck so hard.

Because some of these guys come from the extreme anti 2A crowd and are trying to make an argument for gun control.

 

[Quiet]

We confine or incarcerate people who have displayed behavior that is dangerous to themselves, or more importantly, to others. Once confined/incarcerated many of their rights are removed - freedom to move, travel, associate, etc. Even their 1st Amendment rights become limited to a great extent. I don't have a problem with limiting their 2nd Amendment rights while they are incarcerated or confined. Society has legal and mental health systems in place to determine when a person should be confined. Once the person has been determined to no longer be a danger they are released and their rights should be restored. All of their rights.

What I'm seeing in this thread are a lot of good arguments as to why the legal and mental health systems need a good overhaul. I also realize that no system is ever going to be perfect, which is why it is important that ordinary citizens should have every opportunity to possess the tools to defend themselves when the system does make an error.

Not everyone who is released from prison reoffends. Our institutions have made a determination that they are ready to rejoin society, but we treat all of them like second class citizens when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. The real irony is that those people who are released, who shouldn't have been, won't have an issue with violating any 2nd Amendment restrictions anyway. The only ones who are going to be limited by those restrictions are the ones who are now following the laws. Since they are now law-abiding, shouldn't they regain all of their rights? Or do we punish them forever?

It doesn't make sense to me.

Great post. One thing to think about is one line you wrote: "Our institutions have made a determination that they are ready to rejoin society"
THAT'S part of the problem. In many cases, they haven't. The person has just done their time and is let go because there is no other option. We don't have a way of identifying people who are truly dangerous to society and even after we have, we don't have the political will to do something about it -- until they kill (or whatever) again.