For Open Minds and Independent Thinkers

[David88vert]

So you are making an argument that a repeat violent criminal offender has the right and should be allowed to buy an automatic assault weapon? If you are not hypocritical in your stance you will say yes, he has that right.

You are wanting to deal with hypotheticals, rather than the law. I said nothing about any criminals. You said that owning a gun was a priviledge, like driving, and not a right. You are wrong, plain and simple.


We will assume that when you say repeat violent criminal offender, that you are referring to someone who has actually been convicted of multiple felonies. Obviously, someone who has not been convicted is not a criminal, and retains all of their rights, no matter how many times that they have been accused.
If you would read GA criminal code 16-11-120 - 16-11-134, you would already know that:
"The following persons are not allowed by Georgia Law to keep, own, bear, wear, and/or carry firearms; any person convicted of a felony offense, Any person who has previously been convicted of or who has previously entered a guilty plea to the offense of murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, or any felony involving the use or possession of a firearm and who shall have on or within arm's reach of his or her person a firearm during the commission of, or the attempt to commit:
Any crime against or involving the person of another;
The unlawful entry into a building or vehicle;
A theft from a building or theft of a vehicle;
Any crime involving the possession, manufacture, delivery, distribution, dispensing, administering, selling, or possession with intent to distribute any controlled substance
Any crime involving the trafficking of cocaine, marijuana, or illegal drugs."

On other words, he is already banned from possessing a firearm, unless all of his convictions are expunged.

Basically, you need to educate yourself. I am not being hypocritical - you are just making an idiotic statement.

[Verik]

You are wanting to deal with hypotheticals, rather than the law. I said nothing about any criminals. You said that owning a gun was a priviledge, like driving, and not a right. You are wrong, plain and simple.

/sigh/.... Last I checked, the 4th amendment is the only "right" people have no problem taking away from others based on certain circumstances or conditions (i.e. crime). You are arguing semantics of wording, which is a waste of time with someone like you who doesn't even know the definition of the words you speak of. So lets take, right and condition and put them together... since that is what you are claiming is the 2nd amendment (by your own statements), conditional rights. Last time I checked, a conditional right is considered a privilege. You tell me to educate myself? Go use a fucking dictionary.

priv⋅i⋅lege  [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, -leged, -leg⋅ing.
–noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Its not hypocritical at all. When you are convicted of a felony, you give up the right to own a firearm, it is not taken away. Just like you give up the right to vote, and many other rights that you would otherwise have.

When convicted you don't give up jack shit. They don't say "you're guilty, do you want to give up your rights to bear arms?". The "right" is removed from him by the courts. Therefore his right is given based on condition of him not committing a crime. I really don't want to explain this again... just read above.


End of argument.

ps, I was fucking agreeing with you redneck douches from the start in regards to "actual law and policy" and yet you want to argue semantics of wording, which you lost on. No wonder people here claim that its hypocritical you even posted in a thread named this.

[David88vert]

/sigh/.... Last I checked, the 4th amendment is the only "right" people have no problem taking away from others based on certain circumstances or conditions (i.e. crime). You are arguing semantics of wording, which is a waste of time with someone like you who doesn't even know the definition of the words you speak of. So lets take, right and condition and put them together... since that is what you are claiming is the 4th amendment (by your own statements), conditional rights. Last time I checked, a conditional right is considered a privilege. You tell me to educate myself? Go use a fucking dictionary.

When convicted you don't give up jack shit. They don't say "you're guilty, do you want to give up your rights to bear arms?". The "right" is removed from him by the courts. Therefore his right is given based on condition of him not committing a crime. I really don't want to explain this again... just read above.


End of argument.

ps, I was fucking agreeing with you redneck douches from the start in regards to "actual law and policy" and yet you want to argue semantics of wording, which you lost on. No wonder people here claim that its hypocritical you even posted in a thread named this.

You are wrong yet again. Please put down your crack pipe and pick up some law books.

Second Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment states and establishes gun ownership as a right, not a priviledge. They would have stated priviledge if that is what they wanted to state. - http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html


The State makes the laws regarding disability of rights due to state felony convictions. Simplified for you - http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode...11&section=133
On purely semantic terms, "give up rights to guns" is incorrect. Technically, if you are convicted, federal or stat law disables your right to purchase or possess a firearm. The removal of the disability is commonly referred to restoration of rights.

I never referred to the Fourth Amendment - that concerns search and seizure. Please learn your amendments.

[Verik]

You are wrong yet again. Please put down your crack pipe and pick up some law books.

Second Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You are right, I cited the 4th as the 2nd. First time I have been wrong in this thread.

The State makes the laws regarding disability of rights due to state felony convictions. Simplified for you - http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode...11&section=133
On purely semantic terms, "give up rights to guns" is incorrect. Technically, if you are convicted, federal or stat law disables your right to purchase or possess a firearm. The removal of the disability is commonly referred to restoration of rights.

Therefore based on the conditions of not committing a felony, you maintain your rights to bear arms. Are you fucking illiterate? Or have you just imagined up a definition for privilege? A privilege is a form of rights by its very definition! Calling something a privilege is simply explaining something as a conditional rights which IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you have described the 2nd amendment as being. Give up already and go read a fucking dictionary you ignorant redneck fuck. Seriously did they not teach you how to understand a definition before you dropped out of the 3rd grade? All you choose to do with someone who agrees with a pro-gun pov, is argue semantics to try and boost your epenis and stroke your superiority complex, but you backfire horribly when you argue and end up losing at your own argument.

[David88vert]

You are right, I cited the 4th as the 2nd. First time I have been wrong in this thread.



Therefore based on the conditions of not committing a felony, you maintain your rights to bear arms. Are you fucking illiterate? Or have you just imagined up a definition for privilege? A privilege is a form of rights by its very definition! Calling something a privilege is simply explaining something as a conditional rights which IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you have described the 2nd amendment as being. Give up already and go read a fucking dictionary you ignorant redneck fuck. Seriously did they not teach you how to understand a definition before you dropped out of the 3rd grade? All you choose to do with someone who agrees with a pro-gun pov, is argue semantics to try and boost your epenis and stroke your superiority complex, but you backfire horribly when you argue and end up losing at your own argument.

As I have stated previously, a convicted felon already cannot purchase or possess a firearm, so your question, "So you are making an argument that a repeat violent criminal offender has the right and should be allowed to buy an automatic assault weapon? " is completely and absolutely moronic.

You are the one arguing semantics, and unable to comprehend basic law, so when you pass the bar you can come back and talk. Until then, try to get an education. You don't even know what the amendments are, nor have a clue about basic rights, especially those regarding firearms.
Some more gun law education for you:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/GASL.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/index.htm

[BanginJimmy]

When convicted you don't give up jack shit. They don't say "you're guilty, do you want to give up your rights to bear arms?".

Actually you do have a choice. If you dont CHOOSE to commit a crime then no one can take away that right.

[Verik]

Actually you do have a choice. If you dont CHOOSE to commit a crime then no one can take away that right.

Then you are beginning to discuss causality and not law. You shift from a empirical discussion of law to one of theoretical philosophy (i mean shit, there are so many what if's that rebuttal your one liner about not choosing to commit a crime its not fucking funny, with the obvious being, what if you didnt do it but are convicted. don't perpetuate stupid infinites in an argument that you tried to focus on "law"). Is that how you avoid admitting you are wrong in an argument? You wage an argument based on semantics, and lose, and change the focus to avoid admitting you were wrong. This is where you get your close minded reputation from. The inability to see your own faults and acknowledge them.

You both jumped on my fucking case screaming "zomg omg such a fucking idiot, its a right not a privilege."..... then when you finally crack a dictionary (or in this case, let someone else... such as myself, crack one open for you) and realize that a privilege is a form of right and that you have been actually claiming the definition of privilege all along to support the 2nd amendment rights.... all you can do is change topic to avoid being embarrassed. Seriously? Grow the fuck up and admit you were wrong in the first place for jumping all over me (which in reality was solely because of my word "privilege" as nothing else in my original statement of position has been challenged... most likely because you support the stance i take but the superiority complex on the issue makes you feel the need to argue the use of the word you dont even know the correct definition to.)

[BanginJimmy]

Then you are beginning to discuss causality and not law. You shift from a empirical discussion of law to one of theoretical philosophy (i mean shit, there are so many what if's that rebuttal your one liner about not choosing to commit a crime its not fucking funny, with the obvious being, what if you didnt do it but are convicted. don't perpetuate stupid infinites in an argument that you tried to focus on "law"). Is that how you avoid admitting you are wrong in an argument? You wage an argument based on semantics, and lose, and change the focus to avoid admitting you were wrong. This is where you get your close minded reputation from. The inability to see your own faults and acknowledge them.

Well if you want to find ANY reason I may be wrong you can find alot of them. The simple truth of the matter is that the number of innocent people that get convicted are far fewer than the number of guilty people that go free.

You have yet to show me where I am wrong though. You simply pointed out 1 way in which someone that didnt choose to give up the right had it taken away.

[David88vert]

Then you are beginning to discuss causality and not law. You shift from a empirical discussion of law to one of theoretical philosophy (i mean shit, there are so many what if's that rebuttal your one liner about not choosing to commit a crime its not fucking funny, with the obvious being, what if you didnt do it but are convicted. don't perpetuate stupid infinites in an argument that you tried to focus on "law"). Is that how you avoid admitting you are wrong in an argument? You wage an argument based on semantics, and lose, and change the focus to avoid admitting you were wrong. This is where you get your close minded reputation from. The inability to see your own faults and acknowledge them.

You both jumped on my fucking case screaming "zomg omg such a fucking idiot, its a right not a privilege."..... then when you finally crack a dictionary (or in this case, let someone else... such as myself, crack one open for you) and realize that a privilege is a form of right and that you have been actually claiming the definition of privilege all along to support the 2nd amendment rights.... all you can do is change topic to avoid being embarrassed. Seriously? Grow the fuck up and admit you were wrong in the first place for jumping all over me (which in reality was solely because of my word "privilege" as nothing else in my original statement of position has been challenged... most likely because you support the stance i take but the superiority complex on the issue makes you feel the need to argue the use of the word you dont even know the correct definition to.)

No one has stated that they are superior. Seems like you have an inferiority complex.....

I am not jumping on your case, simply pointing out the difference of the priviledge of driving - which you have to earn, vs the rights afforded to an individual through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Put down the dictionary and read some law books and case judgments.