For Open Minds and Independent Thinkers

[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.