Quoted: "Violent felons should not have gun rights restored."
'Should' is the operative word there: regardless of Constitutionality or legality.
You then go on to expand upon that with the following statements:
Quoted: "If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others."
Cannot be trusted? Are you saying that this is a public safety issue? You then follow with:
Quoted: "Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms."
What does that even mean? 'Allowed' seems to be the word you're using which is confusing to you. The proper question is 'Should the state continue to restrict the Second Amendment rights of convicted violent felons?' If your answer is yes, then what must the state do in order to effect that?
Then you go on...
Quoted: "We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different?"
Who is 'we'? I certainly do not. Why would you post 'we'? It's an appeal to authority... as though in order to justify your opinion, you need to fall back on the presumed opinion of a majority of gun owners. It's a logical crutch, because your argument doesn't stand on it's own.
You then follow with repeating your claim that violent felons shouldn't be 'allowed' to possess firearms:
Quoted: "Explain why a violent felon should get their right to possess a firearm back."
- "Explain why a person convicted of kidnappper/rapist/murderer/Assault 1st should be allowed to possess firearms."
- "However, someone convicted of a violent felony should not have their rights restored at the completion of their sentence."
Again, you advocate using the power of the state to continue to restrict the rights of violent felons. It is your position which must be defended, yet your responses are essentially asking everyone else 'Well, why not?' The burden is on the advocate or user of force to justify that force. That's why I keep asking the questions about the hypothetical scenarios, and asking about how you plan to enforce your position of 'Violent felons should not be allowed to possess firearms.'
Of course, when asked if States do not have a "right" to violate the Bill of Rights, you post this:
Quoted: "Agreed"
Which doesn't mean anything at all if you believe that your position does not affect anyone's rights, so that's a wash. Might as well have not posted that at all.
You then conflate freedom and probation/parole...
Quoted: "They get put on parole for several months to years, depending on the severity of their crimes. If they violate the terms of their probation, they go back to prison.
The terms of their probation are set by the Judge and vary from individual to individual."
That's irrelevant. There is a distinct difference between release from prison at the end of a sentence, and release from prison if the convicted person agrees to certain behavior in order to remain outside of prison walls during the time they would normally be in prison: there is no guarantee of parole, or don't parole boards mean anything? What happens when if someone refuses probation or parole? You need to keep to the point, which is convicted persons who are released from prison at the completion of their sentence.
Of course, you then immediately trash your entire position
Quoted: "As far as legally purchasing a firearm making a person more prone to violent behavior goes.... No, I dont feel that to be the case."
Which means that if it were legal for violent felons to purchase firearms all will-nilly like, there would be exactly zero increase in violent behavior. But earlier you posted that:
Quoted: "you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others."
So which is it? Violent felons are a danger to others, but legally purchasing a firearm doesn't change that? You would advocate the use of force by the state, but you perceive no benefit  whatsoever?
In that same post, you are still 'Well, why not?'-ing, as though justifying why the state should NOT use force is somehow everyone else's burden instead of your burden.
You then continue to contradict yourself in your very next post.
Quoted: "You make a strong a valid point. Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Govt the power to deny the right to possess a firearm to the mentally ill?"
Holy shit. That a pretty good Gorram point. But then...
Quoted: "For the record, I believe that everyone who is not mentally ill or a violent felon should be able own a newly manufactured machine gun if they so desire."
Emphasis added. Well, there went that. 'Fuck it, I can't find in the Constitution where it says this, but I believe in this infringement anyways.'
OH WAIT >>>
Quoted: "Fortunately, (or unfortunately as the case may be), I'm not God, and I'm not the POTUS... "
You admit that your position doesn't jive with the Constitution? Or not? Never mind, I guess that statement is a wash as well. Too ambiguous. Seems to be a trend.
So let us see how you feel about the 4473? Now we're in the realm of affecting not just violent felons' rights, but everyone else's as well.
Quoted: "Are the mentally ill allowed to currently own firearms? No. It even asks on the 4473 if you have been adjudicated to be mentally ill."
Hmmm... can't tell what your position is from that. Not that your response on the 4473 matters, as there is still the background check to verify that. Yes, yes, I know that you can get in trouble for falsifying information on a federal form, in addition to attempting to purchase a firearm in violation of the current law.
But then to answer the question of "How do you plan on effecting such restrictions once those oh-so-dangerous felons are freed?", your answer is:
Quoted: "Enforcement actions....the same as current."
So a whole bunch of talk about how the collective should not be punished for the individual, but you agree with mandatory federal licensure to conduct business selling/transferring firearms, mandatory federal forms prior to the sale/transfer of firearms, and mandatory background checks by licensed businesses prior to the sale/transfer of firearms. All of which affect more than just that violent felon, who even in your own words:
Quoted: "As far as legally purchasing a firearm making a person more prone to violent behavior goes.... No, I dont feel that to be the case."
I thought I'd heard it all from you at this point... but after you asked for a 'why not' and packingXDs responded by posting the Second Amendment and emphasizing the phrase "shall not be infringed", you just went ahead and doubled down on the derp with a textbook anti-gunner reply:
Quoted: "There you go. Who regulates?"
And you highlighted "well regulated" so there'd be no confusion about how you think that "well regulated" means your flavor of gun control is justified. I did notice that you ignored parshooter's reply of:
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789,and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property ofsomething being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated wascalibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversightof the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2ndamendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that thefounders wrote it."
So that's a dead end there.
Anyways... continuing on with the how behind your ']Quoted:[/span] "There is no stopping. There is only punishment after the fact. Same as currently."
Wait, so that means you don't agree with the 4473, or mandatory background checks, licensure, etc? What enforcement do you advocate? You're going to need to be explicitly specific, as your statements in this thread have been decidedly less than clear.
Here's the first actual ray of hope in your posts in this thread:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Why should a person completely unrelated have their rights impacted because of the actions of an individual?"
I hope your answer is that that unrelated person should not have their rights affected. However, there are current enforcement actions by the state which do impact my rights, and those infringements are currently justified under the guise of 'the mentally ill and violent felons should not be allowed to possess firearms'. If that sounds familiar, it's because that is your position. You've spent the entire thread arguing for that position, but attempting to disavow the actual impact that position has on the ordinary Joe looking to buy a firearm. Well, no, not really. You did state that agreed with:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Enforcement actions....the same as current."
and that 'well regulated' somehow justified infringements. So I guess I don't really know what your position is at all.
Continuing on... now you've fallen back on 'Well, that just your opinion, and that's just my opinion.'
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "I just have my beliefs, and you have yours."
Translation: I'm sick of defending my position, so I'm just going to call it a belief/opinion. Of course, I should have seen that coming:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
And again:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "You've got your line of thought, I've got mine."
Hold on, what about these two statements?
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "My like or dislike of a person does not affect how I enforce the law." and "Those are issues for the legislatures and the Judges to visit....not me."
That's actually kind of disturbing. Just follow orders much? I'm not being facetious at all.. you posted "Enforcement actions....the same as current." What else am I supposed to think?
So what are you actually willing to do regarding enforcing the current law?
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "When a felon was stopped and found with a gun, they were arrested and charged as being a felon in possession of a firearm. I'm not proposing to do anything different in that regard. Regarding what force are you willing to use against a convicted violent felon in possession of a firearm? Whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest. That is entirely up to the convicted violent felon in your hypothetical situation. Would I arrest a convicted violent felon in possession of a firearm? Hell yes."
You fail to see my point. When the felon was released, they did not possess a firearm. How did they get one (or intend to)? Who transferred a firearm to them? My question revolves around [span style='font-style: italic;']that[/span] transfer. Now, unless you've followed that violent felon around until the transfer, you don't know if the transferee is a violent felon. This is why I used the scenario with Bob, Frank, and Carl. Would you use force to prevent that transfer until you verified (as Bob) that the transferee was not a violent felon? Further, suppose you recognize the transferee as a violent felon. Are you seriously saying that the transferor would walk away consequence-free? That the only force you would use would be against the violent felon now in possession of a firearm? That the person who assisted in the completion of a crime has no threat of force (by the state) against him at all? What enforcement are you talking about and who is affected by it?
Of course, this is all moot, really, because you go on to advocate for prohibited person categories:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "if I were the King of the United States, I would do things differently:"
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "2...Prohibited persons would include convicted violent felons, and those who have been adjudicated mentally ill."
and then you advocate, not something differently, but for basically the current FFL/NICS system.
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "4...There would be a federal database of prohibited persons which FFL's would run a person's name against to see if they were a prohibited person. This database would be open for non FFL's to check against as well. It would not be an openly view-able database, information would have to be entered into it in order to get a response. The information would include a person's name, DOB, driver's license number, and SSN. Hits return the information that the person is prohibited. No response means not a prohibited person."
Clearly, you support laws which impact persons who are not violent felons. Not only do you support them, if you had absolute power ("if I were the King") to get rid of them, you'd STILL keep them. This is why I ask the Bob, Frank, and Carl question. Frank the FFL is just running his business. Carl the customer is just looking to get a firearm. You, as Bob the background checker, with no violent felon in sight, threaten the imprisonment of both Frank and Carl if they don't comply with your transfer approval scheme. Yes, I said [span style='font-style: italic;']your[/span] scheme. You decided to own it when you advocated for it "if [you] were King."
But of course, you don't want to admit to that, defaulting again to your crutch:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "It's okay to have a differing opinion than me. Just like it's okay for me have a differing opinion than you."
And I get that. But you enforce your opinion with force at the behest of the state. My opinion doesn't use force at all. If my opinion were the law of the land, you would not be affected. Your rights would not be infringed. I cannot say the same about your opinion. Neither can you. Yes, I've personalized this down to me and you, but now it's time to expand it back to the bigger picture. You, and people who think and [span style='font-style: italic;']vote[/span] like you, most definitely impact my rights. Since we're talking about the Second Amendment, impact=infringe.
So how does this end? Here's a pretty good way:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "I disagree with violent felons and the mentally ill being allowed to possess firearms. You and several other people feel differently. Ok. So we disagree. Now what? "
Now what? You mind your own business and leave me alone, and I mind my own business and leave you alone. You think whatever you want, and I think whatever I want. You keep your actions from interfering with my rights, and I keep my actions from interfering with yours. How about them apples?
More of the same:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "What I stated was my opinion, not what I'm stating is right. You have a different opinion. I dont feel your opinion is right. Yay for both of us."
Crutch.
- "That means I enforce the laws, I dont get to interpret them."
Just following orders.
- "I dont make the rules, I just get to put people in time out for violating the rules."
Just following more orders.
- "Shit, I'd be deliriously happy if this were to go to SCOTUS and be ruled as an infringement on Constitutional Rights."
Contradicting yourself from how you'd like things to be if you were King.
- "As far as you disliking me or my opinion, feel free to do so."
Gebus...
- "Its America, you have the right to disagree all your little heart desires."
The disagreement is fine. Nobody has a problem with it. However, you [span style='font-style: italic;']vote[/span] how you [span style='font-style: italic;']think[/span]. And you support the current FFL/NICS scheme of infringements in order to enforce your opinion that violent felons and mentally ill 'should not be allowed to possess firearms'.

Thank you for showing that I've been consistent in my position in this thread and havent hidden anything. No smoke and mirrors here....

I’m going to answer your questions in the order they were asked. Your questions are highlighted in blue to make somewhat easier to read.


[span style='color: blue;']"If you've been convicted of a violent felony, you've already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others."
Cannot be trusted? Are you saying that this is a public safety issue?[/span]

(1.)
What else would it be? Why are pedophiles prohibited from operating or working at a daycare? Is it a public safety issue? Or is it for the safety of the pedophile?


[span style='color: blue;']"Please explain why violent felons should be allowed to own firearms."
What does that even mean? 'Allowed' seems to be the word you're using which is confusing to you. The proper question is 'Should the state continue to restrict the Second Amendment rights of convicted violent felons?' If your answer is yes, then what must the state [span style='font-style: italic;']do[/span] in order to effect that?[/span]

(2.)
It’s a pretty straight forward question…that wasn’t answered by anyone. Your rephrased version of my question asks a different question, but one that works for the discussion at hand. Regarding what must the state do to in order to effect that? Real simple, prosecute prohibited persons who are caught with firearms. What else would you expect? This is exactly what I’ve been stating every single time its been asked in this thread. Still havent changed my position or answer. Doesn’t matter how many times you ask me the same question, my answer is the same.  


[span style='color: blue;'][span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "We already accept that there are certain restrictions on firearms ownership , ie mentally ill. Why should this be any different?"
Who is 'we'? I certainly do not. Why would you post 'we'? It's an appeal to authority... as though in order to justify your opinion, you need to fall back on the presumed opinion of a majority of gun owners. It's a logical crutch, because your argument doesn't stand on it's own.[/span]

(3.)
So, just to be clear…You ARE advocating that the mentally ill should be allowed to own and possess firearms? Please clarify.

My statement was not designed to be an appeal to authority, just a statement which supported my position. If you are in fact advocating that the mentally should be allowed to possess/own firearms, you are the very first person I’ve met who states so. And using supporting statements for a position is backing up a position. You can call it a crutch all you want. But without supporting statements a position is just a claim. Much like if I claimed that Obama was in my opinion the best president in history. Without supporting statements, such an opinion has no basis for being.  For the record, I do not, feel Obama is the best president in history, I feel he is the worst president in history due to his Unconstitutional actions. But it works as an example.


[span style='color: blue;']You then follow with repeating your claim that violent felons shouldn't be 'allowed' to possess firearms:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Explain why a violent felon should get their right to possess a firearm back."
- "Explain why a person convicted of kidnappper/rapist/murderer/Assault 1st should be allowed to possess firearms."
- "However, someone convicted of a violent felony should not have their rights restored at the completion of their sentence."
Again, you advocate using the power of the state to continue to restrict the rights of violent felons. It is your position which must be defended, yet your responses are essentially asking everyone else 'Well, why [span style='font-style: italic;']not[/span]?' The burden is on the advocate or user of force to justify that force. That's why I keep asking the questions about the hypothetical scenarios, and asking about how you plan to enforce your position of 'Violent felons should not be allowed to possess firearms.'[/span]
(4.)
Let me get this straight…you demand I support my opinion, but when I do so, it’s just a logical crutch? Well okay then….It’s obvious you really don’t want to hear a dissenting opinion. I’m supposed to just accept the fact that you feel my opinion is wrong and I’m not allowed to defend it so that you can then beat on me for not defending my wrong opinion?
I suggest you head over to DU, they tend to ban folks who dissent from the mob. You should fit right in.


Here is the actual language of the amendment:

See also: Section 23, Article I, Missouri Constitution
The measure amended Section 23 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to read as:[1]

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned;[span style='text-decoration: line-through;'] but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.[/span] The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. [span style='color: red;'][span style='font-size: 14pt;']Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.[/span][/span][6]

So you can plainly see that the legislature did NOT intend for this to allow convicted violent felons and the mentally to own or possess firearms.

[span style='color: blue;']Of course, when asked if States do not have a "right" to violate the Bill of Rights, you post this:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Agreed"
Which doesn't mean anything at all if you believe that your position does not affect anyone's rights, so that's a wash. Might as well have not posted that at all.[/span]
(5.)
Once again, you don’t like me posting a response….Who made you the Supreme Dictator of GD?

[span style='color: blue;']You then conflate freedom and probation/parole...
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "They get put on parole for several months to years, depending on the severity of their crimes. If they violate the terms of their probation, they go back to prison.
The terms of their probation are set by the Judge and vary from individual to individual."
That's irrelevant. There is a distinct difference between release from prison at the end of a sentence, and release from prison if the convicted person agrees to certain behavior in order to remain outside of prison walls during the time they would normally be in prison: there is no guarantee of parole, or don't parole boards mean anything? What happens when if someone refuses probation or parole? You need to keep to the point, which is convicted persons who are released from prison at the completion of their sentence.[/span]

Here, you are correct. The vast majority of felons in prison do agree to go on parole as a condition for early release. I do know a few (one actually, a professional body builder who went to prison on drug charges…his name escapes me at the moment, but I’m sure there are a few more) who chose to stay in prison and serve the full sentence rather accept the conditions required of parole. That’s a pretty rare occurrence in general and rarer still for felons convicted of  violent crimes. However, you are correct. My apologies.

[span style='color: blue;']Of course, you then immediately trash your entire position
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "As far as legally purchasing a firearm making a person more prone to violent behavior goes.... No, I dont feel that to be the case."
Which means that if it were legal for violent felons to purchase firearms all will-nilly like, there would be exactly zero increase in violent behavior. But earlier you posted that:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "you have poor impulse control and cannot be trusted with a firearm around others."
So which is it? Violent felons are a danger to others, but legally purchasing a firearm doesn't change that?[/span]

Wow…you’re really grasping here….
(6.)
Yes, violent felons are a danger to others and legally purchasing a firearm doesn’t change that.

Violent felons are a danger to others which they have demonstrated by their actions which made them violent felons in the first place. Their decisions and their actions are make them a danger to others, their own history shows that.

A firearm is an inanimate object. It can be dangerous in the hands of a violent or mentally ill individual, just like a knife, a hammer, a chainsaw, or a car. Yet none of these things make a person violent.

Would allowing a convicted violent felon to legally purchase a firearm increase violent behavior? I don’t think so. I think those people are already violent and predisposed to being violent. Continuing to not allow them to possess or own firearms just lessons the number of individuals those can be violent towards in a short span of time.

[span style='color: blue;']You then continue to contradict yourself in your very next post.
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "You make a strong a valid point. Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Govt the power to deny the right to possess a firearm to the mentally ill?"
Holy shit. That a pretty good Gorram point. But then...
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "For the record, I believe that everyone who is [span style='font-style: italic;'][span style='text-decoration: underline;']not mentally ill or a violent felon[/span][/span] should be able own a newly manufactured machine gun if they so desire."
Emphasis added. Well, there went that. 'Fuck it, I can't find in the Constitution where it says this, but I believe in this infringement anyways.'[/span]


This was taken from the 3rd page, 15th post of the page. I was responding to 1Andy2:

“Federally speaking, which part of the Constitution grants the Federal government the power to deny rights to "free" people?

You could argue that disarming people for the purpose of putting them in a prison for other crimes is "necessary and proper" to carry out the defined constitutional mandate inherent in those laws the person broke.

But so far as I can find, it is nowhere given to the Federal government to ban the possession of items based on societal risk.  We as gun owners royally fucked up by conceding that authority without a fight.”

I stated “You make a strong a valid point.

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Govt the power to deny the right to possess a firearm to the mentally ill?

Should the mentally ill be allowed to own firearms?


I dont pretend to have all the answers, much less the right ones for any given situation.

However, IMO, there are lines that should not be crossed, and those that cross those lines should have a serious punishment that reflects the seriousness of the crime.

For the record, I believe that everyone who is not mentally ill or a violent felon should be able own a newly manufactured machine gun if they so desire.
FWIW, I've donated to Nolo's case against the NFA.


I dont expect that to change minds or win hearts....but that happens to be what I believe.

Fortunately, (or unfortunately as the case may be), I'm not God, and I'm not the POTUS, all though it's hard to argue that I would be capable of doing a worse job than the current POTUS.…”

Way to cherry pick my post to support your agenda….

In the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the mentally ill were confined by chains in prisons (with prisoners) and often beaten.  In 1794, Pennsylvania repealed the death penalty for all offenses except first degree murder. This was the first time the death penalty had been curtailed in the United States.

State mental hospitals were the first formal system of public care for the
mentally ill in the United States. Such institutions were created in response
to criticism of the inhumanity of “outdoor relief” and the practice of incarcerating
the insane in local almshouses and jails. In contrast to the pattern
of physical abuse, neglect, and ridicule that characterized these settings, the
early mental hospitals were championed as repositories of hope and humane
care for the mentally ill (Morrissey, Goldman, & Kierman, 1980).
While state mental hospitals were started with lofty goals of being more
humane, they rapidly became transformed into something quite different.
Massive waves of European immigration and the growing belief in the incurability
of insanity further accelerated the transformation of state hospitals
from small, intimate, therapeutically oriented “asylums” to large, impersonal,
custodially oriented “human warehouses” (Morrissey, Goldman, & Kierman,
1980, p. 2).

http://www.life.arizona.edu/docs/ra-section/ability-hist.pdf

This was all going on when the Constitution was being ratified, and was in full knowledge of  the founders.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000025

1775 - Death Penalty Used in All 13 US Colonies at Outbreak of American Revolution

By the start of the American Revolution, the death penalty was used in all 13 colonies. Rhode Island was the only colony that did not have at least 10 crimes punishable by death. The colonies had "roughly comparable death statutes which covered arson, piracy, treason, murder, sodomy, burglary, robbery, rape, horse-stealing, slave rebellion, and often counterfeiting. Hanging was the usual sentence. Rhode Island was probably the only colony which decreased the number of capital crimes in the late 1700's."


1787 - Founding Fathers Allow for Death Penalty When Writing Constitution

"To most constitutional lawyers there seems little doubt that the Founding Fathers intended to allow for the death penalty in drawing up the US Constitution of 1787. Not only did certain provisions of the Constitution - such as the Fifth Amendment - expressly allow for the taking of life, but others - such as the Eighth Amendment - were deliberately phrased in ambigious ways that suggested even if certain forms of punishment could be banned (such as crucifixions or beheadings) the basic principle of government executions remained permissible if individual states and the federal government wished to legislate for these."

Robert Singh, PhD  Governing America: The Politics of a Divided Democracy, 2003


At least one signer of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, opposed the death penalty. He is often cited as the political forebearer of the abolitionist movement.

Doesn’t the imprisonment of the mentally ill violate their 4th Amendment rights?
Arson, Robbery, Rape, Burglary, and counterfeiting are not currently crimes punishable by death. But they were at the time if the ratification of the Constitution.
(7.)
Were the mentally ill allowed to possess/own firearms when they were being incarcerated or held in a mental institution? Why not?

Killing people convicted of violent felonies back then prevented them from owning/possessing firearms. Now days, many violent felons are released back into society. I still don’t feel they should have their rights to own and possess firearms restored.

[span style='color: blue;']OH WAIT >>>
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Fortunately, (or unfortunately as the case may be), I'm not God, and I'm not the POTUS... "
You admit that your position doesn't jive with the Constitution? Or not? Never mind, I guess that statement is a wash as well. Too ambiguous. Seems to be a trend.
So let us see how you feel about the 4473? Now we're in the realm of affecting not just violent felons' rights, but everyone else's as well.[/span]
(8.)
Where in this thread have I been ambiguous?
I don’t like the 4473. Now what?

[span style='color: blue;']"Are the mentally ill allowed to currently own firearms? No. It even asks on the 4473 if you have been adjudicated to be mentally ill."
Hmmm... can't tell what your position is from that. Not that your response on the 4473 matters, as there is still the background check to verify that. Yes, yes, I know that you can get in trouble for falsifying information on a federal form, in addition to attempting to purchase a firearm in violation of the current law.
But then to answer the question of "How do you plan on effecting such restrictions once those oh-so-dangerous felons are freed?", your answer is:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Enforcement actions....the same as current."
So a whole bunch of talk about how the collective should not be punished for the individual, but you agree with mandatory federal licensure to conduct business selling/transferring firearms, mandatory federal forms prior to the sale/transfer of firearms, and mandatory background checks by licensed businesses prior to the sale/transfer of firearms. All of which affect more than just that violent felon, [span style='font-style: italic;']who even in your own words[/span]:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "As far as legally purchasing a firearm making a person more prone to violent behavior goes.... No, I dont feel that to be the case."[/span]

(8.a.)
Here you are making wild ass assumptions about what I’ve posted and putting words in my mouth again. Where did I state that I agree with and support mandatory federal licensure to conduct business selling/transferring firearms, mandatory federal forms prior to the sale/transfer of firearms, and a mandatory background check by licensed business prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm? Where in this entire forum have I ever advocated such things?

I’d say I’ll wait for you to find such instances, but since I’ve never made such statements, you’re not gonna find them.


[span style='color: blue;']Quoted:[/span] "There is no stopping. There is only punishment after the fact. Same as currently."
Wait, so that means you don't agree with the 4473, or mandatory background checks, licensure, etc? What enforcement do you advocate? You're going to need to be explicitly specific, as your statements in this thread have been decidedly less than clear.[/span]


Just like I said before. I’ve been crystal clear and consistent throughout this entire thread and my adult life with regard to firearms. Your inability to comprehend the written word is not my fault, but you’re making it my problem. It’s getting old as is your repeated liable by claiming I said something when I did not.

[span style='color: blue;']Here's the first actual ray of hope in your posts in this thread:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Why should a person completely unrelated have their rights impacted because of the actions of an individual?"
I hope your answer is that that unrelated person should not have their rights affected. However, there are current enforcement actions by the state which do impact my rights, and those infringements are currently justified under the guise of 'the mentally ill and violent felons should not be allowed to possess firearms'. If that sounds familiar, it's because that is your position. You've spent the entire thread arguing for that position, but attempting to disavow the actual impact that position has on the ordinary Joe looking to buy a firearm. Well, no, not really. You did state that agreed with:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "Enforcement actions....the same as current."
and that 'well regulated' somehow justified infringements. So I guess I don't really know what your position is at all.[/span]

Wait….."infringements are currently justified under the guise of 'the mentally ill and violent felons should not be allowed to possess firearms". If that sounds familiar, it's because that is your position. You've spent the entire thread arguing for that position…
I thought I’d been hiding behind smoke and mirrors or being unclear about my position in this thread on this matter? Which is it? Am I hiding behind smoke, mirrors, and ambiguous statements regarding my position or have been arguing for prohibiting the mentally ill and convicted violent felons from owning and possessing firearms?  
(9.)
The only way prohibiting the mentally ill and or convicted violent felons from owning and possessing firearms would affect you is if you were either a convicted violent felon or mentally ill. You’ve already stated that you’re not a felon, and I’m beginning to wonder if you’re mentally ill or not based solely on your responses in this thread. I’m not going to ask though as I doubt you’d answer truthfully if you were.
(10.)
I’ve already shown that some infringements were ongoing at the time of the Founders and the ratification of the Constitution. I’m not advocating something radical or revolutionary.


[span style='color: blue;']Continuing on... now you've fallen back on 'Well, that just your opinion, and that's just my opinion.'
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "I just have my beliefs, and you have yours."
Translation: I'm sick of defending my position, so I'm just going to call it a belief/opinion. Of course, I should have seen that coming:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
And again:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "You've got your line of thought, I've got mine."[/span]



My third post in this thread, (Page 2 9th post of the page) is a reply to a Spiffums “I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and have repaid your debt to society, that all your rights should be magically returned to you upon release from custody just like they are magically taken away upon entering custody.”
(11.)
My responding to his opinion was my opinion. Had I realized that anyone would become completely unhinged at me posting my opinion of something in GD, I would have taken pains to ensure I was more clear. My apologies for assuming that it was easily understood. I should not have assumed you would understand what I meant. Obviously you get confused when I post quite clearly and repeatedly that I feel that convicted violent felons and the mentally should not be allowed to possess/own firearms.

[span style='color: blue;']Hold on, what about these two statements?
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "My like or dislike of a person does not affect how I enforce the law." and "Those are issues for the legislatures and the Judges to visit....not me."
That's actually kind of disturbing. Just follow orders much? I'm not being facetious at all.. you posted "Enforcement actions....the same as current." What else am I supposed to think?[/span]


So, now I’m a Nazi? Godwin’s Law asserts itself in the 4th page of this thread….awesome.  I happily admit that I don’t let my personal opinion of a person affect how I enforce the law. Justice is supposed to be blind, remember? I can honestly state after this thread, that I don’t particularly like you. But if you needed an officer to take a report or respond for some incident, and I wound up being the responding officer, I would treat you just the same as I would treat anyone else. I don’t specifically stop cars with Obama or Democrat bumper stickers on them and cite them for things I let drivers with cars bearing NRA and Gadsen Flag stickers off with a warning. If my efforts to treat people equally are a cause of concern for you, I’d suggest you seek help.

[span style='color: blue;']So what are you actually willing to do regarding enforcing the current law?
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "When a felon was stopped and found with a gun, they were arrested and charged as being a felon in possession of a firearm. I'm not proposing to do anything different in that regard.
Regarding what force are you willing to use against a convicted violent felon in possession of a firearm? Whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest. That is entirely up to the convicted violent felon in your hypothetical situation. Would I arrest a convicted violent felon in possession of a firearm? Hell yes."
You fail to see my point. When the felon was released, they did not possess a firearm. How did they get one (or intend to)? Who transferred a firearm to them? My question revolves around [span style='font-style: italic;']that[/span] transfer. Now, unless you've followed that violent felon around until the transfer, you don't know if the transferee is a violent felon. This is why I used the scenario with Bob, Frank, and Carl. Would you use force to prevent that transfer until you verified (as Bob) that the transferee was not a violent felon? Further, suppose you recognize the transferee as a violent felon. Are you seriously saying that the transferor would walk away consequence-free? That the only force you would use would be against the violent felon now in possession of a firearm? That the person who assisted in the completion of a crime has no threat of force (by the state) against him at all? What enforcement are you talking about and who is affected by it?[/span]

I failed to see your point because it wasn’t particularly clear to me. I can only assume that it wasn’t clear to anyone else either because no one, (not even yourself) chimed in until  now to explain what you meant.
(12.)
In your hypothetical scenario, the felon would have to obtained the firearm illegally. Specifically how they obtained it is not the issue. If a liquor store sells a bottle of vodka to a man, and the man drinks it until he is drunk and then proceeds to get behind the wheel and crash his car into another vehicle and kills an occupant of the other vehicle, is it the liquor store’s fault the drunk killed someone while doing something illegal?

No.

If I don’t recognize the felon as being a violent felon, why would I use force to prevent a transfer? If I recognized the felon as being a violent felon, would the transferee walk away consequence free? Unless I prove definitively that the transferee knew the other person was a prohibited person, yes. If I recognize Frank as a convicted violent felon, and Frank is trying to purchase a gun from Carl. If Frank tells Carl, “Hey I’m a convicted violent felon and prohibited from owning and possessing guns, but I really wanna buy that Hi Point”, and Carls sells the gun to him anyway, and I can prove it via my department issued body camera….then yeah, Carl’s going to face some consequences. If Carl had no idea Frank was a prohibited person, why would he face consequences?


[span style='color: blue;']Of course, this is all moot, really, because you go on to advocate for prohibited person categories:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "if I were the King of the United States, I would do things differently:"
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "2...Prohibited persons would include convicted violent felons, and those who have been adjudicated mentally ill." [/span]
So here I am again, explaining very clearly and carefully who I feel should be a prohibited person. Where is your confusion? Where is the smoke, where are the mirrors? Where am I vague?


[span style='color: blue;']and then you advocate, not something differently, but for basically the current FFL/NICS system.
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "4...There would be a federal database of prohibited persons which FFL's would run a person's name against to see if they were a prohibited person. This database would be open for non FFL's to check against as well. It would not be an openly view-able database, information would have to be entered into it in order to get a response. The information would include a person's name, DOB, driver's license number, and SSN. Hits return the information that the person is prohibited. No response means not a prohibited person."
Clearly, you support laws which impact persons who are not violent felons. Not only do you support them, if you had absolute power ("if I were the King") to get rid of them, you'd STILL keep them. This is why I ask the Bob, Frank, and Carl question. Frank the FFL is just running his business. Carl the customer is just looking to get a firearm. You, as Bob the background checker, with no violent felon in sight, threaten the imprisonment of both Frank and Carl if they don't comply with your transfer approval scheme. Yes, I said [span style='font-style: italic;']your[/span] scheme. You decided to own it when you advocated for it "if [you] were King."[/span]  
(13.)
Did you miss the 2nd to last sentence where I stated I was just spit balling here? Cause I think you did.  But good job leaving it out because it just doesn’t support your theory that I’m a totalitarian anti gun Nazi hiding behind smoke, mirrors, and vague responses.

Where in that did I threaten imprisonment for both Frank and Carl if they didn’t comply with my scheme?

[span style='color: blue;'] But of course, you don't want to admit to that, defaulting again to your crutch:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "It's okay to have a differing opinion than me. Just like it's okay for me have a differing opinion than you."
And I get that. But you enforce your opinion with force at the behest of the state. My opinion doesn't use force at all. If my opinion were the law of the land, you would not be affected. Your rights would not be infringed. I cannot say the same about your opinion. Neither can you. Yes, I've personalized this down to me and you, but now it's time to expand it back to the bigger picture. You, and people who think and [span style='font-style: italic;']vote[/span] like you, most definitely impact my rights. Since we're talking about the Second Amendment, impact=infringe.[/span]
(13.cont.)
This is where you clearly demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what happens in law enforcement. My opinion is my opinion. My opinion doesn’t affect how I treat people. I don’t enforce MY OPINION on people while wearing a badge and at the behest of the state. Hypothetically, if it were my opinion that you were an asshole, and that all assholes should go to jail and get their cars towed away because they’re assholes, that’s not going to fly. I’m going to get fired, and sued, and you’d win in court because my opinion is not enforceable law.
(14.)
Now, you also state that if your opinion was the law of the land, it would not affect me. Unfortunately, you cannot definitively state that. You cant state with 100% certainty that a convicted violent felon or a mentally ill person who legally purchased a gun wont cause me or my family, or anyone else harm.  I’m not seeing a way where prohibiting the mentally ill and convicted violent felons from possessing and/or owning firearms impacts you in the slightest…unless you are a convicted violent felon, or mentally ill…..or want to sell/transfer firearms to either of those two types of individuals. You’ve already stated that you’re not a felon….



[span style='color: blue;']So how does this end? Here's a pretty good way:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "I disagree with violent felons and the mentally ill being allowed to possess firearms. You and several other people feel differently. Ok. So we disagree. Now what? "
Now what? You mind your own business and leave me alone, and I mind my own business and leave you alone. You think whatever you want, and I think whatever I want. You keep your actions from interfering with my rights, and I keep my actions from interfering with yours. How about them apples?[/span]
(14.cont.)
Sounds great! You have finally posted something I agree with in this thread! I’ve stated several times how my opinion wont affect you unless you are a convicted violent felon or mentally ill. If you plan on selling firearms to convicted violent felons or the mentally ill, you have some issues if my opinion were to become law. But I seriously doubt that will happen since I don’t intend to become a legislator or a Judge.

[span style='color: blue;']More of the same:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] "What I stated was my opinion, not what I'm stating is right. You have a different opinion. I dont feel your opinion is right. Yay for both of us."
Crutch.
- "That means I enforce the laws, I dont get to interpret them."
Just following orders.
- "I dont make the rules, I just get to put people in time out for violating the rules."
Just following more orders.
- "Shit, I'd be deliriously happy if this were to go to SCOTUS and be ruled as an infringement on Constitutional Rights."
Contradicting yourself from how you'd like things to be if you were King.[/span]

So….I’m a simple Nazi who relies on logic crutches and hypocrisy to stumble through discussions?


[span style='color: blue;'] "As far as you disliking me or my opinion, feel free to do so."
Gebus...
- "Its America, you have the right to disagree all your little heart desires."
The disagreement is fine. Nobody has a problem with it. However, you [span style='font-style: italic;']vote[/span] how you [span style='font-style: italic;']think[/span]. And you support the current FFL/NICS scheme of infringements in order to enforce your opinion that violent felons and mentally ill 'should not be allowed to possess firearms'.[/span]

(15.)
Jesus fucking Christ!!! You claim I hide behind smoke, mirrors and vague statements about my position here, and then spend God knows how long picking, and parsing my posts only show I’ve been consistently clear about my opinion and why I feel the way I do. When questioned about my opinion, I make supporting statements defending my position only to have you discount them as being logic crutches. You ultimately edit my posts in such ways to support you own logical fallacies and leaps to conclusion, and in some cases claim I state things which I do not. You’ve appointed yourself Head Arbiter and Supreme Dictator of GD. You wont let me defend my opinion with supporting statements and now I cant vote either? Holy Fucking 1st Amendment Tyrant! I cant express myself in GD, even if I abide by the CoC, because you disagree with my opinion?
You need help. Seriously.


[span style='color: blue;']You see the confusion?
Just, uh, out of curiosity... do you have any substantial numbers/data/statistics to support a claim of 'violent felons are a danger to society if they legally purchase firearms'?

Oh, by the way, you've got my avatar confused with somebody else's. And no, despite your accusation, I'm not a felon.[/span]  
(16.)
Why would I have substantial numbers/data/statistics to support something that doesn’t exist? I’ll show you my have substantial numbers/data/statistics that support my opinion that violent felons are a danger to society if they are able to legally purchase firearms, right after you show me your have substantial numbers/data/statistics showing what the Unicorn population was and what specifically caused their extinction.

It is currently illegal for any felon to legally purchase a firearm, (violent or otherwise) everywhere in the US. A local Missouri Judge has just ruled that Constitutional Amendment 5 allows felons to possess firearms with no distinction. Since this was decided just last month, (Feb 2015) for the very first time in the United States, why would there be any have substantial numbers/data/statistics about violent convicted felons being a danger to society if they legally purchase firearms?