Group I.

Group 1 also.

Do you always see things in terms of either black or white?

The idea of two groups is too simplistic. There are many underlying basic assumptions that create philosophic belief systems.

Individual rights are deeply felt by most Americans and can be quite different in theory and practice. Gun rights in many ways exemplify liberty and individual freedom, yet, to some they are insignificant in their own personal world view.

I did not chime in before now 'cause I believe the question is without merit for the reasons DK Prof stated.  You could have condensed it down to one sentence:  "Are you a gun owning patriot or a pinko commie?!?"

Anywho, I love this:



Are you f*cking serious?  You sound like an idiot- "If you're not going to protect your children, then I WILL!"  You want us to take you serious with rediculous statements/questons like that?  Nix the rhetoric please.   On the other hand, let me ask you a rhetorical question:  Should pedophiles be allowed to post pictures of naked children on the internet?

"No", you say?  Why not, it's a free speech issue isn't it?  But that would mean you are "soft" on a "God given right" since I don't see any such exceptions in the Constitution.

What about some kook making repeated bomb threats at your kids school, requiring him to sit outside all day while the bomb guys sweep the school?  Is that protected speech?  "No" you say again?  Where is that exception in the 1st amendment?

BTW, if you try to dodge the question by telling me that it's a crime, I'll remind you that laws can be voided for being constitutionally violative- I've done it in my limited legal career.

What about the violent felon example?  Should he be allowed to enjoy the RKBA?  What if Manson was paroled, want him packing heat?  And don't tell me under your "constituional" government he would be summarily killed, 'cause that would be anything but Constitutional.  "No" you say?  Violent felons should not enjoy the RKBA?  Where is that exception in the 2nd amendment?

What about the cliche'd "fire!" in a theatre?  No?  Where is that exception in the Constitution?

I could go on and on.

Bottom line:  The question is fixed and, as applied, you probably fall in Catagory II.  Life, real life anyway, is not that simple.

Troy, I agree with you "line in the sand" list.

I recently posted this on another thread - but people still miss the fundamental problem with background checks.

The problem with background checks is that it consitutes getting 'approval' from the government to buy arms. We have to have our rights approved? If the purpose of the armed populace is truly to provide a check against an out of control government - then why does that same government get to approve who can own arms?

As for the division - I think it's people who fit in group one, and people who don't want to admit they fit in group two.

I second that motion.

Both the AMA and the APA (American Psychological Assoc.-who invented the DSM -Diognostic Statistic Manual- the book that names psych dissorders) ..have indicated a leaning toward qualifying the "need to own firearms" as a psych dissorder...if ever placed into the DSM "gun ownership" or a "need" to own them will be a documented psych dissorder...disqualifying you from owning firearms..(sort of an infinite loop there)
If I remember correctly the APA is very anti gun...very libereal in its agenda...@ 20 yrs ago homosexuality was listed as a mental dissorder in the DSM II? or III?...during the meeting to determine DSM IV's "new dissorders" and to revise old diagnoses...gay activist crashed the meeting and were threatening to the delagates who decided it would perhaps be better to drop homosexuality as a dissorder all together...so much for the legitmacy or "science" behind inventing/discovering mental dissorders.. Ritalin for all the kids who get ansy in school listening to the drones of idiot liberal teachers and Prosac for them after they have outgrown the Ritallin...Its a brave new world (order)

group 1.......but I support the NRA along with the GOA.......what we SHOULD be doing is voting some of the board members off the NRA and replacing them with pro RKBA.

It's simple, Troy.  If you've [b]proven[/b] [i]by violating law[/i] that you are not responsible enough to exercise your rights then your rights can be taken from you by society.  We take your right to freedom and even your right to life if you commit a heinous enough crime, do we not?  However, to curtail someones individual rights requires [u]due process of law[/u].  Congress does not have the power (or should not have the power) to pass blanket law that inhibits [u]everyone's[/u] individual rights without due process.  This is the basis under which Judge Cummings threw out Emerson's conviction.

Now, the background check is to ensure that the person attempting to purchase a firearm is not prohibited by the fact that they have a felony conviction (i.e.:  their 2nd Amendment right has been revoked [u]through due process[/u]).

The [b]problem[/b] occurs, however, when the government passes legislation making [b]anything[/b] you do (traffic violation, littering, whatever) justification for removal of 2nd Amendment rights.  In that case I must vote for erring on the side of individual rights and state that if RKBA is going to be restricted on that basis (and it appears that that is where we're going) then prior felony conviction [i]should not[/i] be a criteria for suspension of RKBA.  

I don't think that violent felons who have used firearms in the commission of a crime should have RKBA.  They have proven through due process of law that they are not responsible enough.  I also don't think that incarcerating them forever is a good idea.  If, once released, they are found to be in possession of a firearm [i]they should go back to jail[/i].  Period.

That is the ONLY restriction on RKBA that I support.[sniper]

(edited to add:)
The problem we have is that we as citizens no longer trust our government.  Not a big surprise, really.  Our government was founded on the idea that governments aren't trustworthy.  The Constitution defines a system of checks and balances to inhibit the power-hungry from getting too much power.  However, after 225 years, the power-hungry have slowly worked their way around these obstacles to the point where now they are directly attacking the very rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.  

I see one of two possible outcomes to this:  1) The U.S. devolves into a socialist state (most probable), or 2) we have another civil war.  The outcome of a civil war would probably not restore the U.S. to it's previous state, but instead end up as a dictatorship.  There aren't enough Constitutionalists out there to save us.

Either way, the future looks bleak.

Yes I am...



Coming from a lawyer, TYVM



I didnt use the anti's protect your children, I said ther rights, their BIRTHrights....



If you cant see the original crime that supplied said pictures, how did you pass the bar?




If my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle. Manson If paroled has served his time and debt. IF PEOPLE do not want former felons having rights, they/WE need to make the sentences stiffer. Abolishing SELECTIVE rights of ANY group is WRONG. If we dont want violent persons on the street, KEEP THEM INSIDE OR excuse them from the planet! Once they are convicted, serve their time, they are a citizen again. We do NOT limit their speech, nor should ANY other rights be limited.




You probably could...




No Steve, there is NO doubt in my mind, we are NOT in the same group!

More rhetoric, why am I not suprized.  

At least you answered one of my questions- you think violent felons, [i]once released from jail[/i] (I guess I should have qualified that), should be able to enjoy the RKBA.  Really?  Wow, your right, we are not in the same group.  I should take you to court with me for a week, you'd change your mind once your eyes were opened.

Regarding the pedophile example, you did as I thought and tried to dodge the question (at least you addressed that one).  So you recognize child pornography as a crime?  What about free speech?  Where is that bit of legislation in the Constitution?

What about a pedophile telling your child that he enjoys having sex with young children?  Is that free speech?  No, it's not, and it's not located anywhere in the 1st amendment as an exception.

Eventually you will have to apply that stupid test from your original post and place yourself squarely in catagory II.

Peg me however you wish, it means nothing to me since your measuring stick is flawed and clearly the product of a very active imagination.  In my experience, people who attempt to define themselves and others in the extreme suffer from some serious lack of self-esteem.  Hitler for example, was a sad peice of shit who catagorized arians and jews in the extreme.  

Maybe you were not held enough as a child?  I think someone needs a hug . . . [:D]

I believe in the Constitution.

The Constitution is guidelines set down by our founding fathers to be adhered to not ignored.

Me too brudda............

I agree completely CavVet.

There is a covert war being waged against the US Constitution and the way of life it has long tried to promote, support and preserve.

America is in very dire straits right now and a turning point is desperately needed.

Count me solidly in Group I

Steve in VA had a few things to say;

"rhetoric" is an interesting word.  One definition is "The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively."  Another definition is "loud and confused and empty talk".  Two VERY different meanings for the same word.


I believe that CavVet said it best:
IF PEOPLE do not want former felons having rights, they/WE need to make the sentences stiffer. Abolishing SELECTIVE rights of ANY group is WRONG. If we dont want violent persons on the street, KEEP THEM INSIDE OR excuse them from the planet! Once they are convicted, serve their time, they are a citizen again. We do NOT limit their speech, nor should ANY other rights be limited.



Do you think child pornography should be a crime.  Why or why not?


Why should that be against the law?


You're not comparing CavVet to Hitler are you.


Was that comment really neccessary?

Well I enjoyed the interpretation CavVet put on my views, altho' he is wrong.

I believe in the Constitution, the whole thing. I believe that no one should have to prove they are worthy of their Rights. I do belive that you can prove that you are un-worthy of your Rights however. No one that has been convicted of murder should EVER be allowed to own a firearm, unless the are pardoned. Remember the Constitution list certain Rights, but also sets up a government. That is a representative government, with the ability to pass laws, make budgets, and even amend the Constitution. State Constitutions do much the same thing.

I believe there are more than 2 groups here. But I take issue with some of the "group 1-er's". Many of them say that they interpret the Constitution, which includes apperently disregarding the parts of the Constituiion that they don't agree with, they get to decide that the UN is Un-Constitutional, or that abortion is Un-Constitutional. They make up freedoms saying that just cause it is not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exsist. But when some else says there is a right to choose they YELL that that isn't in the Constitution.

Maybe you should have added, extremist Group 1, the hypcritical, close minded, I'll make up Rights as I see fit group.

And group 2 the I don't care group.

Well I am neither, I believe that everyone should have the same Rights as I do and that I should have the same Rights as everyone else does. Since I am a part of a society that protects its members Rights, that other societies wouldn't imagine giving "to the people", I belive I also have a resposibility to society. I vote, I would do jury duty if called, I was in the military, and I also pay taxes. I am an adult and am responsible for my actions. I expect others to be responsible for their actions.

I know this might sound strange to some of you but I choose to do how I live my life.

Thumbtrap: I would say that certain people who had their rights restricted are prhibited from buying guns. You, a law, abiding citizen are not waiting for government approval to exercise your right. THe onus is on the government to stop the people who shouldn't own guns

Steve,

I will say this and I am done. Over 120 people have responded to this thread, and over 1600 have read it. After all of that you are the only one to personally attack me.

As I read thru ALL the post, agree or disagree, most either claimed one group or the other, or dispelled the group theory. NONE of them attacked me. What is your malfunction? You took a swipe at me on another thread the other day and I let it go.

You must be a government lawyer here to help me. A hug from you, NO thankx...

You seem to have issues, but I do NOT think they are with me...Maybe the lawyer needs a new shrink....

CavVet my feeling is you personally atacked me, I didn't respond. If it makes you feel better consider yourself even

CavVet attacks NO-AR-:( [red](who should now be M4gery-:)[/red])

Steve attacks CavVet.

CavVet you gave one, and got one in return.

I really don't have to explain which meaning I used, do I?




Again, do I really have to explain this one?  If I have to explain why I think kiddy porn should be illegal, you and I will never agree on this one



Yes, it was a joke, lighten up.

The Hitler thing was an example, for illustrative purposes only, of my point, not a comparison.

I respect your position on violent felons and will not argue with you on this point.  At least you and CavVet took a position on this aspect of the debate.

My point of reply was to take issue with the rediculous "dividing line" set out by CavVet and to illustrate that, if actually applied, he falls in the group he sought out to vilify in the first place.

The rest is just fodder.

POINT NO AR....

I did say you are the weakest link..that is an attack....I apologize and rephrase...Your attitudes are that of the weakest link....

Steve did NOT attack me..he said SOUNDS like an idiot..I read what I wanted to read, after the expletive, I didnt see the 'sounds like'...


You stand corrected NO AR...I attacked, and did not get attacked, personally.

I still vigioursly disagree, and think my position is VERY clear. Once they take away our means of resistance, your speech, travel, all the other rights are lost. No more slow loss, it will come swift. Germany stewed before it boiled. This is a VERY serious issue, and if we lose, may the good Lord help us, because we will NO longer have the means to help ourselves.

CavVet,

Tell me you are not serious (again).  You need to light up my man.  I did not personally attack you.  I said "you sound like an idiot".  Everyone "sounds like an idiot" now and again, including me.  I called it like I saw it and I stick by what I said.

I am not offended by your quips, the shrink thing or the "passing the bar" comment (BTW, I passed two of them- first try on both).

The "hug" thing was a joke, sorry if you did not see the levity in it.  Sounds like I should have meant it.  Maybe I should throw in "and get laid too"- AGAIN, JUST A JOKE.

BTW, I am not a government lawyer.  That debate ended about two years ago when Drew and I went head to head on a "legalize drugs" thread and I won 20 bucks by proving I am who I say I am.

CavVet, I am editing 'cause I just read your post regarding the "attack" thing.  I will say this, I should have (as usual) toned down my own "rhetoric", just a bit, so as not to offend.  Then again, I have thick skin and expect everyone else to have the same.  At any rate, I did enjoy this debate.  Thanx for the replies.

I am only 24 but must say I belong in group 1, however, I don't think felons should have guns, BUT what bothers me is in the future what is going to be classified as a felony or a criminal act?  I think that too many people are not seeing the Constitution torn apart like it is now.  Look at the campaign finance reform bill.  If that isn't a direct assault against the 1st I don't know what is.  I think Social Security is a sham and taxes are way too high.  Government is costing industry and landowners $$$ because of dumb environmental regulations that have corrupt regulators (trust me, I know). I think guns are the corner stone for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Guns- protect my Life, Guns-guarantee Liberty, Guns-make me damn Happy!

Rock on group #1!

I bet we can all agree on this:


Diversity is a good thing.  Anybody ever read the book "The Giver".  Now there is place I wouldn't want to live in.

Synopsis
This novel is set in a future society "without conflict, poverty, unemployment, divorce, injustice, or inequality. . . . December is the time of the annual Ceremony at which each twelve-year-old receives a life assignment determined by the Elders. . . . Jonas has been chosen for something special. When his selection leads him to an unnamed man--the man called only the Giver--he begins to sense the dark secrets that underlie the fragile perfection of his world.
This book was written for 5th to 8th graders but every single adult will get somethingn out of it.  Get it and read it.

God bless America...

AR out

You can yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is a fire.

the reason that you would get into trouble for "crying wolf" is because the theatre is privately owned and to do so would be disrespectfull of not only the theatre owner, but also to your fellow ticket holders who purchased their tickests. if you yell fire when there is no fire you are violating the property rights of others which is a crime. you are deprieving the ticket holders of their purchased entertainment. and disprespected the theatre owner by causeing him/her to loose revenue.

Steve of virginia this should be obvious. your free speech is not being restricted anymore than my right to ask a cursing drunkard to remove himself from my front lawn. if said drunkard is in the streets and yelling, then i would call the cops to handle it as the drunkard would be disturbing the peace. streets/highways are property and responsiblility of the county/state.

not a lawyer lib

CavVet there YOU go again, I based what I said, in good faith, thinking YOU knew what YOU were talking about. And if you FELT personally attacked by another post, I think that was sufficient to say you were (felt) attacked.

No I don't stand corrected, I based my comment  on your comment and taking in faith YOU knew what YOU were talking about (wrongly).

How dupilicitous of you, start a contentious post, put your opinion up bashing other people's opinions then whine when others (almost) bash you.

No felon should be a gun owner, no-one that has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty due to mental disease or defect(insane) should own a gun.

I'm confused.  Didn't CavVet just admit that he was wrong to think that Steve insulted him?  Didn't he apologize for his remark?  Didn't he correct NO AR statement and in doing so assume all responsiblity for his remarks?

And my point remains the same about this attacks. I offered my feelings, earnestly, on the issue. For that I was attacked. The CryVet started whining when someone strenuously diagreed with him. When I pointed out CryVet had done some attacking, he offered an apologgy that was another attack. Seems like someone likes to attack but can't take it when he is questioned.  

Again, this is where I take issue with he progressive, modern (read liberal) agenda. Just because I "felt attacked", by NO MEANS makes me a victim of attack. IT MEANS WHAT I SAID, my ass was seeing colors and didnt READ what Steve said.

I apologized for being wrong and you are ofended again. I should have KNOWN when I said you were wrong, a function of my error, you would take it the wrong way. Well I AINT PC, and I aint apologizin again. What I demonstrated was called the REAL search for truth. I saw where I was wrong, and admitted it.

As I read the self righteoussness in your post, I can se your soccer mom mentality kick in, and THAT is where I got the basic premise for my 'contentious' post. You allow no rrom for error in numerous statements you say, last of which was 'NO FELON SHOULD....'.

ALL of ANYTHING is NOTHING....all cars dont run, all boys dont like girls, and all dogs dont hunt.ALL FELONS is a BROAD brush, be careful how you judge, you JUST may be a felon and dont know it....


Steve, I concur..debate is ALWAYS good. It allows Group I and Group II to come together and possibly make a bigger better group..a UNITED GROUP OF AMERICA! Look forward to it again...


MODS...6 pages may be enuf of this. It has degenerated to a pissing contest. I created it, you may feel free to lock it at any time, TY

CavVet,

Kewl, we agreed on something.  Although you would not know it from my replies to this thread, you and I agree on a LOT of things.

BTW, what "swipe" did I take at you the other day.  I hardly ever chime in over here and can't recall the thread.  Just curious.

Well the only problem that I see is that you feel threatened by people that don't share your views. Becuase of that insecurity you decided to attack me. There are plenty of other posts here that indicated felons should not have firearms. But you chose to attack me and me views, and in doing so mis-represnted my views.

And when I tried, somewhat tongue in cheek, to keep you and Steve from getting crazy with each other you attacked me agian with snide apology that again attacked my views. (and misrepresnted them)

No-one is a felon and doesn't know it. In order to be convicted you must at least be given the option of having a trial, lawyer, right to due process, etc. The only way all that doesn't happen is it the felon decides to plead guilty.  

If you want to say that there are to many crimes that are felonies or that people are sometimes wrongly convicted, that is another debate. How many people commit felonies and don't get caught or get found not guilty of what they did?

What I was saying is LAW in many places, I dbout that it would be law bvery long if it was Un-Constitutional.

You missed my point.  I was referring to limitations on speech in general by the STATE/GOVERNMENT, not private entities.  Those are "breach of peace" laws and the theatre example is a cliche'd illustration of those laws.  I deal with these laws a lot and end up arguing the same cases over and over to judges who don't want to accept the Sup. Ct. cases that limit the application of state speech-prohibiting laws.  For example, there is a line of "vulgar/abusive" language statutes found in most states and the Sup. Ct. has limited there applicability to only those instances where the comment made would, to a reasonable person, result in an immediate violent reaction.

12/4 = 3

Enough of the rhetorical bulls**t already.  What it all comes down to is:
 Group1 = people who will resist  
 Group2 = people who won't


[%(]

You know it is funny the way they want to get rid of both. Kind of ironic. 2 documents that mean so much but they want to get rid of they or change what they say or redifine them as I call it.

This is a conspiracy I tell you!!!  Divide and conquer!!! [:D]

It is the STATE/GOVERNMENT that enforces the law to protect private property and the rights of citizen...no? i'm not against "breach of peace" laws when it comes to weirdo's harrassing innocent folk. such as yelling profanities at them (dont think this would happen if you had a shiny revovler at your hip [:)]) i'll just say there should never be laws to limit free speech when it comes to expressing yourself and your ideas. this is the spirit of the first amendment. it is however amazing as to what people will take offense to. hate speech=hate crime=thought control=no right to freedom of speech


still not a lawyer lib

Actually, I AGREE with you 100%.  Realistically, just about everyone on this board is probably in Group2, despite what they think.  

[:(]

Mr.Garrison said it from South Park

Lib,

Right, I agree.  That is the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  

Regarding the example, in Virginia, the legislators decidede to criminalize screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre not because of property right infringement, but because some people have a nasty tendency to get crushed to death during the mad rush for the one fire exit when someone does it.

The way i see it if people will stab you in the back over a $9.00 hour job. then what would make me think these people living around me will stand up and fight None i would be standing by myself rediculessy holding a "EVIL" gun cops or UN or who ever coming to arrest me or kill me! i see it this way let them come and take my guns the one's you know the one's that are directly envoled with form 4473. i bet you i won't be dissarmed! i will stand out on my front porch and see these bastards called my neighbors with smerk's on there face's and laughing hahah "HA! HA! HA! thats funny! he got in trouble. i have one thing to say kiss my -> [moon]

It is amazing to see history repeating itself all over again with the "doomsdayers" and their continuing saga of "the sky is falling".

Aren't these the same people who stockpiled food, water, weapons, ammo etc. for the great tribulation at the turn of the year 2000?  Do you remember how bad that was?  They couldn't even find anything to put on the news.

These are the same people who stockpiled gold, silver and weapons in the late 70's when inflation was high, the economy sucked and the end of the world and the collpase of the monetary system was foretold.  I remember that time I just put my money in the bank and got paid the 16% plus interest rate.

But I must admit I enjoy reading your posts, they remind me of my Uncle Milton who still has bags of nearly worthless silver coins, dried beans and rice and his trusty Mini 14 to prevent the rest of us from getting his food cache.

Group I - The doomsday whiners who do nothing but criticize so they won't do anything to help stop the erosion of our rights. You probably even think you could hold off the "Gun Snatchers" single handedly like on T.V. We have seen what happens to people who hole up in their house and try to exist in the face of the almighty government.

Group II - The only hope we have left.  The people who know that the NRA isn't perfect, the Constitution isn't perfect and neither is life.  You have to either play the cards you are dealt in life, or fold.  It is that simple.

This is deep

I agree with you completely. I have been saying all along that you paranoids don't need all of those guns for "home defense". All you need is a cell phone with 911 on autodial. If people defended themselves with guns you would see it all of the time on the news, but you don't because it doesn't happen! Then there are all of those extremists that waste money on "training" at gun schools. Leave it to the trained professionals and quit trying to play cop.

Tacky,Beekeeper, veeeeeery tacky.

Cav Vet...there`s a few categories that you didn`t think of also..........[dracula]