PDA

View Full Version : Lifelong loss of firearms for Felon unconstitutional in N.C.


dantodd
08-28-2009, 3:11 PM
Eugene Volokh posted this article:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251496843

In which the North Carolina Supreme court ruled that a 2004 law which permanently took away firearms rights for non-violent felons violates the State Constitution.

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-28-2009, 3:16 PM
Eugene Volokh posted this article:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251496843

In which the North Carolina Supreme court ruled that a 2004 law which permanently took away firearms rights for non-violent felons violates the State Constitution.

Define non-violent. His is a case of simple possession. Don't use weasel wording like "non-violent" when our state defines parolees who have committed multiple burglaries (residential and commercial) and being doped up as being ok to be released into the general public.

stormy_clothing
08-28-2009, 3:23 PM
taking away anyones right to bear arms seems unconstitutional to me regardless of what they've done unless they have used them for murder in which case they should be 12 feet underground and it won't be a further issue.

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-28-2009, 3:30 PM
taking away anyones right to bear arms seems unconstitutional to me regardless of what they've done unless they have used them for murder in which case they should be 12 feet underground and it won't be a further issue.

So a meth addict who likes breaking into houses is A-OK to own a gun in your eyes. After all, it's his right, right?

Shotgun Man
08-28-2009, 3:35 PM
Define non-violent. His is a case of simple possession. Don't use weasel wording like "non-violent" when our state defines parolees who have committed multiple burglaries (residential and commercial) and being doped up as being ok to be released into the general public.

"Non-violent" is a term of art. The CA legislature has defined "violent" felonies (see, e.g., CA PC 667.5 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=50332716359+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)), as I'm sure have other legislatures.

You're pretty much stuck with the term if you're to have an understandable, meaningful legal discussion about prior crimes.

stormy_clothing
08-28-2009, 3:37 PM
So a meth addict who likes breaking into houses is A-OK to own a gun in your eyes. After all, it's his right, right?

are you blaming guns for the prison systems lack of reforming people. Either he paid his debt or not. Guns have nothing to do with that.

madmike
08-28-2009, 3:38 PM
Many people think that if the felon is not to be trusted with having rights, he should still be locked up. If he's paid his debt, and can be trusted in public, he should be able to be trusted with all the rights of a free man.
I haven't finished deciding how I feel about this yet.

-madmike.

hollabillz
08-28-2009, 3:40 PM
taking away anyones right to bear arms seems unconstitutional to me regardless of what they've done unless they have used them for murder in which case they should be 12 feet underground and it won't be a further issue.

Problem is, the judicial system isn't perfect.. if you condone capital punishment and the government executes even a single innocent, shouldn't you be put to death for being an accessory to murdering an innocent?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed**." Can't we remove the asterisks and still be firm about appropriate punishment of people who harm others? If someone decides on harming an innocent person, outlawing and enforcing anything but harming innocent people is not in the interest of justice. Why do free people have unequal liberties under law?

(Rhetorical questions)

HondaMasterTech
08-28-2009, 3:41 PM
are you blaming guns for the prison systems lack of reforming people. Either he paid his debt or not. Guns have nothing to do with that.

Prisioners don't pay debts they create debts. You want to steal ****, go **** yourself...

MudCamper
08-28-2009, 3:52 PM
Dr. Peter, let me ask you, do you think all of the following crimes should result in a lifetime prohibition of firearms rights?

- possession of marijuana
- possession of a concealable weapon
- carrying a concealed firearm
- carrying a loaded firearm
- possessing an assault weapon
- prostitution (buying or selling)
- failure to wear a seatbelt/helmet
- having improper/immoral/un-pc thoughts

OK, the last 2 aren't felonies, yet. But my point is, there are many "crimes" that don't even have victims (other than the tyrannical state). Do you think people who violate these should be banned from their 2A rights?

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-28-2009, 4:12 PM
"Non-violent" is a term of art. The CA legislature has defined "violent" felonies (see, e.g., CA PC 667.5 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=50332716359+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)), as I'm sure have other legislatures.

You're pretty much stuck with the term if you're to have an understandable, meaningful legal discussion about prior crimes.

That's what I'm trying to point out. What we personally think as being non-violent has nothing to do with what that same term means from a legal perspective.

are you blaming guns for the prison systems lack of reforming people. Either he paid his debt or not. Guns have nothing to do with that.

You're missing my point. See above.

Dr. Peter, let me ask you, do you think all of the following crimes should result in a lifetime prohibition of firearms rights?

- possession of marijuana
- possession of a concealable weapon
- carrying a concealed firearm
- carrying a loaded firearm
- possessing an assault weapon
- prostitution (buying or selling)
- failure to wear a seatbelt/helmet
- having improper/immoral/un-pc thoughts

OK, the last 2 aren't felonies, yet. But my point is, there are many "crimes" that don't even have victims (other than the tyrannical state). Do you think people who violate these should be banned from their 2A rights?

I don't believe that any of those should constitute a loss of rights. If that's the point you think I am trying to make, you are flat-out wrong.

MudCamper
08-28-2009, 4:24 PM
I don't believe that any of those should constitute a loss of rights. If that's the point you think I am trying to make, you are flat-out wrong.

OK. Just wanted clarification on your position. Thanks. It would appear you've given it some thought. Some don't. They just hear "criminal" or "felon" or "con" and assume it's OK to oppress that person.

I understand that "non-violent" means something different to the law. But reading PC 667.5, it seems pretty comprehensive to me.

(c) For the purpose of this section, "violent felony" shall mean
any of the following:
(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter.
(2) Mayhem.
(3) Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of
Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
262.
(4) Sodomy as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.
(5) Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of
Section 288a.
(6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 288.
(7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life.
(8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury
on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and
proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 on or
after July 1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in
Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses
a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided in
subdivision (a) of Section 12022.3, or Section 12022.5 or 12022.55.
(9) Any robbery.
(10) Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451.

(11) Sexual penetration as defined in subdivision (a) or (j) of
Section 289.
(12) Attempted murder.
(13) A violation of Section 12308, 12309, or 12310.
(14) Kidnapping.
(15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in
violation of Section 220.
(16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section
288.5.
(17) Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215.
(18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration, in concert, in
violation of Section 264.1.
(19) Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which would constitute
a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.
(20) Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1,
which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the
Penal Code.
(21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision
(a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another
person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during
the commission of the burglary.
(22) Any violation of Section 12022.53.
(23) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418. The
Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit
special consideration when imposing a sentence to display society's
condemnation for these extraordinary crimes of violence against the
person.

Theseus
08-28-2009, 4:35 PM
I shouldn't loose my right for 10 years because I was at a laundry mat near a school. . . but I might. Who did I hurt?

This is a good deal, too bad it is in NC.

Cato
08-28-2009, 4:38 PM
So a meth addict who likes breaking into houses is A-OK to own a gun in your eyes. After all, it's his right, right?

Because he's an ex con is it ok to sell him as a slave? He'll only use his freedom to run his and other lives into the ground. Or since he's a meth addict burglar should we take his right to own screw drivers or propane tanks? How could we have let that slip through the cracks?

hawk84
08-28-2009, 4:44 PM
OK. Just wanted clarification on your position. Thanks. It would appear you've given it some thought. Some don't. They just hear "criminal" or "felon" or "con" and assume it's OK to oppress that person.

I understand that "non-violent" means something different to the law. But reading PC 667.5, it seems pretty comprehensive to me.

getting a ******* is a felony?:eek:

pat038536
08-28-2009, 8:41 PM
In the words of George Carlin...
"Why is prostitution illegal? Why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? Selling is legal, fu***ing is legal. Why isn't selling f***ing legal? I can't follow the logic in that. .."

tyrist
08-28-2009, 8:48 PM
Dr. Peter, let me ask you, do you think all of the following crimes should result in a lifetime prohibition of firearms rights?

- possession of marijuana
- possession of a concealable weapon
- carrying a concealed firearm
- carrying a loaded firearm
- possessing an assault weapon
- prostitution (buying or selling)
- failure to wear a seatbelt/helmet
- having improper/immoral/un-pc thoughts

OK, the last 2 aren't felonies, yet. But my point is, there are many "crimes" that don't even have victims (other than the tyrannical state). Do you think people who violate these should be banned from their 2A rights?

Prostitution is not a felony unless the prostitute is HIV positive. It's a 2500 dollar fine which is why enforcement doesn't work. The high end girls make about a million a year.

Pimping/Pandering is a felony however.

All the rest are misdemeanors as well except for the assault weapon possession assuming you have more than a single count. A temporary ban is all you would get.

obeygiant
08-28-2009, 10:15 PM
getting a ******* is a felony?:eek:

(5) Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of
Section 288a.


Yes, and for good reason.

CAL. PEN. CODE 288 : California Code - Section 288

(c)(1)Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.

(2)Any person who is a caretaker and commits an act described in subdivision (a) upon a dependent person, with the intent described in subdivision (a), is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.

(d)In any arrest or prosecution under this section or Section 288.5, the peace officer, district attorney, and the court shall consider the needs of the child victim or dependent person and shall do whatever is necessary, within existing budgetary resources, and constitutionally permissible to prevent psychological harm to the child victim or to prevent psychological harm to the dependent person victim resulting from participation in the court process.

leadchucker
08-28-2009, 11:57 PM
So a meth addict who likes breaking into houses is A-OK to own a gun in your eyes. After all, it's his right, right?

Yep. I have to agree here. It is every free man's right. However, in your example, breaking into another's house is a violation of the other person's right to personal property, and THAT is what should be the charge- not possession of a butane lighter, handkerchief, firearm, or pocket lint.

Burglary is against the law, and yet this person did it anyway; The law didn't stop her. Same thing with an anti-firearms law- not going to stop an outlaw, is it?
Let's see, burglary is against the law, and rightfully so since it violates another person's rights.
Mere possession of a firearm does not violate any rights of another person, and so should never be illegal for a free man who is protected under the Second Amendment, whether he has been incarcerated in his past or not.

Besides, how can you equate someone excercising his right as necessitating you necessarily be A-OK with it? A person has the right to call me a dirty, rotten SOB if that's how he feels, but that doesn't mean I'd be "A-OK" with his choice of words. It really doesn't matter whether I'm "A-OK" with his use (or abuse) of the First Amendment or not. A right is still a right whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not.

fourdoorchevelle
08-29-2009, 2:05 AM
So a meth addict who likes breaking into houses is A-OK to own a gun in your eyes. After all, it's his right, right?


wait wait......

isn't meth illegal?

wait wait wait....

isn't breaking into some ones house illegal?

why would they start following the rules when it comes to gun ownership?


"hey I'm about to go rob a bank, take several hostages and maybe snuff out a teller ..... wait Im not allowed to own a gun, dang it!!! better get a job and become a upstanding citizen!!"


How bout every one is required to own a firearm as was the case in the early beginning of this country? Bet no one would be breaking into houses then. I don't care how high you are, if you know there is going to be a gun on the other side of window/door pointed at you, you aint gonna risk it


When you think about true freedom stuff makes sense

artherd
08-29-2009, 2:24 AM
I'm not so sure we should permanently strip rights for a simple burglary (ie no one home.) Did you know that writing a bad check over $500 can be a felony too? That, while very naughty, hardly seems in the same league as say; rape.

We need to fix our judicial system.

Meplat
08-29-2009, 4:13 AM
EXACTLY!

wait wait......

isn't meth illegal?

wait wait wait....

isn't breaking into some ones house illegal?

why would they start following the rules when it comes to gun ownership?


"hey I'm about to go rob a bank, take several hostages and maybe snuff out a teller ..... wait Im not allowed to own a gun, dang it!!! better get a job and become a upstanding citizen!!"


How bout every one is required to own a firearm as was the case in the early beginning of this country? Bet no one would be breaking into houses then. I don't care how high you are, if you know there is going to be a gun on the other side of window/door pointed at you, you aint gonna risk it


When you think about true freedom stuff makes sense

Roadrunner
08-29-2009, 7:40 AM
On it's face, I see no problem with N.C. logic. As I understand it, violent crimes include assault and battery, robbery, murder, any kind of forced sex, and mayhem. I also believe that all 50 states prohibit people from owning a firearm, if they are chronic alcoholics, drug addicts, and mental cases (schizophrenics, and paranoids), because they are viewed as incapable of using sound judgment when making decisions. I also believe these same "mental defectives" are also prohibited from driving a car for the same reasons.

I don't think that prohibiting felons from firearms possession is reasonable, because, if I read the laws correctly, that would prohibit people, who have committed computer crimes, forgery, writing a bad check if the amount is big enough, shoplifting if the merchandise is expensive enough, stealing produce from a field (imagine getting a felony wrap for stealing corn, apricots, tomatoes, or cherries from a field or orchard). I also thinks it's unreasonable to prevent a person from owning a firearm if they have obtained sufficient treatment that they are no longer addicted to drugs or alcohol and can function as a normal human being.

snobord99
08-29-2009, 8:08 AM
I don't care how high you are, if you know there is going to be a gun on the other side of window/door pointed at you, you aint gonna risk it

Just like people high on ____ aren't gonna risk shooting at a cop because they know there will be a gun pointed at them on the other side.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

fourdoorchevelle
08-29-2009, 9:08 AM
Just like people high on ____ aren't gonna risk shooting at a cop because they know there will be a gun pointed at them on the other side.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Really? Do you want to take that side of the argument?

Isn't shooting at cops against the law? Isn't being high on _____ illegal? Is that a common occurrence? Stats? I would say that it's pretty widely known that disarmed geographic areas typically have higher crime.


Sure some idiots.... will .... be ..... idiots. You can't bubble wrap the world.


Every one being armed would make this a much safer community. Why turn a reformed criminal into a victim. If every one is armed the playing field is level,120lb woman has an equal opportunity of coming out on top in an encounter with a 250lb man. Does he think twice if every one has a gun? It goes from fish in a barrel to 50/50 chance that the attacker is dead.

"insane laws don't stop insane people from doing insane things" penn

With gun control , law abiding citizens are at the mercy of the state and criminals.

Theseus
08-29-2009, 10:09 AM
This is the part that seems to amaze me the most. Some of you act so high and mighty that a criminal is a criminal and they deserve what they get. . . but you forget the fact that sometimes good people do bad things, or that good people get convicted even though they didn't break any actual law.

It may not be that far away when I become a criminal because I simply OC'd while doing my laundry near a school I didn't know I was within 1000 feet of. . . Do I deserve to lose my right to firearms simply because of that?

All I am saying is that sometimes things are not as clear. The court should have to prove the particular individual is a danger before taking the rights away and not making it a blanket issue.

Shotgun Man
08-29-2009, 10:17 AM
This is the part that seems to amaze me the most. Some of you act so high and mighty that a criminal is a criminal and they deserve what they get. . . but you forget the fact that sometimes good people do bad things, or that good people get convicted even though they didn't break any actual law.

It may not be that far away when I become a criminal because I simply OC'd while doing my laundry near a school I didn't know I was within 1000 feet of. . . Do I deserve to lose my right to firearms simply because of that?

All I am saying is that sometimes things are not as clear. The court should have to prove the particular individual is a danger before taking the rights away and not making it a blanket issue.

Put me on your jury-- you'll be okay.

BTW, a court has no burden whatsoever. That burden lies with the prosecutor, which they often don't meet, but sheep jurors convict anyway.

snobord99
08-29-2009, 3:57 PM
Really? Do you want to take that side of the argument?

Isn't shooting at cops against the law? Isn't being high on _____ illegal? Is that a common occurrence? Stats? I would say that it's pretty widely known that disarmed geographic areas typically have higher crime.


Sure some idiots.... will .... be ..... idiots. You can't bubble wrap the world.


Every one being armed would make this a much safer community. Why turn a reformed criminal into a victim. If every one is armed the playing field is level,120lb woman has an equal opportunity of coming out on top in an encounter with a 250lb man. Does he think twice if every one has a gun? It goes from fish in a barrel to 50/50 chance that the attacker is dead.

"insane laws don't stop insane people from doing insane things" penn

With gun control , law abiding citizens are at the mercy of the state and criminals.

This is your statement: "How bout every one is required to own a firearm as was the case in the early beginning of this country? Bet no one would be breaking into houses then. I don't care how high you are, if you know there is going to be a gun on the other side of window/door pointed at you, you aint gonna risk it"

Now you say "idiots will be idiots." I guess I should have known that when you said "no one" you didn't mean "no one."

I didn't say arming people is a bad idea. I just find it laughable that you think that "no one" will be affected by being high. Again, my fault. I should have known that when you said "no one" you actually didn't mean "no one."

snobord99
08-29-2009, 4:04 PM
This is the part that seems to amaze me the most. Some of you act so high and mighty that a criminal is a criminal and they deserve what they get. . . but you forget the fact that sometimes good people do bad things, or that good people get convicted even though they didn't break any actual law.

It may not be that far away when I become a criminal because I simply OC'd while doing my laundry near a school I didn't know I was within 1000 feet of. . . Do I deserve to lose my right to firearms simply because of that?

All I am saying is that sometimes things are not as clear. The court should have to prove the particular individual is a danger before taking the rights away and not making it a blanket issue.

I agree, sometimes good people do bad things, and sometimes good people make mistakes. I guess where we differ is that I don't care if you're a good person or not. If you make a mistake, you pay for that mistake. It's called being responsible for your actions.

If I make the mistake of driving home one day when I shouldn't because I've had one too many to drink and I end up killing someone, I'd still consider myself a good person but I should absolutely pay for that mistake. I did it, I'm responsible for it, now I should pay for that mistake. I believe I should be held accountable for my actions, no matter how "good" of a person I am. Guess that's just me.

GoodEyeSniper
08-29-2009, 6:08 PM
I'm not so sure we should permanently strip rights for a simple burglary (ie no one home.) Did you know that writing a bad check over $500 can be a felony too? That, while very naughty, hardly seems in the same league as say; rape.

We need to fix our judicial system.

LOL. I owed my father $300 about a year ago. My checkbook was in the same desk as his, they were the same style checks from the same bank. So I wrote him a check for $300 on his own check and then signed it myself without noticing... The check bounced.... It was pretty funny when we found out.

Theseus
08-29-2009, 7:17 PM
I agree, sometimes good people do bad things, and sometimes good people make mistakes. I guess where we differ is that I don't care if you're a good person or not. If you make a mistake, you pay for that mistake. It's called being responsible for your actions.

If I make the mistake of driving home one day when I shouldn't because I've had one too many to drink and I end up killing someone, I'd still consider myself a good person but I should absolutely pay for that mistake. I did it, I'm responsible for it, now I should pay for that mistake. I believe I should be held accountable for my actions, no matter how "good" of a person I am. Guess that's just me.

I am not saying one should not take responsibility for their actions, I am simply saying that the esteme that many hold "criminals" in is amasingly short sighted and judgemental.

They act as if there is such a clear line of "criminal". Even criminals deserve the right to self defense and the courts agree. Punishment for using the guns in a crime is agreeable, but prohibiting ownership is, to me, a rediculous notion.

I did nothing violent against anyone, and since I did so near a school I may loose my right to possess firearms and thus have constructive ability to protect my family. I don't know anyone that thinks that to make any sense. . . But they may be lieing to me.

fourdoorchevelle
08-29-2009, 7:42 PM
This is your statement: "How bout every one is required to own a firearm as was the case in the early beginning of this country? Bet no one would be breaking into houses then. I don't care how high you are, if you know there is going to be a gun on the other side of window/door pointed at you, you aint gonna risk it"

Now you say "idiots will be idiots." I guess I should have known that when you said "no one" you didn't mean "no one."

I didn't say arming people is a bad idea. I just find it laughable that you think that "no one" will be affected by being high. Again, my fault. I should have known that when you said "no one" you actually didn't mean "no one."

if there was a way to drop said instances to 0, that'd be the way to go....

guess this was more of a crossing "i's" and dotting "t's" kind of argument


Punishment for using the guns in a crime is agreeable, but prohibiting ownership is, to me, a rediculous notion.

Because criminals don't follow laws......:cool:

Blackhawk556
08-29-2009, 9:15 PM
taking away anyones right to bear arms seems unconstitutional to me regardless of what they've done unless they have used them for murder in which case they should be 12 feet underground and it won't be a further issue.

what about someone with a criminal history that shots someone but doesn't kill them. lets say he gets out in 20 years. you think he should be able to own guns again?

leadchucker
08-29-2009, 11:09 PM
what about someone with a criminal history that shots someone but doesn't kill them. lets say he gets out in 20 years. you think he should be able to own guns again?

Yes. Of course.

#1. (BOTTOM LINE HERE IN AMERICA) The Second Amendment makes no exclusions for any class of free men. "....the right of the people....shall no be infringed" means just that, and no less.

#2. If the person was still bent on criminal activity, do you think she'd really care about a law "forbidding" her to have a firearm? LOL!

#3. Possession of a firearm should NEVER be unlawful for any free man (See #1).

#4. If this person were to commit a crime using a firearm, then the criminal act itself is what should properly be charged, not the possession of any weapon used. Possession of a weapon should not ever be a crime (See #1).

Again, anti-gun laws work just as well on cons-in-the-making as they do for ex-cons....they don't, and never have, and is part of the reason the Founding Fathers said "shall not be infringed." (See #1)

Sometimes I feel some in our own ranks are just as guilty as the anti-gun crowd of twisting or misunderstanding the words and intents of the Founding Fathers. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who "feel" even you should not own a gun. Thank God the Founding Fathers basically said it doesn't matter what anyone else "feels" when it comes to your inalienable rights as long as you do not use them to violate others' inalienable rights! So simple, and it works if only they'd let it.:rolleyes: So, while one may not "feel" someone or some group of people should be able to own a gun, others may "feel" you shouldn't either. "Feelings" have no bearings on rights. I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm hoping what I'm saying is understood as intended.

snobord99
08-30-2009, 12:06 AM
Yes. Of course.

#1. (BOTTOM LINE HERE IN AMERICA) The Second Amendment makes no exclusions for any class of free men. "....the right of the people....shall no be infringed" means just that, and no less.

#2. If the person was still bent on criminal activity, do you think she'd really care about a law "forbidding" her to have a firearm? LOL!

#3. Possession of a firearm should NEVER be unlawful for any free man (See #1).

#4. If this person were to commit a crime using a firearm, then the criminal act itself is what should properly be charged, not the possession of any weapon used. Possession of a weapon should not ever be a crime (See #1).

Again, anti-gun laws work just as well on cons-in-the-making as they do for ex-cons....they don't, and never have, and is part of the reason the Founding Fathers said "shall not be infringed." (See #1)

Sometimes I feel some in our own ranks are just as guilty as the anti-gun crowd of twisting or misunderstanding the words and intents of the Founding Fathers. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who "feel" even you should not own a gun. Thank God the Founding Fathers basically said it doesn't matter what anyone else "feels" when it comes to your inalienable rights as long as you do not use them to violate others' inalienable rights! So simple, and it works if only they'd let it.:rolleyes: So, while one may not "feel" someone or some group of people should be able to own a gun, others may "feel" you shouldn't either. "Feelings" have no bearings on rights. I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm hoping what I'm saying is understood as intended.

1, 3, and 4 are fine. #2 is a horrible argument. This argument basically amounts to: criminals aren't going to follow the law, so why bother having the law? That's like saying "the murderer is going to kill, why bother making it illegal, it's not going to stop the murderer from killing."

fourdoorchevelle
08-30-2009, 5:21 AM
1, 3, and 4 are fine. #2 is a horrible argument. This argument basically amounts to: criminals aren't going to follow the law, so why bother having the law? That's like saying "the murderer is going to kill, why bother making it illegal, it's not going to stop the murderer from killing."

currently owning a gun in and of it self is not criminal and doesn't violate any one elses rights.

gun owner ship is a right endowed to us by our creator , not some judge and jury

gun owner ship can save you life

not even close to the same thing as legalizing murder.

snobord99
08-30-2009, 8:11 AM
currently owning a gun in and of it self is not criminal and doesn't violate any one elses rights.

gun owner ship is a right endowed to us by our creator , not some judge and jury

gun owner ship can save you life

not even close to the same thing as legalizing murder.

I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make.

It has nothing to do with whether ownership is a crime, if it's a right, nor if it can save your life.

socal2310
08-30-2009, 8:40 AM
I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make.

It has nothing to do with whether ownership is a crime, if it's a right, nor if it can save your life.


No, you aren't getting it. Murder is unlawfully depriving someone of their life (lawful means of doing so are self defense and retribution for murder), robbery is unlawfully depriving someone of property and rape, molestation and kidnapping are acts that deprive the victim of liberty. Simple possession of a firearm does none of that.

Ryan

snobord99
08-30-2009, 9:02 AM
No, you aren't getting it. Murder is unlawfully depriving someone of their life (lawful means of doing so are self defense and retribution for murder), robbery is unlawfully depriving someone of property and rape, molestation and kidnapping are acts that deprive the victim of liberty. Simple possession of a firearm does none of that.

Ryan

Would you understand why it's a bad argument if my example was drunk driving instead of murder?

Perhaps you missed the part where I said the #2 argument leadchucker used was bad. I never said I disagreed with his conclusion. My statement is about using that particular line of reasoning. There's a difference between criticizing the conclusion and criticizing its reasoning; I don't think you get it. I'll reiterate it using drunk driving instead, maybe you'll get it.

leadchucker's 2nd line of thought: "If the person was still bent on criminal activity, do you think she'd really care about a law "forbidding" her to have a firearm? LOL!"

This argument basically amounts to: criminals aren't going to follow the law, so why bother having the law? Now, to use that with drunk driving by replacing a few words used by leadchucker's statement. "If a drunk was still bent on driving drunk, do you think she'd really care about a law 'forbidding' her from driving drunk?" Now, you tell me if this should lead to the conclusion that drunk driving should be legal.

This should meet most of your problems with my thinking. Simple possession of alcohol isn't a crime nor is simply driving a crime (assuming you have a license). Yes, I understand that neither of these are rights, but, again, that's not relevant to my point (neither was whether simple possession is a crime, but you had a problem with that so I decided to unnecessarily address it in hopes it'll help you understand). I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make now.

MudCamper
08-30-2009, 9:03 AM
Personally, I would trust a rehabilitated ex-con over a person who's worldview is so black-and-white and holier-than-thou that they claim than any ex-con should never have his 2A rights restored. The latter type of person is far more dangerous IMO.

snobord99
08-30-2009, 9:31 AM
Personally, I would trust a rehabilitated ex-con over a person who's worldview is so black-and-white and holier-than-thou that they claim than any ex-con should never have his 2A rights restored. The latter type of person is far more dangerous IMO.

I think I could agree with this. The problem is that we don't know which ex-cons were actually rehabilitated, we only know which ones have done their time.

Theseus
08-30-2009, 10:40 AM
I think I could agree with this. The problem is that we don't know which ex-cons were actually rehabilitated, we only know which ones have done their time.

Just as we don't know which gun owner might go crazy and commit a mass murder. . . You can't play those games and create such an arbitrary line.

The "violent-felon" line is gray. . . what is violent. . . The "felony" line is ridiculous because of how easy it is to get a felony now.

snobord99
08-30-2009, 10:59 AM
Just as we don't know which gun owner might go crazy and commit a mass murder. . . You can't play those games and create such an arbitrary line.

The "violent-felon" line is gray. . . what is violent. . . The "felony" line is ridiculous because of how easy it is to get a felony now.

I agree that we may need to change which felonies qualify and which don't (misdemeanor type treatment) but I do think that if you shot someone in an attempt to kill them, you lose your right to have a gun. I don't care if it was 5, 20 or 40 years ago that you shot someone. In other words, I do believe there are crimes for which stripping someone of their right to possess a firearm is justified.

Theseus
08-30-2009, 11:04 AM
I don't. I believe you punish those that commit crimes with weapons. If they have paid their debt and are free men, they deserve the right to self defense.

The system of perpetual punishment is part of what helps create a further problem. If society actually gave people the opportunity to change and prove themselves we would likely have less repeat offenders.

Ladyfox
08-30-2009, 11:35 AM
I don't. I believe you punish those that commit crimes with weapons. If they have paid their debt and are free men, they deserve the right to self defense.

The system of perpetual punishment is part of what helps create a further problem. If society actually gave people the opportunity to change and prove themselves we would likely have less repeat offenders.

Very well said.

This entire system we have right now is like an endless cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy. It's no wonder that most first-time offenders move on to being multiple-time offenders. What really do they have to gain from going legit since everyone seems dead-set to brand them with the scarlet letter regardless of if they paid their debt or not.

Now, granted, there are some crimes where I would be flat-out against 2A rights being restored such as murder or child molestation. But we need to get rid of this felony BS for non-violent crimes and soon so we can dedicate prison space to those who really need to be put away rather than some pot-head who got caught with a bag.

Either we permanently incarcerate, or maybe even ship them off to an island ala Escape form New York, or we once and for all start to genuinely rehabilitate like the system was designed for to begin with.

snobord99
08-30-2009, 12:50 PM
I don't. I believe you punish those that commit crimes with weapons. If they have paid their debt and are free men, they deserve the right to self defense.

The system of perpetual punishment is part of what helps create a further problem. If society actually gave people the opportunity to change and prove themselves we would likely have less repeat offenders.

I guess where we differ is I don't see it as a "they served their time, they're done." I see it more like the loss of the right is part of their punishment.

We'll just have to agree to disagree good sir. ;)

croc4
08-30-2009, 4:31 PM
I also agree that if the time is served then its done, providing the crime did not cause harm to someone.

If your child screws up and he gets punished for it, do you apply the punishment for the rest of his life?, hell no, he gets punished, and you explain what was wrong and what should have been the correct behavior. Continual punishment only creates continual resentment, and repeats the cycle.

bohoki
08-30-2009, 6:30 PM
i personally think if they are too dangerous to own a gun they shouldn't be out of jail

dantodd
08-30-2009, 6:50 PM
i personally think if they are too dangerous to own a gun they shouldn't be out of jail

DING! DING! DING!

socal2310
08-30-2009, 9:12 PM
i personally think if they are too dangerous to own a gun they shouldn't be out of jail

Unless in a box or urn :43:.

Ryan

leadchucker
08-30-2009, 9:54 PM
I also agree that if the time is served then its done, providing the crime did not cause harm to someone.



But isn't this what defines what a crime is? Maybe you are thinking of physical harm, but there are other types of harm that can be as bad or worse than physical.

The punishment should fit the crime. Capital crimes should be dealt with with capital punishment. Anything else should be punished until the penalty is paid in full. Perpetual stripping of one's rights once freed (any right) is cruel and unusual, and only demonstrates an acknowledgement on the part of the judicial system that incarceration, as it currently stands today, is inadequate. Whatever happened to hard labor, instead of television, weight lifting and ball games?! First, though, all of the victimless "crime" laws must be repealed, including laws dealing with mere possession of an object.

Mr.CRC
08-31-2009, 6:47 PM
Problem is, the judicial system isn't perfect.. if you condone capital punishment and the government executes even a single innocent, shouldn't you be put to death for being an accessory to murdering an innocent?

Wow! Grade A+ for logic and philosophy!

Thanks for the delight of seeing human intelligence in action.

RideIcon
08-31-2009, 8:11 PM
So a meth addict who likes breaking into houses is A-OK to own a gun in your eyes. After all, it's his right, right?

non-violent is non violent, your just passing judgment.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-01-2009, 7:22 AM
IMHO, the prohibition should last as long as the sentence. Which would include time on parole. IE; Murder in the First means the guy likely never gets out. In the event that he does, he'll be on parole (which means that his bedroom is just an extension of his cell) forever. So, he never gets the Right restored.

A burglar gets, say, 20 years. Even if he's out in 5 years, he's on parole for another 15 years. Which is when the Right should be restored.

And so on, and so on for whatever felony it might be.

The phrase "paid his debt to society" should have some real meaning. With the emphasis on "paid" (past tense) meaning nothing more to pay. IE, an ex-felon is either allowed to re-join the ranks of free men or he isn't.

Oddly enough, the groundwork for restoration of 2A Rights is being laid by our friends at the ACLU. They're working very hard to get voting Rights restored for ex-felons. Since Heller defined the 2A as an individual Right, & since a Right is a Right is a Right, what works for one will work for all.

I see this as a good. Even if a guy committed an act of violence, if he has behaved for however long his time on parole was, that should be proof enough of rehabilitation. I have no qualms about seeing such a person re-entering the ranks of the free.

The Raisuli

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-01-2009, 10:00 AM
non-violent is non violent, your just passing judgment.

Meth addicts breaking into houses don't deserve to have the right of owning a gun. Breaking into a house, with the possibility of someone home, is NOT "non-violent".Their junkie are brains fried. I'm curious as to why you are defending them.

dantodd
09-01-2009, 11:08 AM
Meth addicts breaking into houses don't deserve to have the right of owning a gun. Breaking into a house, with the possibility of someone home, is NOT "non-violent".Their junkie are brains fried. I'm curious as to why you are defending them.

He's not defending meth addicts. He's defending former meth addicts. It may seem subtle to some, not to others.

cbn620
09-01-2009, 11:09 AM
I don't think there's anyone who should have lifelong 2nd amendment rights taken away from them. The operative word being lifelong. I think even if damned Charles Manson of all people were to clean up his act and someday, in some bizarro world do a complete 180 and become a stable individual, I would have no problem with him being able to own firearms. It goes without saying, especially non-violent felons should not be permanently stripped of fundamental rights.

RideIcon
09-01-2009, 3:28 PM
Meth addicts breaking into houses don't deserve to have the right of owning a gun. Breaking into a house, with the possibility of someone home, is NOT "non-violent".Their junkie are brains fried. I'm curious as to why you are defending them.

No body is defending meth addicts, but if they cannot own guns because of something they did that was NON-VIOLENT, why should you be allowed to have guns after your speeding ticket or any little thing...

Im just saying, don't give up the rights, pick your side.

fourdoorchevelle
09-02-2009, 5:08 AM
Meth addicts breaking into houses don't deserve to have the right of owning a gun. Breaking into a house, with the possibility of someone home, is NOT "non-violent".Their junkie are brains fried. I'm curious as to why you are defending them.


a Paul supporter who thinks they know what every other american should and shouldn't put in their body? Is your signature a joke? serious.

Meth does not commit crimes, blaming drugs just takes the responsibility away from the offender.

Not every one who robs houses is a meth addict. Not every one who does meth robs houses.

Now I don't use any drugs including prescribed or illegal, but I don't find my self so high and mighty as to legislate personal behavior. When you start legislating morals where's the limit? besides total tyranny.

"You can't pick and choose freedoms"-Ron Paul

Do what you want as long as you don't infringe on others rights . But rob a house, steal kill etc. go to jail.

Besides the war on drugs is a complete failure, promotes crime and funnels money into cartel's , let alone locks up dare I say millions of non-violent criminals

snobord99
09-02-2009, 7:05 AM
Do what you want as long as you don't infringe on others rights . But rob a house, steal kill etc. go to jail.

Just curious, but would you say that driving drunk or high is OK as long as you don't hit anyone?

fourdoorchevelle
09-02-2009, 7:18 AM
Just curious, but would you say that driving drunk or high is OK as long as you don't hit anyone?

driving is a privilege, unless your on a private road than drive drunk all you want

snobord99
09-02-2009, 8:44 AM
driving is a privilege, unless your on a private road than drive drunk all you want

1. Why is it a privilege (besides the fact the DMV tells us so ;))?
2. If I want to drive drunk, shouldn't I be allowed to as long as I don't hit anyone? I'm doing what I want without infringing on anyone's rights no?

scootergmc
09-02-2009, 8:56 AM
1. Why is it a privilege (besides the fact the DMV tells us so ;))?

Are you saying it should be a right?

snobord99
09-02-2009, 9:08 AM
Are you saying it should be a right?

No. I never said that. I'm just asking for a justification and why he thinks that. I agree it's a privilege, I'd just like to know what his justification is.

nick
09-02-2009, 9:11 AM
1. Why is it a privilege (besides the fact the DMV tells us so ;))?
2. If I want to drive drunk, shouldn't I be allowed to as long as I don't hit anyone? I'm doing what I want without infringing on anyone's rights no?

1. It's a right, just not an enumerated one. As such, with our legal system being what it is, it's left to regulations. Heck, we even regulate enumerated rights. But since you don't seem to be talking about the situation as it is, but as it should be, then yes, it's a right.

2. Yes, they should be allowed to do so. Just like the punishments for them committing a crime while at it should be appropriate and enforced (I actually have a problem with the idea of a parole. For example, if 17 years is considered to be an appropriate punishment for some crime, then 17 years it should be, no matter how one's "reformed" or learnt to abuse the parole process. Jails aren't supposed to be about "rehabilitation" (how's that working out, anyway? :)), but punishment for the crime one's committed and a determent to those considering committing a crime. But I digress.

Sorry for taking on this particular holy cow we're conditioned to worship. And yes, I recognize the sarcasm in the post I'm commenting on. I just think that the poster is right in what he's saying, even if it's meant as sarcasm :)

Theseus
09-02-2009, 9:27 AM
I believe driving is part of the fundamental right of freedom of movement.

Since today's society it is absolutely the primary mode of transportation and travel. More troublesome is that because of the advent of driving you no longer have freedom of movement. You can't walk on highways, you need ID and technically a drivers license in case you break a vehicle code section. . .

My typical inclination is to be against drunk/impaired driving. I am trying to come to terms with the fact the logic is flawed. If we punish simply driving drunk where no victim exists then how do we prevent the same rational in the creation of other "victimless" crimes.

Should we risk the idea of society as being the "victim"? If we do, then who is the judge of what damages society? Slippery slopes abound.

leadchucker
09-02-2009, 9:41 AM
As long as you are paying taxes that go towards the building, maintenance, or regulation of highways, then, YES, it is your right to use them! Priviledge, my tush!

Personally, though, I am of the opinion that a person who is under the influence of a substance and no longer has intelligent control of his or her actions should have no legal right to be in public. If a substance's sole purpose is to create that condition, then maybe it should be regulated.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-02-2009, 10:14 AM
a Paul supporter who thinks they know what every other american should and shouldn't put in their body? Is your signature a joke? serious.

:rolleyes:

Meth does not commit crimes, blaming drugs just takes the responsibility away from the offender.

Methamphetamine addiction (which happens quite quickly) leads to a host of other conditions, many of which result in crime. That's what happens when a junkie can no longer support their habit. Who do you think the repeat offenders are? Gang bangers and addicts.

Not every one who robs houses is a meth addict. Not every one who does meth robs houses.

Never said this.

Now I don't use any drugs including prescribed or illegal, but I don't find my self so high and mighty as to legislate personal behavior. When you start legislating morals where's the limit? besides total tyranny.

Ha, I'm high and mighty because I don't want methamphetamine to be legal and I don't feel that meth addicts should be allowed to own a gun nor do I want the law condoning their actions. What's the weather up there like on your high horse?

Do what you want as long as you don't infringe on others rights . But rob a house, steal kill etc. go to jail.

Meth is the equivalent of crazy pills. Show me an absolute crank addict who is a productive member of society and supports their salary through an honest paycheck. Not to mention it absolutely ****s people up.


Besides the war on drugs is a complete failure, promotes crime and funnels money into cartel's , let alone locks up dare I say millions of non-violent criminals

The war on drugs is a complete failure for many reasons. America's appetite for heavy drugs is one of them.

And you guys espouting that people should be allowed to drive drunk until they hit someone, holy moly. :eek:

snobord99
09-02-2009, 10:28 AM
1. It's a right, just not an enumerated one. As such, with our legal system being what it is, it's left to regulations. Heck, we even regulate enumerated rights. But since you don't seem to be talking about the situation as it is, but as it should be, then yes, it's a right.

2. Yes, they should be allowed to do so. Just like the punishments for them committing a crime while at it should be appropriate and enforced (I actually have a problem with the idea of a parole. For example, if 17 years is considered to be an appropriate punishment for some crime, then 17 years it should be, no matter how one's "reformed" or learnt to abuse the parole process. Jails aren't supposed to be about "rehabilitation" (how's that working out, anyway? :)), but punishment for the crime one's committed and a determent to those considering committing a crime. But I digress.

Sorry for taking on this particular holy cow we're conditioned to worship. And yes, I recognize the sarcasm in the post I'm commenting on. I just think that the poster is right in what he's saying, even if it's meant as sarcasm :)

I'll have to apologize, I didn't understand most of what you said ;).

snobord99
09-02-2009, 10:31 AM
I believe driving is part of the fundamental right of freedom of movement.

Since today's society it is absolutely the primary mode of transportation and travel. More troublesome is that because of the advent of driving you no longer have freedom of movement. You can't walk on highways, you need ID and technically a drivers license in case you break a vehicle code section. . .

My typical inclination is to be against drunk/impaired driving. I am trying to come to terms with the fact the logic is flawed. If we punish simply driving drunk where no victim exists then how do we prevent the same rational in the creation of other "victimless" crimes.

Should we risk the idea of society as being the "victim"? If we do, then who is the judge of what damages society? Slippery slopes abound.

That's exactly my problem. War on drugs = BS. Drunk driving = should be illegal. I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile the two.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 11:26 AM
That's exactly my problem. War on drugs = BS. Drunk driving = should be illegal. I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile the two.

Pretty easy really. Recreational drug use harms no one but the druggie. Driving while under the influence of alcohol (or other intoxicant) endangers any member of the public who is sharing the road with you. Do you have trouble reconciling Drunk driving should be illegal with the 18th amendment should not be revived?

dantodd
09-02-2009, 11:28 AM
My typical inclination is to be against drunk/impaired driving. I am trying to come to terms with the fact the logic is flawed. If we punish simply driving drunk where no victim exists then how do we prevent the same rational in the creation of other "victimless" crimes.


So a blind man on a shooting rampage who hits no one should not be punished? Sometimes the endangering of members of the public is enough without actual harm being done. Conspiracy to commit murder, reckless endangerment, the list goes on.

snobord99
09-02-2009, 11:58 AM
Pretty easy really. Recreational drug use harms no one but the druggie. Driving while under the influence of alcohol (or other intoxicant) endangers any member of the public who is sharing the road with you. Do you have trouble reconciling Drunk driving should be illegal with the 18th amendment should not be revived?

I'd like to think this way, problem is, I don't believe that it's the actual case. I realize that recreational drug use harms no one but the druggie, but the problem isn't really with them. It's with the addicts.

You can't really punish a guy for being an addict. If I remember correctly, it was found to be unconstitutional. Plus, you have the nightmare of finding the line between recreational use and an addict. When it comes to addicts, I wouldn't call it completely victimless. I'm sure the families of the addicts wouldn't think so. I also don't consider prostitution always victimless (again, families). However, I do believe both prostitution and controlled substances should be legalized.

And I use drunk driving w/o hitting anyone as an example because that's one crime that I would definitely classify as victimless. If you don't hit anyone, you don't hurt anyone, yet I still think it should definitely be a crime.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 12:25 PM
And I use drunk driving w/o hitting anyone as an example because that's one crime that I would definitely classify as victimless. If you don't hit anyone, you don't hurt anyone, yet I still think it should definitely be a crime.

So, do you consider a drunk in the bar shooting a gun and not managing to hit anyone a victimless crime?

snobord99
09-02-2009, 12:45 PM
So, do you consider a drunk in the bar shooting a gun and not managing to hit anyone a victimless crime?

Probably not. If there are people in the bar I'd call them victims (fear of being shot, emotional distress). Driving drunk home and not hitting anyone, odds are no one knows and no one's in fear (because they don't know about it). I assume there are people in your hypothetical bar. If there are no people in the bar and no one is in any actual fear of getting hit by a bullet, then yes, I'd call that victimless.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 1:03 PM
Probably not. If there are people in the bar I'd call them victims (fear of being shot, emotional distress). Driving drunk home and not hitting anyone, odds are no one knows and no one's in fear (because they don't know about it). I assume there are people in your hypothetical bar. If there are no people in the bar and no one is in any actual fear of getting hit by a bullet, then yes, I'd call that victimless.

I can assure you that I have seen and called in a number of drunk drivers on the freeway in my years on this planet. Would you consider those incidents victimless?

RideIcon
09-02-2009, 1:09 PM
No. I never said that. I'm just asking for a justification and why he thinks that. I agree it's a privilege, I'd just like to know what his justification is.

why not? we pay for the roads, we pay for the police, we even pay the governments salerys so they cam make decisions regarding those things.

DVSmith
09-02-2009, 1:22 PM
Many people think that if the felon is not to be trusted with having rights, he should still be locked up. If he's paid his debt, and can be trusted in public, he should be able to be trusted with all the rights of a free man.
I haven't finished deciding how I feel about this yet.

-madmike.

This is an interesting perspective...

Theseus
09-02-2009, 2:39 PM
So, do you consider a drunk in the bar shooting a gun and not managing to hit anyone a victimless crime?

I think this is in important question. . . In the point that there are many forms of harm.

The drunk gunman may not hit anyone, but he may still be causing damage to property. In this case there is a victim.

A drunk driver not killing anyone but hitting some parked cars still causes harm, just not physical.

But that is the problem. . . At what point should it become a crime? Should it a crime when the person decides to drive drunk, or when they actually cause harm?

Would a person carrying a gun be breaking the law when he carries or when he makes the decision to shoot the gun?

Following this it might be logical to make it a combination situation. Drinking, smoking pot, dropping acid, carrying a loaded gun, all legal, until which point you commit some action that can infringe on someones right, causes property damage, or causes physical injury.

When you take the discussion away from something a person can do alone, what happens when you involve two people. . .

Statutory rape for example. . .If both parties are consenting, who is the victim? Incest. . . Although disgusting. . . same thing. Daughter is 18, has intimate relationship with father. . . How is she or anyone a victim is they are both consenting?

snobord99
09-02-2009, 2:48 PM
I can assure you that I have seen and called in a number of drunk drivers on the freeway in my years on this planet. Would you consider those incidents victimless?

Was anyone injured? Was anyone in immediate fear for their well being or the well being of another? Is it that hard to understand what I consider a victim?

If you fire a gun in a forest while no one's around but it's illegal to do so, can you please tell me where your victim is?

And I can assure you that I have argued a number of motions to suppress evidence against drunk drivers on behalf of the prosecution and would not hesitate to call in a drunk driver should I see one. I don't get what that has to do when drunk driving is a victimless crime though.

snobord99
09-02-2009, 2:48 PM
why not? we pay for the roads, we pay for the police, we even pay the governments salerys so they cam make decisions regarding those things.

Sorry. Why not what?

snobord99
09-02-2009, 2:53 PM
Following this it might be logical to make it a combination situation. Drinking, smoking pot, dropping acid, carrying a loaded gun, all legal, until which point you commit some action that can infringe on someones right, causes property damage, or causes physical injury.

I think you mean "does" since they all "can" at any point in time ;).

Theseus
09-02-2009, 2:59 PM
I think you mean "does" since they all "can" at any point in time ;).

At what point does a drunk driver actually infringe on someone elses right? Is the actual act of driving drunk infringe? If so, how?

snobord99
09-02-2009, 3:08 PM
At what point does a drunk driver actually infringe on someone elses right? Is the actual act of driving drunk infringe? If so, how?

What I meant is, using drunk driving, at any point in time, they "can" run into someone and infringe on another person's rights. I believe what you were saying was more of a maybe it shouldn't be a crime until they do run into someone at which point the "can" becomes a "does." In other words, no crime until the rights of another is actually infringed upon, which is why I say "does" instead of "can." Get what I'm saying?

Theseus
09-02-2009, 3:27 PM
What I meant is, using drunk driving, at any point in time, they "can" run into someone and infringe on another person's rights. I believe what you were saying was more of a maybe it shouldn't be a crime until they do run into someone at which point the "can" becomes a "does." In other words, no crime until the rights of another is actually infringed upon, which is why I say "does" instead of "can." Get what I'm saying?

I get what you are saying, yes. I might agree with that more. Punish the act, not the possible act.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 4:09 PM
Was anyone injured? Was anyone in immediate fear for their well being or the well being of another? Is it that hard to understand what I consider a victim?


Yes they were so you want to discriminate based on whether someone calls and expresses fear that a drunk driver is endangering someone's life vs. a cop finding a drunk at a checkpoint?

snobord99
09-02-2009, 5:04 PM
Yes they were so you want to discriminate based on whether someone calls and expresses fear that a drunk driver is endangering someone's life vs. a cop finding a drunk at a checkpoint?

WTH are you talking about? Discriminate? All I'm talking about is a simple classification of a crime as either victim or victimless. If you want to jump to some other conclusion beyond that, by all means, be my guest. Just don't put words in my mouth.

leadchucker
09-02-2009, 7:20 PM
I still say that a person who has voluntarily relinquished control of his faculties poses a real (whether potential or immediate) threat to public safety for which there must be some form of regulation. This is far away removed from a perceived threat while excersising an enumerated right about which this discussion originally revolved. I think we're starting to get away from the point a bit.

Codelphious
09-02-2009, 7:54 PM
I still say that a person who has voluntarily relinquished control of his faculties poses a real (whether potential or immediate) threat to public safety for which there must be some form of regulation. This is far away removed from a perceived threat while excersising an enumerated right about which this discussion originally revolved. I think we're starting to get away from the point a bit.

I disagree by proof of counterexample. I have observed many drunk people who never have, or even could have, physically harmed another person. They were no more a threat to the public than a fly.

Laws must be uniform, therefore you can't say that "some drunk people are dangerous, while others are not." This is why it's always best to stick with the simple rule of infringing on right as a basis for crime.

Moreover, it is a threat to someone's liberty to suppose that they become a danger after they exercise their right to get plastered. That's no different than supposing someone becomes a threat the moment they possess a firearm!

nick
09-02-2009, 10:53 PM
I'll have to apologize, I didn't understand most of what you said ;).

Thank you, public speaking is my forte :)

leadchucker
09-02-2009, 11:05 PM
I disagree by proof of counterexample. I have observed many drunk people who never have, or even could have, physically harmed another person. They were no more a threat to the public than a fly.

Laws must be uniform, therefore you can't say that "some drunk people are dangerous, while others are not." This is why it's always best to stick with the simple rule of infringing on right as a basis for crime.

Moreover, it is a threat to someone's liberty to suppose that they become a danger after they exercise their right to get plastered. That's no different than supposing someone becomes a threat the moment they possess a firearm!

You are correct, laws must be uniform. The question is, which way? This would depend on the subject being addressed. I, for one, cannot and will not draw a parallel between firearms ownership which is an enumerated right and which does not impair one's own faculties to excercise the right responsibly, and public intoxication which is in direct violation of my right to keep myself and my boys free from needless exposure to the licentious activities of drunks, peddlers, and junkies on the streets downtown or in the park. How about public urination? If you feel public areas are places to excercise such "Liberties", then I suggest you move to Amsterdam. If being under the influence of mind-altering drugs were an enumerated right, then I couldn't argue the point, but it's NOT.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 11:10 PM
WTH are you talking about? Discriminate? All I'm talking about is a simple classification of a crime as either victim or victimless. If you want to jump to some other conclusion beyond that, by all means, be my guest. Just don't put words in my mouth.

If you don't understand the term discriminate in that context I will have to bow out of the conversation.

snobord99
09-03-2009, 12:20 AM
If you don't understand the term discriminate in that context I will have to bow out of the conversation.

If by discriminate, you merely mean to classify or distinguish, then yes, I'm absolutely distinguishing between a victimless DUI incident and a non-victimless one. If by discriminate you're trying to bring its often used (and overused) negative connotations, then maybe you should bow out.

Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, but when I see that word these days, I usually assume the speaker means to attach all the negative connotations that have been attached to the word. If you weren't using it in that sense, then I apologize for making an incorrect assumption.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 1:08 AM
If by discriminate, you merely mean to classify or distinguish, then yes, I'm absolutely distinguishing between a victimless DUI incident and a non-victimless one. If by discriminate you're trying to bring its often used (and overused) negative connotations, then maybe you should bow out.

Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, but when I see that word these days, I usually assume the speaker means to attach all the negative connotations that have been attached to the word. If you weren't using it in that sense, then I apologize for making an incorrect assumption.

I strongly suggest you read words as written in context and try to not apply your own bias in the future.

snobord99
09-03-2009, 7:34 AM
I strongly suggest you read words as written in context and try to not apply your own bias in the future.

I did read it in context. The connotation between "you want to discriminate" (what you said) and "you're distinguishing between" are very different. The latter would have been more effective to demonstrate what you were actually thinking. I strongly suggest you consider what your words imply as well as what they actually say in the future.

Have you ever read a 10 page document and knew how they were going to conclude within the 1st paragraph based on the author's tone alone? If you have, maybe you know what I'm talking about.

Maybe we should move this to PMs. We've taken this thread quite off topic.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 9:22 AM
We've taken this thread quite off topic.

Yes, we have. My apologies to the OP.

Codelphious
09-03-2009, 8:46 PM
You are correct, laws must be uniform. The question is, which way? This would depend on the subject being addressed. I, for one, cannot and will not draw a parallel between firearms ownership which is an enumerated right and which does not impair one's own faculties to excercise the right responsibly, and public intoxication which is in direct violation of my right to keep myself and my boys free from needless exposure to the licentious activities of drunks, peddlers, and junkies on the streets downtown or in the park. How about public urination? If you feel public areas are places to excercise such "Liberties", then I suggest you move to Amsterdam. If being under the influence of mind-altering drugs were an enumerated right, then I couldn't argue the point, but it's NOT.

What's the difference between an enumerated right and one that isn't? I think you're under the impression that if it is expressively protected that it's somehow more important.

I believe all rights are equally important, and I think if you look at the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution you'll agree that all rights are equally protected.

Therefore, while you have the right to keep yourself and your children away from vices, your right to do so can not infringe on another's right to enjoy those vices. That is to say, you can't prohibit people from drinking simply because you don't like alcohol.

leadchucker
09-03-2009, 10:46 PM
Codelphious, all I can say to you is that you really need to re-evaluate use of Liberty vs. abuse of Liberty. And, yes, enumerated rights were enumerated because the Founding Fathers felt they were especially important enough to warrant absolute definition.

I'll simply leave you with this from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If you feel that the Pursuit of Happiness includes a God-given right to shoot-up heroine in front of a Middle School playground (or anywhere, for that matter), then you don't know the Creator to whom the Founding Fathers were referring.