I guess that’s where we differ. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the state in which the OP lives to prohibit him from doing this *one thing *with his kids.
Not all people who are convicted are guilty. I’m somewhat surprised that some are… er… surprised to hear that.
Yeah, I’m just making shit up.
Why are you worried because some wife beaters lose their gun owning privileges?
Who cares?
If your wife is calling the cops on you, you have issues in your judgement one way or the other and you shouldn’t have guns in the house.
What part of
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
are you having trouble parsing, Mr. Loser? It says “people”, not “people who some libtard considers worthy.”
Do armed robbers need guns? Duuuh, that’s their occupation. Take away the constitutional rights of someone for overdue parking tickets, or pursuing their chosen occupation, and soon you’ll be taking guns away from people who worship in a different church, or smoke a different breed of grass from you. If you’re so eager to confiscate all my guns, maybe you’d be happier in North Korea — they already have gun control.
Amazing.
Yes. And it goes the other way, too. Domestic violence is not exclusive to men.
The simple fact is that defending a domestic violence charge (or any other charge) is expensive, and taking a plea for a lesser misdemeanor is a common thing in the justice system. In this case, though, that plea comes with a prize, and it takes a lot of people by surprise.
It really isn’t too much to ask that every case be judged based on its own circumstances. The judge has everything he needs to do just that. If he decides that the person’s gun rights are forfeit, fine. But the Lautenberg Amendment does away with any discretion whatsoever.
Do we really have to go down that road? Every right has limits, and the Second Amendment is no exception.
Yeah, no. You’re just dismissing DV cases as “crying wolf” with a very Trumpian passive voice, "the cases are myriad "
Yeah, you try it, because it looks like you’ve already decided that DV victims are lying “just to win a fight.”
That is not correct. The problem is the edge cases. They always are, no matter what we’re talking about. There’s no point in bringing up the obvious cases because they’re exactly that.
So, to be clear, domestic violence does happen, in most cases the convictions are warranted, and the forfeiture of rights is justified.
What gets me is how often people in these discussions talk about DV convictions and police being called for an ‘argument’ like it’s something completely ordinary that just happens. Maybe my circle of friends and colleagues is somehow unique, but arguments that escalate to the point that cops show up to calm things down are really, really out of the ordinary in my experience, and I think that people who are routinely involved in violent altercations that need police intervention very likely are people who should not be allowed to possess firearms. This isn’t a case of something absurdly minor like ‘oh, he painted his car the wrong color and got a ticket’, this is a case of someone engaging in violence with their intimate partner and being convicted of it.
I’ll also note that there is room for shades of grey in the case in the original thread - as was mentioned in that thread, there’s a process for having the restriction on firearms rights reviewed and possibly removed. However, it’s unlikely that the OP of that thread could prevail in that process, as he has a recent (2017) conviction for DUI, a crime of gross negligence in operating a piece of deadly machinery. I really don’t think that the kind of person who thinks that endangering people by choosing to drink alcohol then get in control of a ton of steel careening around the roads is someone who I want running around with firearms.
More passive voice.
You were not talking about “edge cases.” You said, “the cases are myriad.”
Why are you worried about the gun owning rights of people who call the cops when they quarrel? Are they not prime examples of “people who shouldn’t have guns in the house”? What is wrong with taking away the guns away from people with anger issues? I would argue that laws taking away those guns can only be a net benefit to society.
No, I think that the problem is that the LA is one of the rare pieces of legislation that actually works to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, but that some dangerous criminals don’t like that and so complain that it keeps them from having guns. The stories of overreach are myriad, but that’s because criminals both tend to think of themselves as innocent and are willing to lie about their crimes to gain sympathy. The ‘myriad stories’ are, as far as I can tell, a combination of BS from convicted criminals who don’t want to admit guilt and a similar rate of false convictions as there is for any other crime. If there was some actual supporting evidence for this I’d be glad to see it, but I don’t think there is.
You know what, you guys are right. No exceptions. And everybody currently in jail deserves to be there. No exceptions. After all, why in the world would the police ever get involved if they hadn’t been doing something wrong?
Thank you for convincing me of the error of my ways.
You guys won’t let him make up the rules so he wins so you’re big libtard meanies.
And guys who* claim* they were falsely convicted are right up there with actually-innocent black guys in terms of injustice.
Sounds about white.
I didn’t let him make up the rules. I TOLD HIM WHAT THE RULES WERE.
We were discussing the effect of the law as it relates to the edge cases, of which his was one if we take him at his word (I’ve included that caveat repeatedly), and in a country of 350 million people your belief that there are not a lot of those edge cases, hence “myriad”, and your refusal to acknowledge any sort of nuance makes this whole conversation moot, so I conceded. You won.
Flyer asked you if you think government officials are infallible and never corrupt. You responded "But by that logic, well, maybe that dude convicted of sticking up the liquor store was the victim of corrupt officials ". It should be noted that flyer’s question was a reply to your comment about violent criminals.
You’re going to have to walk me through the logic on that one because I can’t follow it.
I’ll give you that I introduced the self-defense aspect to that side discussion, but I still don’t understand what Flyer said that makes you suggest, by his logic, that it’s okay to rob a liquor store if you’re the victim of corrupt officials.
The amendments are certainly not in my wheelhouse, but isn’t this where the 5th amendment comes into play? It states that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. IOW, if I understand it correctly, the government CAN deprive you of life, liberty or property after a trial. How else could people be put in prison?
But, again, this isn’t my strong suit. Also, I know there’s all kinds of cases about this, I was just making the point that, as I understand it, these rights can be taken away by a court of law.
and the person/people who really killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman are still out there somewhere.
for someone accusing him of arguing in bad faith, you’re doing a bang-up job of it yourself.
Yeah, how DARE I get sarcastic with another dishonest dogwhistler by quoting him and pointing out that the actual effect of his dishonesty is to lump in liars with people who have actually been falsely accused.