Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms

imyoda said:

Don't tell me. Tell it to the Court.
You will just never accept the FACT that the government has the right/duty to regulate guns and set penalties for those who do not follow them.
Now I see no0 need to discuss this with you any more..............bye

Click to expand...

Imyoda -- Pouts, lifts nose to the sky....takes ball and goes home

Μολὼν λαβέ;1065810768 said:

How exactly is this gun control? Its more like criminal control.

Click to expand...

So by your logic, commit any crime and have ALL your rights removed?

Korimyr the Rat said:

Teenagers still need correction, but they are past the age where physical correction is either effective or justifiable. Teenagers have fully functioning brains and can be reasoned with; they are more likely to respond to the loss of privileges or the imposition of extra obligations than non-damaging physical force.

Click to expand...

If they are perfectly reasonable (which no one at all is), then there's no need for any punishments, since they can simply be reasoned with. If however, you admit the necessity of accompanying reason with penalty, then why can that penalty not be corporal?

Korimyr the Rat said:

I have a serious moral problem with the fact that laying your hands on your spouse or your children is only a misdemeanor offense.

Click to expand...

Until their is TRUE GENDER equality in justice, what you want is a horrible deal for men.

That said, men who are truly abusive and harm children or their spouses (I can't say wives anymore.....ugh) deserve harsh punishment. But women can also be abusive.

NoLeftNoRight said:

So by your logic, commit any crime and have ALL your rights removed?

Click to expand...

How did you come to that illogical conclusion?

OpportunityCost said:

The real problem is domestic violence being sentenced as a misdemeanor. Change the sentencing guidelines via legislation and leave their rights alone unless they get a felony conviction. I wonder if this will appeal even higher or not.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04121601rdr.pdf
Read the ruling and they added the domestic violence charge onto the battery without sending it through trial and then argued he did not place the objection at the time of trial when the point of objection stems from the additional charge being levied but not adjudicated through a court. It sounds an awful like an end run around due process that could have been rendered moot by just changing the existing domestic violence laws to net the same results without nullifying rights without a court adjudication.

Hitch is a scumbag, but he still has rights.

Click to expand...

It comes under misdemeanor assault. More serious batteries get aggravated assault which is a felony and usually involves weapons. ANY DV convictions are treated with hostility these days and also keep people from getting jobs. As long as couples (women are worse) are going to beat each other up and their children, then the law is going to restrain them from ALL possibilities until the matter is completely resolved. And be careful who you talk to if you don't know them: even joking about that can be a "must report".

jet57 said:

It comes under misdemeanor assault. More serious batteries get aggravated assault which is a felony and usually involves weapons. ANY DV convictions are treated with hostility these days and also keep people from getting jobs. As long as couples (women are worse) are going to beat each other up and their children, then the law is going to restrain them from ALL possibilities until the matter is completely resolved. And be careful who you talk to if you don't know them: even joking about that can be a "must report".

Click to expand...

It's what one gets when one attempts to treat the symptoms and not the cause. Government seems to be big on that as it is far less costly and interferes with their plans of creating dependants.

Korimyr the Rat said:

If you can't be trusted not to commit acts of violence against your own family, how can you be trusted in public? I think such restrictions should certainly have a time limit attached-- nobody should be punished for life-- but I have no moral objections to people convicted of acts of unlawful violence being restricted from keeping weapons until they've proven they've got their **** back together.

Click to expand...

If they're no more trustworthy than that they should be in prison.

Crimefree said:

It's what one gets when one attempts to treat the symptoms and not the cause. Government seems to be big on that as it is far less costly and interferes with their plans of creating dependants.

Click to expand...

You're always going to have the cause. The "cause" is insidious and that's why people get surprised by it. For the time being, this country has to focus on restricting the probability that the cause is going to use the means of to kill people.

jet57 said:

It comes under misdemeanor assault. More serious batteries get aggravated assault which is a felony and usually involves weapons. ANY DV convictions are treated with hostility these days and also keep people from getting jobs. As long as couples (women are worse) are going to beat each other up and their children, then the law is going to restrain them from ALL possibilities until the matter is completely resolved. And be careful who you talk to if you don't know them: even joking about that can be a "must report".

Click to expand...

At the time of trial he was not charged with domestic violence, it was an added classification after the fact with no trial to adjudicate his rights. They also limited motions to those from the original trial in which he was NOT presented any DV charges. I'm not sure how they can argue due process with this case. Due to the procedural errors, I would maintain his rights or bring a new trial with the DV charges included but the prosecutor already dropped the ball there as to double jeopardy. It feels an awful lot like an end around, and the prosecutor trying to look tough on crime after either an error in sentencing or an error in procedure in not bringing the DV charges in the first place.

jet57 said:

You're always going to have the cause. The "cause" is insidious and that's why people get surprised by it. For the time being, this country has to focus on restricting the probability that the cause is going to use the means of to kill people.

Click to expand...

Wrong. You need to limit gun access to those that have already shown a preponderance towards violent acts towards those close to them. Its not that it can kill, its that they have already demonstrated the possibility they would murder.

OpportunityCost said:

Wrong. You need to limit gun access to those that have already shown a preponderance towards violent acts towards those close to them. Its not that it can kill, its that they have already demonstrated the possibility they would murder.

Click to expand...

Then why do we not apply the same principles to rapists, murderers and paedophiles. Is it not them who need to be monitored and controlled? Why go after firearm owners when we know such foolish laws will not be obeyed and career criminals are not stupid enough to buy from traceable sources.

I simply cannot see the use of such laws that impact every firearm purchase. The cost alone is prohibitive and the money better spent. I'm not for encouraging waste of public money.

Fact denial of a "legal" purchase is not going to reduce crime in the slightest.

jet57 said:

You're always going to have the cause. The "cause" is insidious and that's why people get surprised by it. For the time being, this country has to focus on restricting the probability that the cause is going to use the means of to kill people.

Click to expand...

Causes are always emotional and seldom justified. At the moment the cause of gun control is the most dangerous to the the very fabric of society. It is driven by huge funding using techniques few seem to understand or want to understand. One must guess at the reason but considering the source of the money and the little that is known is probably best expressed by David Rockefeller.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

That includes Hillary Rodham Clinton (1997),;[106] First Lady of the USA when attending, later 67th United States Secretary of State~~Wiki

Bilderberg chooses Hillary Clinton for 2016
Bilderberg chooses Hillary Clinton for 2016 |

Crimefree said:

Then why do we not apply the same principles to rapists, murderers and paedophiles. Is it not them who need to be monitored and controlled? Why go after firearm owners when we know such foolish laws will not be obeyed and career criminals are not stupid enough to buy from traceable sources.

I simply cannot see the use of such laws that impact every firearm purchase. The cost alone is prohibitive and the money better spent. I'm not for encouraging waste of public money.

Fact denial of a "legal" purchase is not going to reduce crime in the slightest.

Click to expand...

I was referring to restriction of firearm purchases by Felons and Felon DV cases. As opposed to what happened to this guy.

OpportunityCost said:

I was referring to restriction of firearm purchases by Felons and Felon DV cases. As opposed to what happened to this guy.

Click to expand...

So was I believe it or not. :lol: It is saying we can prevent/reduce crime with restrictions and bans which is as false as one can get. I am firmly of the opinion that due process must take place and a released felon who has served the sentence of the court is a CITIZEN. If they are to dangerous to release a stupid law is not going to help. I simply do not support feel good laws. No citizen should as it is a waste of scare public money which contrary to governments idea is not a bottomless pit for it to raid.

TurtleDude said:

Gun haters would make a DUI, simple assault, or if they could-parking tickets-grounds to prevent someone from owning a gun. and this is in the era when left-wingers are trying to argue that people who have done 30 years for murder or armed robbery ought to have their "constitutional rights" to vote back

Click to expand...

Well they should have their right to vote back.