President Obama In Office 1 Day And I Am Pissed.

[celticlord]

Voting for one.

The franchise is not guaranteed under the constitution.

 

[celticlord]

The military and school officials don't need probable cause. You are a ward of the government in those situations.

The military is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which one consents when one enlists; rights afforded military personnel by military justice are separate and distinct from Constitutional rights. The military does not enforce civilian law, and in fact is precluded from doing so by the Posse Commitatus Act.

Military personnel detained by civilian authority have full constitutional rights before that civilian authority.

Schools are deemed to act in loco parentis, and thus are an extension of a parent. Additionally, school lockers and school grounds are not the private domain of the students, and so there is never a legal expectation of privacy.

 

[Thorgasm]

The military is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which one consents when one enlists; rights afforded military personnel by military justice are separate and distinct from Constitutional rights. The military does not enforce civilian law, and in fact is precluded from doing so by the Posse Commitatus Act.

Military personnel detained by civilian authority have full constitutional rights before that civilian authority.

Schools are deemed to act in loco parentis, and thus are an extension of a parent. Additionally, school lockers and school grounds are not the private domain of the students, and so there is never a legal expectation of privacy.

People didn't vounteer for the draft.

Also neither exception is in the Constitution.

 

[celticlord]

People didn't vounteer for the draft.

Also neither exception is in the Constitution.

Was there a point being made here?

 

[Thorgasm]

Was there a point being made here?

If there was, I'm sure you'd be able to detect it.

 

[celticlord]

If there was, I'm sure you'd be able to detect it.

Whole lotta words to just say "No, no point."

 

[Thorgasm]

Whole lotta words to just say "No, no point."

That was sarcasm. I suppose you have trouble detecting that too.

 

[Coolguy]

IMO the only people that should be restricted from owning guns (sans those mentally incapable of correctly using.) are those who have used them, or the threat of them, to commit a crime.

Yes, that means that a person who has been previously convicted of a felony that didn't involve a gun, or threat of one, should be able to own one.
There is no reason to restrict them from having one.

With recitivism rates the way they are, ...

Recidivism rates the way they are?
Tell me please, what is the way they are?

Recitivism rates show that they are likely to commit another felony.

No they don't.

Why do you want those who wantonly disregard the law to be legally armed?

Wantonly?
Sure, wantonly does happen, but in general, that isn't the case.

Just why in the world should someone convicted of felony DWI/DUI be forever restricted from owning a gun?
The point being is, if they haven't shown a propensity to misuse a firearm for unlawful purposes, there is no reason to restrict ownership for merely committing a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. They've been proven to not be responsible.

Not at all.
If being convicted of a crime depicts irresponsibility, it only shows that they were irresponsible at one time, not that they are now, or that they never can be.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

That depends on what is being considered in the numbers for recitivism. People who are lumped together into a broad category of "possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons" have a rearrest rate of 70.2%. That does not necessarily mean the weapons were used for criminal activity.

Rearrest for homicide is much lower at 1.2%.

All this does not account for robbery with a weapon, that may be high. The site I used only states "Robbery" at 70.2%. Whether that is with a weapon, it does not state.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994

Absolutely right.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a good source for the information, but rearrest is not a good indicator of actual recidivism or that an actual crime was committed.
Link to actual pdf containing said data from the BJS.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994


The study/report also does not indicate if a gun was used to commit the crime. (Except for the non-violent gun related offenses.)

You used the 70.2% statistic for re-arrest of those who had previously committed Robbery (a violent offense), but only 46.5% were re-convicted of a crime, while only 25% actually received a new prison sentence (indicating the possible severity of the offense).
see table 9

Then look at table 11. Only 2.7% of those who committed robbery were likely to be rearrested for robbery again, and as we can see from table 9, the percentage of re-conviction for said rearrest will most likely be lower.


From the study/report.

Here is the table showing likelihood for rearrest for the same crime, and we can garner from table 8 that actual re-conviction as well as being recommitted to prison is much lower.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Zyphlin. If you're not using your gun for anything illegal. Why are you worried?

So you support domestic wire tapping as well? :roll:

 

[DeeJayH]

i am sure coolguy had some decent points in his post but i just can not read that font

 

[LaMidRighter]

If only convicted criminals are allowed to have guns, this shouldn't affect you. And you're assuming he can get one.

Criminals can easily get guns, moreso than law abiding citizen's, to address this further:

You might be able to get a gun on the street, but they're expensive and that's assuming he has the right connections.

One point at a time, street guns are dirt cheap because a) they are usually stolen and filed. b) no taxes are assessed because they are black market items and c) violent criminals have the connections, they run in packs.

Why should we let convicted criminals have guns?

allowed or not, if they want them they can get them.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The only issue I see is a privacy one not one concerning the Second.

It's very much an issue of both. The privacy issue of course comes from having a govenment stating that you lose privacy rights because you choose to own a gun, meaning the government has a right to track you, this also becomes an infringement issue since the very exercise of the right to bear leads to a loss of the right to privacy, forcing one right to invalidate the other is an infringement on both. Also, the government's assertion that it is their business what arms you own and where is in itself a defacto infringement on the right to bear because it places a condition on the exercise of the right, hence, infringement.

 

[LaMidRighter]

How does a database keep you from having a gun?

Simple, some people value privacy above all else and do not want government tracking them constantly, this could discourage some from owning firearms, which they would have otherwise done had the tracking provision not been in place. And yes, I realize it is an extreme example, but is not far removed from the realm of possibility.

I can't answer your question because you haven't substantiated your claim that liberty and freedom is reduced. How does tracking guns keep you from owning a gun.

It puts a pre-condition on the right, thus it creates a sense of the right becoming a privelage, it is therefore an infringement.

Maybe because it was written 200 years ago it isn't relevant. (j/k)

Glad you qualified it as a joke, but there is a real danger in that some people are dead serious about that very statement.

Are you opposed to filing income tax? It flies in the face of the fifth amendment. You are forced to give evidence against yourself.

Different issue, but a case can be made that the current tax structure is excessive, and interferes with the right to accumulate and use property.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Zyphlin. If you're not using your gun for anything illegal. Why are you worried?

The first step in the final solution was the registering of weapons in Jewish households, the second step was confiscation, then capture, and finally death. After private gun ownership was eliminated in Germany, then books were banned and destroyed, and the rule of law swung heavily towards the state thereafter, it isn't about illicit uses of guns versus legal ones, it is about the fact that the government has no damn business knowing how I exercise a right.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It makes sure the private gun deals are legitimate and only people who have been deemed responsible enough to have them, have them. I would think it would help speed up investigations when a crime is committed with said gun.

That will not stop street sales, it won't even find street guns. So what specifically can it do to prevent crime?