• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

— So Police Take Away All His Guns and License to Carry

TurtleDude said:
any idea how easy it is to defeat that?
Click to expand...
Now you sound like anti-gun Captain Conklin, quoted in the OP: "Capt. Richard Conklin told The Register the state believes storing a firearm in a car – even a locked car – is not “a prudent thing to do.” “A car is like a glass box. If you take out any of the windows, it is no longer locked,” Conklin said. He also said small safes shouldn’t be an option either since they can be easily taken out of vehicles."
 
Wayne Jr said:
Now you sound like anti-gun Captain Conklin, quoted in the OP: "Capt. Richard Conklin told The Register the state believes storing a firearm in a car – even a locked car – is not “a prudent thing to do.” “A car is like a glass box. If you take out any of the windows, it is no longer locked,” Conklin said. He also said small safes shouldn’t be an option either since they can be easily taken out of vehicles."
Click to expand...

you're the one who supports the victim of a crime being prosecuted by an anti gun state. You're the one who supports Red Flag laws being used against people who don't buy into your fascist views about gun storage.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're the one who supports the victim of a crime being prosecuted by an anti gun state. You're the one who supports Red Flag laws being used against people who don't buy into your fascist views about gun storage.
Click to expand...
Being the victim of a crime does not justify you comiting a crime yourself.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Being the victim of a crime does not justify you comiting a crime yourself.
Click to expand...

only anti gun fascists think what the man did was a crime
 
TurtleDude said:
only anti gun fascists think what the man did was a crime
Click to expand...
The act of breaking a law is called 'crime'. The fact that I have to point that out to you is how we know you were never a lawyer.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The act of breaking a law is called 'crime'. The fact that I have to point that out to you is how we know you were never a lawyer.
Click to expand...

It is too bad that bets that can be enforced are not allowed on AT but those who have been here for years all know you are making crap up. I am saying that malum prohibitum laws that are based on stupidity are not laws that I can respect and the law this man is accused of breaking should be struck down. Every few years, there are a couple people who think it is a winning argument to lie that I am not an attorney.

You seem unable to comprehend that those of us who support freedom and the constitution, can despise or ridicule stupid laws and smart people understand that this is not the same thing as denying that breaking the law is not a crime.
 
TurtleDude said:
It is too bad that bets that can be enforced are not allowed on AT but those who have been here for years all know you are making crap up. I am saying that malum prohibitum laws that are based on stupidity are not laws that I can respect and the law this man is accused of breaking should be struck down. Every few years, there are a couple people who think it is a winning argument to lie that I am not an attorney.

You seem unable to comprehend that those of us who support freedom and the constitution, can despise or ridicule stupid laws and smart people understand that this is not the same thing as denying that breaking the law is not a crime.
Click to expand...

If you meant to say "only anti-gun fascists think what the man did should not be a crime" then you would have said that. Back-peddling now only proves that I'm right.

Anyway, I don't require that you like these laws. I only require that we pass them everywhere and that you be punished when caught breaking them. You're free to dislike it all you want, the handcuffs will fit you regardless.
 
Nap said:
I believe the point in his statement about a "Trump Judge" is due to the fact that you hope to not end up with a Democrat appointed judge involving your individual rights, especially in regards to the 2nd amendment. Read the dissenting opinions of the Heller case and you will understand his remark a little better.
Click to expand...

Nap:

Justice Stevens was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford (Republican) and can hardly be called a "Democrat appointed judge". Steven's dissenting opinion was a very sensible position in contrast to the radical and ahistorical interpretation that the Second Amendment embodied an individual right to bear arms rather than a collective right. Scalia got it wrong and Stevens got it right. There are other sources that point to an individual right to have and bear arms but the Second Amendment is not one of them. Scalia wasn't doing an originalist interpretation, he was creating new law from the bench and ignoring two centuries of stare decisis. DC vs Heller was a shambles and one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of American legal history IMHO. Right up there with Dred-Scott and Citizens United.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
His crime appears to have been honestly reporting the theft of a gun to police - omit that (foolish?) self-incrimination and he would have been able to keep his guns and move out of that crazy state. Let this be a lesson to all gun owners in CT.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the story where an Indianan mother warned authorities that her son was gonna shoot up a school and was facing charges for it.
 
Masterhawk said:
Reminds me of the story where an Indianan mother warned authorities that her son was gonna shoot up a school and was facing charges for it.
Click to expand...
After a school shooting, Conservatives point out that there were warning signs long before the event. So we pass red flag laws to take action on those warning signs, and Conservatives cry about that, too.

If we just keep our guns under lock and key, we can prevent half of it. If we abolish most gun-free zones, we can eliminate the majority of it.
 
Wayne Jr said:
If you meant to say "only anti-gun fascists think what the man did should not be a crime" then you would have said that. Back-peddling now only proves that I'm right.

Anyway, I don't require that you like these laws. I only require that we pass them everywhere and that you be punished when caught breaking them. You're free to dislike it all you want, the handcuffs will fit you regardless.
Click to expand...

semantic games/. crime can mean an actual breaking of a law-like what Rosa Parks did or honest people can say what she did was no crime.
 
Evilroddy said:
Nap:

Justice Stevens was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford (Republican) and can hardly be called a "Democrat appointed judge". Steven's dissenting opinion was a very sensible position in contrast to the radical and ahistorical interpretation that the Second Amendment embodied an individual right to bear arms rather than a collective right. Scalia got it wrong and Stevens got it right. There are other sources that point to an individual right to have and bear arms but the Second Amendment is not one of them. Scalia wasn't doing an originalist interpretation, he was creating new law from the bench and ignoring two centuries of stare decisis. DC vs Heller was a shambles and one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of American legal history IMHO. Right up there with Dred-Scott and Citizens United.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Stevens' dissent was statist idiocy, His main point was that he could not believe the founders did not give the federal government the power to ban guns or restrict what people acting their own private capacity in their own sovereign states, could keep and bear so he just assumed such a power had to exist. The collective right has been routinely panned by current legal scholars and had no support in the words of the founders or the writings of early legal scholars
 
TurtleDude said:
semantic games/. crime can mean an actual breaking of a law-like what Rosa Parks did or honest people can say what she did was no crime.
Click to expand...

What she did was a crime even though I agree with her actions. Leaving a gun in an unlocked car overnight was not civil disobedience, however, so you're not making a valid argument.
 
Wayne Jr said:
What she did was a crime even though I agree with her actions. Leaving a gun in an unlocked car overnight was not civil disobedience, however, so you're not making a valid argument.
Click to expand...

yes I am, I am noting that the government made objectively non-harmful actions criminal. Which is stupid since for any harm to happen, it requires felonious activities by another
 
TurtleDude said:
yes I am, I am noting that the government made objectively non-harmful actions criminal. Which is stupid since for any harm to happen, it requires felonious activities by another
Click to expand...

Leaving firearms unsecured causes harm. Try again.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Leaving firearms unsecured causes harm. Try again.
Click to expand...

that is stupid. it requires the action of another to cause harm. and a firearm in a vehicle out of sight is not "unsecured" or open and notorious. If to obtain something requires a felony, then the blame is all on the felon
 
TurtleDude said:
that is stupid.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, the entire US military and all police departments are wrong, according to you. Sure guy. Sure.

The bottom line is lock'em or lose'em. It's your choice.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Oh, sure, the entire US military and all police departments are wrong, according to you. Sure guy. Sure.

The bottom line is lock'em or lose'em. It's your choice.
Click to expand...

The bottom line, fascism sucks. and the good news is you don't write the laws. Usually when someone is fixated on an issue like this, there is something else going on
 
TurtleDude said:
The bottom line, fascism sucks. and the good news is you don't write the laws. Usually when someone is fixated on an issue like this, there is something else going on
Click to expand...
That's what they said about seat belt laws. Turns out that's good policy also. Click-it or ticket. Drive sober or get pulled over. Lock'em or lose'em.
 
Wayne Jr said:
That's what they said about seat belt laws. Turns out that's good policy also. Click-it or ticket. Drive sober or get pulled over. Lock'em or lose'em.
Click to expand...

completely irrelevant analogy. that doesn't require the illegal actions of another for a problem to occur
 
TurtleDude said:
completely irrelevant analogy. that doesn't require the illegal actions of another for a problem to occur
Click to expand...
It's the most accurate analogy, actually. Another might be the requirement to cover a below-ground pool in your back yard. Yet another would be a requirement to keep household cleaning chemicals away from children. You lock up your guns because you know there's an increased risk by leaving them out. You've already lost this debate and are just fussing over sour grapes now.
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's the most accurate analogy, actually. Another might be the requirement to cover a below-ground pool in your back yard. Yet another would be a requirement to keep household cleaning chemicals away from children. You lock up your guns because you know there's an increased risk by leaving them out. You've already lost this debate and are just fussing over sour grapes now.
Click to expand...

its idiotic. and it has no relevance. He didn't leave a gun out so why do you keep lying about it. It wouldn't meet the test for what is called an "attractive nuisance". You awarding yourself a "win" in this is hilarious given how few pro gun posters ever side with you when you try to argue with real pro gun posters
 
TurtleDude said:
its idiotic. and it has no relevance. He didn't leave a gun out so why do you keep lying about it. It wouldn't meet the test for what is called an "attractive nuisance". You awarding yourself a "win" in this is hilarious given how few pro gun posters ever side with you when you try to argue with real pro gun posters
Click to expand...

1939851_553389404777912_3104247165172317735_n.jpg
 
PoS said:
Yup, its like having your driver's license revoked by the authorities if your car got stolen.
Click to expand...

No, it's like breaking the law on gun safety and suffering the consequences for it.
 
jet57 said:
No, it's like breaking the law on gun safety and suffering the consequences for it.
Click to expand...

wrong again, because it requires the criminal actions of another who has not conspired with you. That is why it fails
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom