ElectricianLU58
Regular Member
i agree, wholeheartedly.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Guy loses guns over what he said on his blog? Sorry if its a repeat.
- Thread starter EDA50
- Start date
i agree, wholeheartedly.
Jack-w-1911
New member
Sounds like preemptive defense to me, and it is only allowed by our Govt. Unconstitutional to the infinite degree.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
I agree with your disagreement. We need to be responsible in our words. Encouraging violence against a soft target is never acceptable, unless that target presents a clear & present danger, in which case, they're not a soft target.
stainless1911
Banned
If we prosecuted every idol threat, or figure of speech, we would live in a prison state. How many times per day does someone say, "Im gonna kill him" in high school alone?
Phoenix David
Regular Member
If I were to say "All child rapists should be killed" or after reading of a report where in Afghanistan 6 al-Qaeda were killed and I post a message saying "6 down 128,951 to go" my gun rights should be removed?
stainless1911
Banned
First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists ,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists ,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Scooter123
Regular Member
Just for the record, this idiot has NOT lost his 2nd Ammendment rights at this point, they've just been temporarily suspended while the Authorities take a long hard look so see if he's actually a nut job who presents a real threat. If someone, such as Jared Loughners parents, had alerted the Police to take a close look at that nut job that shooting in Tuscon may not have happened.
Fact is that there are some nut jobs who do need to be hauled in and lose their 2nd Ammendment rights. If you don't want it to happen to you, don't post crap that indicates that you're playing with a far less than a full deck.
As for the 1st Ammendment, threats or statements intended to cause real harm have never been protected by the 1st Ammendment. If you don't believe that, there is case law that stretches back for over 200 years that has ruled that some speech is NOT protected. While this particular case may reside in a somewhat "grey" area, it's not at all surprizing that his statement has resulted in consequences. You can't fix STUPID and now this MORON is paying the price for an incredibly stupid post.
Fact is that there are some nut jobs who do need to be hauled in and lose their 2nd Ammendment rights. If you don't want it to happen to you, don't post crap that indicates that you're playing with a far less than a full deck.
As for the 1st Ammendment, threats or statements intended to cause real harm have never been protected by the 1st Ammendment. If you don't believe that, there is case law that stretches back for over 200 years that has ruled that some speech is NOT protected. While this particular case may reside in a somewhat "grey" area, it's not at all surprizing that his statement has resulted in consequences. You can't fix STUPID and now this MORON is paying the price for an incredibly stupid post.
stainless1911
Banned
If his guns were seized, then "shall not be infringed" has been.
And it still might have because as far as I know, there was no solid reason to restrict his access to firearms. Being odd, even being scary weird just doesn't cut it.
There could be thousands of other people much alike to Loughner who are weird, loners, and have differing beliefs from the norm, who pose no threat to anyone. I still don't believe its an excuse to take a man's right to self defense away. People get scared and then they target an entire population as the threat due to some similarities with a known threat they have identified. Some of that same reasoning is being used by those who wish to take our guns and our rights away.
There are alot of people in this world that I wish bad things would happen to and I should be able to freely speak about that as well. Doing so surely doesn't mean that the illogical leap can be made that I am going to go out there and hurt people myself. Should thousands of people be preemptively attacked and punished because one has actually acted out with his own hopes?
Unless this guy specifically said he was going to go out and shoot someone they should do nothing more than take a look and possibly talk to him while respecting all of his rights in the process.
Onnie
Regular Member
Onnie
Regular Member
he brought it on himself. We all are responsible for our words and actions. The right to bare arms does come with some rules, and I think one of those might be the mentally disturbed should not have access to arms. I hardly think the founding fathers wanted unstable people to have access, keep or bare arms. He put his intentions out in cyberspace for all to see so IMO until this person is deemed to be no threat to the public or politicians at large, the local police were totally justified in infringing on his 2nd amendment rights.
Last edited:
B
Bikenut
Guest
I respect your opinion Onnie... but I must disagree because once we start down the road where we say there are certain circumstances where the authorities are justified in infringing on rights then the list of offenses where "infringing" is justified will always keep growing (with offenses added by the authorities according to their own agenda) until it gets to the point where a person is allowed by the authorities (no longer a right) to have guns as long as they never fart in the general direction of Washington DC.
As ridiculous as that may seem please note the proliferation of infringements (gun laws) already in place. And those infringements, each and every one of them, has been sold to the public as being "justified" in order to enhance public safety.
It is my belief that it is the dangerous person who needs to be either hospitalized or imprisoned.. and there is no reason or justification for that person's rights to be infringed while the person is being given help or being punished.
A right must remain inviolate and never infringed upon because... any infringement of any kind for any reason means that right is not a right but is a privilege.... a privilege that can be taken away as long as it can be "justified".
And the right to keep and bear arms has already been infringed and turned into a privilege by laws that decree where, how, and by whom, keeping and bearing arms is allowed.
Phoenix David
Regular Member
In Massachusetts you need a government license to purchases and posses firearms. The suspended and confiscated the firearms. To me that meet my definition of loosing.
So in this case his apparent support and approval for the shooting of Giffords is enough be declared " a nut job". So is support of PETA enough to have you your 2nd Amendment rights revoked? Is support of Hamass enough to have your 2nd Amendment rights revoked, Is support of Planned Parenthood enough to have your 2nd Amendment rights revoked.?
Please indicate in the post were he encouraged people to go and shoot elected officials. While his postings rise to the level to stupid, from what I read he did not encourage anyone to go and start shooting.
My point is that when someone says things and while they may be in bad taste they are still protected by the 1st Amendment and when the government doesn't like what you said and they swoop down and start arresting you or suspending your rights, then we all are in trouble.
Phoenix David
Regular Member
Just because he seems to support a someone or a group that did something illegal does not make him mentally disturbed. If you support Hammas or Planned Parenthood, or Westboro Baptist Church does that make you mentally disturbed? If so who is the keeper of the list of things that make you mentally disturbed. Should Wesley Snips fans be striped of their constitutional rights? Should PETA supporters?
When a government can just walk in strip us of our rights because we said something it didn't like, that places all of our rights in danger.
Phoenix David
Regular Member
So it's a matter of what you agree with. It's OK to agree with killing certain groups but not others? Who maintains this list?
No where in my sample statement did I say I was heading out to do anything, I just showed my support and approval.
So if your not responsible, but not breaking any laws, as they did not arrest his for any illegal acts, they just didn't like what he said it's OK for the government to come in and suspend some of your Constitutional rights?
Onnie
Regular Member
It is my belief that it is the dangerous person who needs to be either hospitalized or imprisoned.. and there is no reason or justification for that person's rights to be infringed while the person is being given help or being punished.
so then you are OK with giving convicts in prison access to a gun
and allowing some delusional individual the right to carry a pistol during his treatment for his delusions?
Not me! Again While I do not agree with most of the restrictions being put on Americans who do want to own weapons, I understand that there are going to be certain activities that are counter productive that will get you into hot water.
The right of "shall not infringe" is IMO is meant for the American Citizenry as a whole but does not mean each and every American individually anytime and all the time. If there is cause to believe that that person MAY use that weapon in an illegal manner, then they, until determined different, have no business with a gun.
we can agree to disagree on this one I guess...but I am glad they took his guns away for the investigation. They have had enough time to figure out if he is a threat or not and its about time to give him his guns back. Freedom of speech does not relinquish one from retributions for stupid remarks made, nor should it.
so then you are OK with giving convicts in prison access to a gun
and allowing some delusional individual the right to carry a pistol during his treatment for his delusions?
Not me! Again While I do not agree with most of the restrictions being put on Americans who do want to own weapons, I understand that there are going to be certain activities that are counter productive that will get you into hot water.
The right of "shall not infringe" is IMO is meant for the American Citizenry as a whole but does not mean each and every American individually anytime and all the time. If there is cause to believe that that person MAY use that weapon in an illegal manner, then they, until determined different, have no business with a gun.
we can agree to disagree on this one I guess...but I am glad they took his guns away for the investigation. They have had enough time to figure out if he is a threat or not and its about time to give him his guns back. Freedom of speech does not relinquish one from retributions for stupid remarks made, nor should it.
Onnie
Regular Member
First the Government did not walk right up to US and strip US of our rights, they went to him and strip him of his for remarks he made about being a better shot when shooting political officials and their staff. Far cry from watching a movie and cant not even be compared. I eat meat so I have no idea of what PETA is about nor do i care.
I don't see it as stripping us of our rights, they are removing this weapons until determined if he mental enough to keep them.
Common sense is the keeper of what is or is not mentally disturbed. And what he did makes no common sense!
support for one is one thing, but if he talked about WBC not only carrying signs but now they need to step it up and start shooting the families of fallen soldiers, yes you bet! Walk in and take his guns away!
You can have all the support for someone or some organization, but once you start talking about killing and shooting others, yep you need to be put under the Microscope.
stainless1911
Banned
Shall not be infringed didn't come with rules, they were tacked on later by those who won't understand what they read when they read "shall not be infringed". The founding fathers knew that an armed populous could deal with the occasional nut job with a gun. As I've said before, a person who is killed because they are defenseless shares in his/her own blood. There are very few exceptions to this.
Onnie
Regular Member
Originally Posted by Onnie
ur comparing apples with oranges
Totally different, Al-Queda is an enemy to our country and in effect we are at war with them and they are far from innocent
So it's a matter of what you agree with. It's OK to agree with killing certain groups but not others? Who maintains this list?
Don’t know what list you are referring to, I was talking about war with a terrorist group that attacked our nation, and the action declared by our government.
And after nearly 40 years since leaving South Vietnam, I still fighting internally with myself and to this day the NVA is still my enemy. I have little to no use for that part of the world. Id rather walk on the other side of the street then step on a sidewalk of a restaurant that list its cuisine as “Vietnamese”, but that does not mean I have ever though of going in there with my gun and shooting up the place, that is just plain wrong.
Originally Posted by Onnie
on the other hand Giffords is an elected official of this country,
chances of you heading off to Afghanistan and shooting an Al-Qaeda is rather remote, the one guy a couple of years who did that, WAS arrested and is now in jail
No where in my sample statement did I say I was heading out to do anything, I just showed my support and approval.
bad choice of words I did not mean you personally as someone in general
You have a moral if not legal duty to act responsible when you own handguns, and talking about bettering your aim at killing officials or anyone is not responsible.
So if your not responsible, but not breaking any laws, as they did not arrest his for any illegal acts, they just didn't like what he said it's OK for the government to come in and suspend some of your Constitutional rights
That would depend on what was done that falls outside of “not breaking any laws”
If we are talking about this guy in VA, then yes, he advocates killing, so yes, I do believe the police had a duty to take his weapons away UNTIL he is deemed not a threat. Once that has been determined, and his is not mental, give him his weapons back.
The right to bare arms and the freedom of speech is given to all Americans. It does not come with a guarantee you can do any with them and suffer no Consequences. We must act civil with both, and in my opinion this guy did not.
ur comparing apples with oranges
Totally different, Al-Queda is an enemy to our country and in effect we are at war with them and they are far from innocent
So it's a matter of what you agree with. It's OK to agree with killing certain groups but not others? Who maintains this list?
Don’t know what list you are referring to, I was talking about war with a terrorist group that attacked our nation, and the action declared by our government.
And after nearly 40 years since leaving South Vietnam, I still fighting internally with myself and to this day the NVA is still my enemy. I have little to no use for that part of the world. Id rather walk on the other side of the street then step on a sidewalk of a restaurant that list its cuisine as “Vietnamese”, but that does not mean I have ever though of going in there with my gun and shooting up the place, that is just plain wrong.
Originally Posted by Onnie
on the other hand Giffords is an elected official of this country,
chances of you heading off to Afghanistan and shooting an Al-Qaeda is rather remote, the one guy a couple of years who did that, WAS arrested and is now in jail
No where in my sample statement did I say I was heading out to do anything, I just showed my support and approval.
bad choice of words I did not mean you personally as someone in general
You have a moral if not legal duty to act responsible when you own handguns, and talking about bettering your aim at killing officials or anyone is not responsible.
So if your not responsible, but not breaking any laws, as they did not arrest his for any illegal acts, they just didn't like what he said it's OK for the government to come in and suspend some of your Constitutional rights
That would depend on what was done that falls outside of “not breaking any laws”
If we are talking about this guy in VA, then yes, he advocates killing, so yes, I do believe the police had a duty to take his weapons away UNTIL he is deemed not a threat. Once that has been determined, and his is not mental, give him his weapons back.
The right to bare arms and the freedom of speech is given to all Americans. It does not come with a guarantee you can do any with them and suffer no Consequences. We must act civil with both, and in my opinion this guy did not.
Last edited: