• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Denial of Rights

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
Paragraphs are your friend.

Preaching to the choir, I think, unless you had a different meaning that was obstructed by your wall of text.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
This
You know it use to be a felony to steal a chicken in this country and it used to be a felony to steal a car. Now it is no longer a felony to do either one.
is why there is a forum rule about citing - especially for legal conclusions.

With that pronouncement, insupported by any citation, you utterly and completely lost all chance of me believing anything you had to say.

As for the rest of your sophomoric screed - well, it's sophomoric.

But in spite of all that, I welcome you to OCDO. I do hope you will stick around, learn at least a little, and become a true contributor to the forum.

stay safe.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
This is why there is a forum rule about citing - especially for legal conclusions.

With that pronouncement, insupported by any citation, you utterly and completely lost all chance of me believing anything you had to say.

As for the rest of your sophomoric screed - well, it's sophomoric.

But in spite of all that, I welcome you to OCDO. I do hope you will stick around, learn at least a little, and become a true contributor to the forum.

stay safe.

I'm going to use your vague response to tell me that what he said wasn't something I should have agreed to.

"Sophomoric screed"?
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
18 - 20 year old, Makes a mistake and steals something. WOW! I guess we can be glad that they didn't MISTAKENLY RAPE someone. I know a man that mistakenly committed adultery 9 times.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Those who quote rule so easily to hopefully silence anything they disagree with are the states best friend. They know nothing of the of the bill of rights and constitution and mans natural God given rights. I guess I better not mention God since there is no legal precedent to prove there is a God.

WAKE UP!!!!!!

WTF is your problem?

The poster was saying that stealing is not a mistake, rape is not a mistake. While I get your point that certain crimes shouldn't be held against you, you need to lighten up.

As for rules, the rules for citation are here for a purpose. You said that stealing a chicken was a felony. Prove it. Shows us some source that says that in the US, stealing a chicken was a felony.

The good thing about this forum, is that a fair amount of the information stated is true since it is shown to be true by citations. Doesn't mean we always agree with it, just that we can support the argument.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
While Denied may not be able to make a citation for "stealing a chicken used to be a felony," the gist of the idea is true. There is a saying "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" based upon English Common Law that had some serious consequences for what might be thought of as trivial offenses. At one time the theft of anything worth more than an English Shilling was worth the death penalty. The phrase comes from the justification for doing something much worse (stealing a fully grown sheep) because a seemingly lesser offense (stealing a lamb) carried the same extreme penalty.

In more recent American History Horse Theivery was often reported as an occasion for a impromtu gala featuring tall tree limbs and short rope neckties. Please note I'm only saying "reported as" we're all familiar with how tales of the Old West could grow from one man shooting a rabbit with a broken foot grew into one man fighting off a Comanche war party of 100.

Shillings not being in currency at this time, but at one time they were 1/20 of one Pound Sterling (GBP) which is about $1.50 currently. I'm sure 1/20th of that was comparatively more in early English History, I just lack the gumption to find out.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
While Denied may not be able to make a citation for "stealing a chicken used to be a felony," the gist of the idea is true. There is a saying "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" based upon English Common Law that had some serious consequences for what might be thought of as trivial offenses. At one time the theft of anything worth more than an English Shilling was worth the death penalty. The phrase comes from the justification for doing something much worse (stealing a fully grown sheep) because a seemingly lesser offense (stealing a lamb) carried the same extreme penalty.

In more recent American History Horse Theivery was often an occasion for a impromtu gala featuring tall tree limbs and short rope neckties.

OK, he is implying that he is denied his right to own a firearm for something as trivial as chicken stealing. I would assume he is less than 112 years old and my point is that he needs to provide a citation where anyone alive today would be denied his 2nd amendment rights for stealing a chicken.

I'm sure in the world's history, I can find people who have been killed by their government for trivial matters. King David had Bathsheba's husband killed because he had a hot wife.
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
How do you equate stealing a chicken or car to raping someone or someone committing adultery.

I guess you are one that believes all crimes are the same. That thinking means that you are an adulator too. Have you never lusted for another woman in your heart. Jesus said if you look on another woman and lust, you have committed adultery. Your argument condemns yourself as well.



That was sarcasm. POINT IS that crimes are not MISTAKES!
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
I'm sure in the world's history, I can find people who have been killed by their government for trivial matters. King David had Bathsheba's husband killed because he had a hot wife.
Heh heh heh Taking "you may beat the rap but you cannot beat the ride" to new depths of truth.
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
How do you equate stealing a chicken or car to raping someone or someone committing adultery.

I guess you are one that believes all crimes are the same. That thinking means that you are an adulator too. Have you never lusted for another woman in your heart. Jesus said if you look on another woman and lust, you have committed adultery. Your argument condemns yourself as well.

I'm a repeated fornicator. Numberous counts. I'd like to add more counts and they never were or ever will be mistakes. IT always has and will always be done with intent.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Okay, I took a moment to copy&past the original post into another document and do a little after-the-fact paragraphing. He doesn't say he was denied the ability to obtain a firearm. He is saying, from what I can see, that people have been denied a fundamental, God given and Constitutionally protected right, because of what may have been trivial mistakes. The whole misdemeanor domestic violence = denial of Second Amendment rights comes to mind. While domestic violence can be a serious problem, are we justifying grabbing someone's wrist hard enough to leave a mark in order to prevent being brained with a frying pan is equal to dousing someone with lighter fluid and setting them ablaze in their sleep as being equal in deserving the same punishment? (sheep v lamb)

Would we so easily accept that being found guilty of speeding when you testified under oath that you were going the speed limit and it was proven to be a lie equated to being denied the right to write your newspaper, or publish a book, or exercise any other means of free speech?


While Denied comes off as brash and impertinent, let us all remember this-
It's his first post, and he was likely to be in the throes of passion (as it were) to express something that compelled him to take the trouble to join us and express his views. From the way it was written, I am sure he was in an impassioned state with dozens if not hundreds of things going through his mind and each and every one was trying to be the first to make it to the tips of his fingers.He was simply in a fervor to get them all written down. (And I'm NOT saying that's a bad thing)




Denied this is where you tell a joke about teddy bears and top hats or something. I know we're all going to welcome you because you're on our side. And we are on yours. (Even skidmark welcomed you, and he hates everyone.)
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Okay, I took a moment to copy&past the original post into another document and do a little after-the-fact paragraphing. He doesn't say he was denied the ability to obtain a firearm. He is saying, from what I can see, that people have been denied a fundamental, God given and Constitutionally protected right, because of what may have been trivial mistakes. The whole misdemeanor domestic violence = denial of Second Amendment rights comes to mind. While domestic violence can be a serious problem, are we justifying grabbing someone's wrist hard enough to leave a mark in order to prevent being brained with a frying pan is equal to dousing someone with lighter fluid and setting them ablaze in their sleep as being equal in deserving the same punishment? (sheep v lamb)

Would we so easily accept that being found guilty of speeding when you testified under oath that you were going the speed limit and it was proven to be a lie equated to being denied the right to write your newspaper, or publish a book, or exercise any other means of free speech?

Look at his username.

As I said in my 1st post, I generally agree with him that revocation of rights should not be permanent. In my opinion, if you don't want someone to vote or own a firearm, keep them in prison. As soon as you are out, the justice system is saying you are no longer a danger to society so you should get your rights back.

I know I am over simplifying it but that's my basic stand.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
By his username, one may absolutely and reasonably infer that DeniedMyRights was ... denied his rights.
And I absolutely agree with your stance that once you've paid your debt to society that rights should be restored. I might draw the line at serial child molesters as there is a high recidivism rate (so, lifelong probation, maybe?)

I'm reminded of a scene from the movie "High Noon", where upon leaving prison Marshall Kane's nemesis is handed back his firearms and left to go on his way. The right to life, and to protect that life should be protected. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to bear arms, but the right to life itself and the protection of it comes much earlier in the Declaration of Independence and was said to be inalienable. Should one lose the right to wear a seat-belt to protect his life because of some misdeed?
(I sure hope I remember seeing that scene. It could as easily be an amalgam of scenes from many westerns. And yes, I know... it's only a movie!!)
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
By his username, one may absolutely and reasonably infer that DeniedMyRights was ... denied his rights.
And I absolutely agree with your stance that once you've paid your debt to society that rights should be restored. I might draw the line at serial child molesters as there is a high recidivism rate (so, lifelong probation, maybe?)

I'm reminded of a scene from the movie "High Noon", where upon leaving prison Marshall Kane's nemesis is handed back his firearms and left to go on his way. The right to life, and to protect that life should be protected. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to bear arms, but the right to life itself and the protection of it comes much earlier in the Declaration of Independence and was said to be inalienable. Should one lose the right to wear a seat-belt to protect his life because of some misdeed?
(I sure hope I remember seeing that scene. It could as easily be an amalgam of scenes from many westerns. And yes, I know... it's only a movie!!)

I would agree with the probation thing, however, if someone is STILL a danger to society, why are we letting him out?
 
Top