Skip to main content

View Diary: Catch-22 - NRA Talking Points Version (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What are you waiting for? (16+ / 0-)

    Why don't you go for the whole taco?

    A minority of people wanted a constitutional amendment banning equal marriage - and they failed.

    A majority of people even wanted a constitutional amendment banning liquor - and WOW did they ultimately fail! After creating one murderous black market, that is.

    There's nothing stopping you from going for the whole shebang.

    As you said... Here, I'll mark it for emphasis:

    I got the solution right here. If it really has to be all or nothing, why don't we go for all? Why don't we get rid of all of your little "shoot-em-up" fantasies? Why don't we just kill your whole ability to play with any of your little gun toys? Why don't we just ban the whole mess, and get on with creating the next version of safe and sane civilization?
    Go for it.

    I encourage you to exercise your right to petition the government for redress of your grievances.

    Have at it, Mr pot smuggler.

    I applaud and tip my hat to your participation.

    Go ahead and pursue your chosen path of action.

    Please proceed, kossack.

    Please proceed.

    :-)

    •  that's gotta be one of the best snarks I have seen (7+ / 0-)

      Good one!

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:48:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dude, here's where you and I differ. I can prove (8+ / 0-)

      RKBA is a pissant right, and you think that it's something. Name one other "Right" that becomes as constricted after a criminal conviction.

      Turns out there ain't none. And do you know why? Because you idiot NRA types followed the lead of your masters and said "yeah, that's okay, let's really spank them ex-felons" even tough there are no real Constitutional Rights, other than the putative RKBA, that don't survive an unsuccessful trip through criminal court.

      P.S. Did you even bother to notice the "POT" part. Are you going to go in favor of the War on Drugs just to be able keep saying "Guns are wonderful"?

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:07:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ROFL. (15+ / 0-)
        Name one other "Right" that becomes as constricted after a criminal conviction.
        Voting.
        Turns out there ain't none. And do you know why?
        Ahem!

        Voting.

        even tough there are no real Constitutional Rights, other than the putative RKBA, that don't survive an unsuccessful trip through criminal court.
        xCoughxCoughx VOTING! xCoughxCoughx
        Did you even bother to notice the "POT" part. Are you going to go in favor of the War on Drugs just to be able keep saying "Guns are wonderful"?
        Hmmmm.... I did write
        Have at it, Mr pot smuggler.
        So yeah, I noticed the 'pot' part.

        And since I'm against banning abortion, because taking away the clinic doesn't stop people from having sex, and abortion type things can be formulated from the hardware store or the cleaning aisle in the grocery store...

        And since I'm against banning alcohol, because taking away the beer doesn't make the bad spouses any better at being in a marriage, and booze can be made in a broom closet with ingredients from the grocery store...

        Doesn't it seem like a trend, that I would likely also be against banning of pot, because taking away such an easily grown plant doesn't magically motivate people to get crew cuts and wear ties?

        Oh, and one more time for good measure...

        VOTING!
        •  Please study this before spouting off. There are (6+ / 0-)

          states that allow even persons in prison to vote, and not a single one, last I researched the point, that automatically applies voting forfeiture to all persons convicted of any felony.

          RKBA loss is far and away the top limitation on freedom in this country. And whether or not you applaud this, it still proves that gun owners are second class citizens in the eyes of the law.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:40:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He (or she) is not "spouting off" at all. (11+ / 0-)
            Please study this before spouting off. There are(1+ / 0-)

            states that allow even persons in prison to vote, and not a single one, last I researched the point, that automatically applies voting forfeiture to all persons convicted of any felony.

            In my State you lose voting rights for any felony, and the only way to possiblt get it restored is through the Governor. I don't agree with it somewhat, but we're not the only state that is like that.
          •  Well, then here's YOUR new thing to learn today! (11+ / 0-)
            State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously.
            In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.

            In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote absent a pardon from the governor.

            The remaining 44 states have 44 different approaches to the issue.

             In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence.

             In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored.

             In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.

            http://www.ncsl.org/...

            Now, you could be an asshole and act like william kristol by hiding in the tall weeds of your particular clarifier adjectives.

            that automatically applies voting forfeiture to all persons convicted of any felony.
            "Automatically" could give you elbow room to be a dick... Oh, that state doesn't do it automatically, so I'll skate past the context of the conversation on a technicality... Yeah, you could be a dick and hide your ignorance behind that word.

            "all persons"... Yeah, maybe somewhere there's a few categories that aren't stripped of voting rights, allowing your carefully cobbled statement to be true in the most sheldon cooper type of manner. Unfortunately, you aren't as funny as sheldon.

            "any felony", of course 'any' felony was a careful plant by you so you could try a "GOTCHA" later.

            Don't be a dick, dude. Voting is a right that is also restricted by becoming a felon. Just suck it up and own it that you missed that one, and we can move on like adults. I just had to reply to it because you went on about no other rights being restricted three times! If it was just once, it would have been much lower key, but three times! You'd made such a big deal of it, I couldn't help but dance on that one.

            But anyway, like I said, own up to voting being restricted and let's move on.

            •  Where is it that voting is mentioned in the Bill (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, terrybuck, 88kathy

              of Rights, anyway. I must have missed it. How about speech? How about religion? How about search and seizure?

              And, yes, federal law does control federal voting rights. And does not restrict them for a criminal conviction.

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:38:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Law of intended consequences. (5+ / 0-)

            Was this the law in 1934, when "the law went on" Thompson submachine guns?  No.

            It was enacted in 1968, when the tide of Civil Rights Laws removed the State-enacted Jim Crow laws, which restricted access to "white freedoms".

            So we "celebrate" gun control, which was, from the first scribble of Senator Dodd's pen, intended first-and-foremost to disenfranchise black citizens once again.

            RKBA loss is far and away the top limitation on freedom in this country. And whether or not you applaud this, it still proves that gun owners are second class citizens in the eyes of the law.

            The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

            by 43north on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:09:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Which of the enumerated Constitutional rights (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        has lost the least ground since 9/11 ?

      •  "I can prove..." (6+ / 0-)

        I urge you to do so.

        Your hate-mail will be graded.

        by PavePusher on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:09:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I question the method of your "proof". (9+ / 0-)

        So a right is heavily infringed after a conviction by law and the restoration of that right is withheld barring complex and expensive legal action that means it is somehow less than a right?

        Would you care to insert the same logic evenly throughout history and circumstance?  Say the Fugitive Slave Act?    Executive order 9066?  

        If as you a contend, a right is restricted after breaking any law works to legally invalidate that right for all, all the US need to is restrict any right people at any time do not like post conviction and that right diminishes for all.

        Lets look at voting as it is now; after all in many areas felons cannot vote and since the right is restricted that means the right is weakened for all which should naturally lead to more restrictions post conviction which should naturally weaken that right for all.  Perhaps at that point we should institute some sort of government test and a fee to cover the cost of that test before allowing voting since by then it would be reduced to a privilege and not a right.

        I believe you can see the folly of your position being applied outside the limited scope in which you presented it.

      •  once you're convicted (6+ / 0-)

        you have NO rights with out permission from the government.  You can be searched at any time for any reason with out a warrant, you can be detained in a small room with several other people, you are told what you are allowed to have how much you can have and can be required to work for pennies an hour.  Your religion can be restricted, when you eat sleep play watch tv (if at all) is at the whim of government. Heck you even have to get permission to pee.

        as for voting? in my state a felony is an automatic removal forever.  You can petition to get that right back, but it is rare.

        Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

        by DrillSgtK on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:08:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site