Is it possible for my buddy to get his ltc licence back

[Rick Roma]

[video=youtube_share;rIoqc8SooF8]http://youtu.be/rIoqc8SooF8[/video]

You could try to come up with an answer or you could just post more stupid videos. I predict the latter.

 

[atilla]

I'm not sure. What would exist without a state?

does it frighten you to not be governed by a body of people who can tell you what to do, how to act, and what is legal or illegal, are you frightened by the thought of making your own decisions and thinking for yourself?

 

[flintoid]

What kind of question is that? Without government every day life would be like Mad Max The Road Warrior where I could run you over with my car because I don't like this post. What kind of life would that be? Like it or not we need government and law and order.

What you are failing to recognize here is that you are still supporting a unjust law. By disagreeing with the man losing his LTC over petty bullshit, we are not necessarily saying that the government needs to disappear (granted, it'd fix a lot of things if it were to be revamped). We are stating that the government in MA has passed an unjust law that violates our rights. And that this man losing his LTC is evidence to that.

When you are saying that agree with the loss of his rights due to "stupidity," you are only further supporting these unjust rules that we have to live with.

Which is not cool. If the man was to harm someone? Let's say, shoot someone innocent? Then he can lose his rights. But as it stands, the man has done no harm, to anyone. Yet you still support the loss of his rights?

Tell me how this makes any ****ing sense.

 

[HTRN]

I'm not sure. What would exist without a state?

Not sure.. Interesting.

Do you beleive that you hold full title to yourself?

Do you beleive that is is wrong to use force, or the threat of force against another except in defense of self?

ETA: Sorry, I know that I would exist without the state. The smallest minority.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

You could try to come up with an answer or you could just post more stupid videos. I predict the latter.

There was a question asked, and you have not even come close to answering it.

You could try.

The question posed to you was...

Do you beleive that the RKBA exists without governments?

If you can't grasp the point of that question with driving off the zOMG I NEED GOV TO LIVE cliff, it is not really worth playing patty cake with you anymore.

Like I said, if you can not understand the depth of the question HTRN asked, then say so. If you are just refusing to answer it, stupid videos are all your posts are worth.

[video=youtube_share;s6zBS8jKdaw]http://youtu.be/s6zBS8jKdaw[/video]

 

[Rick Roma]

I disagree on the basis that he did not harm anyone. He didn't hurt anyone's rights, property, health, or was a menace to society. On this basis I don't think he should lose his rights. You, on the other hand, disagree. What you are condoning is the loss of someone's rights due to the fact that they didn't live by the rules handed down to him, no matter how just or unjust they may be, disregarding their morality.



You are putting words in my mouth. Read what I am typing. If the man that was released from jail is still a menace to society, I don't think he should be out of jail, thus not having the same rights as everyone else.

The man leaving a gun in his locked car is not a menace to society.

The cop killer is a menace to society.

They should not have the same rights. Unfortunately, you talk like they both shouldn't have rights. And since you've "done something stupid" I think that you shouldn't have rights, either, if I were to think like you.



agreed. But if he were fully rehabilitated and released, I think that he should have the same rights as us. Unfortunately, I don't believe that what is broken in that man is fixable by any means.


You still haven't provided an argument as to why you think the man referenced in the OP should have his rights taken away beyond the argument that you "feel" that he should have them taken away. Thankfully for you, the liberal state of massachusetts agrees with your personal assessment. You still haven't told me how he's harmed anyone or obstructed anyone's right to live happily. Which is why your logic is liberal, tragically flawed, and harmful for gun owners everywhere.

One day, when someone "feels" that you don't deserve to own a gun, your eyes may finally open. Until then, you're hurting our cause.

Well we can go on until the end of time I guess and still disagree. I also disagree that I put words in your mouth.....but anyway

 

[Rick Roma]

what i mean is that you're an enemy to free men with your thought process in that natural rights are something that your government gives you. your logic is completely flawed as others have pointed out and you simply are unable to "get" what makes a man free and you continue to defend the state and their oppressive laws which can ruin someone's life, take away their hobby, and in some cases their lives--over petty bullshit.

Since you believe I'm clearly ignorant of the subject please explain to me what makes a man free.

 

[flintoid]

Well we can go on until the end of time I guess and still disagree. I also disagree that I put words in your mouth.....but anyway

That is truly sad. I saw earlier that you agreed that the punishment was excessive. I was hoping you were starting to turn a new leaf from your earlier assessment of "assuming" that the man was unfit for his 2A rights.

There is a difference between assuming someone is unfit and knowing that someone is unfit. You are supporting assumption based law. It'd be like the police walking into your house and pulling your LTC and throwing your firearms into bonded storage for watching a violent movie- someone could assume that you'd have violent tendencies and start hurting people because of what you watch.

This man lost his LTC for doing nothing wrong. Yet you are professing that his violation of a petty law proves that he is so irresponsible that he should lose his rights.

You've opened yourself up as someone who supports the unjust laws that we live under in Massachusetts. Congratulations. I'm sure you're very happy with the laws here as a result.

 

[Rick Roma]

does it frighten you to not be governed by a body of people who can tell you what to do, how to act, and what is legal or illegal, are you frightened by the thought of making your own decisions and thinking for yourself?

LMMFAO- Ok.....here we go.

Would you be frightened of a world where there was no government, nobody to make laws and tell people what is legal or illegal and I would be free to burn your house down if I decided I felt like doing so?

 

[Rick Roma]

What you are failing to recognize here is that you are still supporting a unjust law. By disagreeing with the man losing his LTC over petty bullshit, we are not necessarily saying that the government needs to disappear (granted, it'd fix a lot of things if it were to be revamped). We are stating that the government in MA has passed an unjust law that violates our rights. And that this man losing his LTC is evidence to that.

When you are saying that agree with the loss of his rights due to "stupidity," you are only further supporting these unjust rules that we have to live with.

Which is not cool. If the man was to harm someone? Let's say, shoot someone innocent? Then he can lose his rights. But as it stands, the man has done no harm, to anyone. Yet you still support the loss of his rights?

Tell me how this makes any ****ing sense.

If the man was to harm someone? Let's say, shoot someone innocent? Then he can lose his rights.

So people can lose their rights under circumstances as you see fit but if you don't see fit you disagree with them losing their rights. Alright then.

 

[flintoid]

So people can lose their rights under circumstances as you see fit but if you don't see fit you disagree with them losing their rights. Alright then.

no. You are not reading what I am typing.

I agree that someone can lose their rights if they hurt someone else's pursuit of a happy life. If someone trespasses upon someone else's god given rights, then they are up for losing their own.

Not what I "feel" like. You "feel" that this man is irresponsible to the point where he deserves to lose his rights. And I am asking you in rebuttal: how has he harmed anyone?

And you fail to answer that question. Instead you post trivial bullshit like this.

Answer the question: how has this man harmed anyone?

 

[atilla]

Since you believe I'm clearly ignorant of the subject please explain to me what makes a man free.

dependant on others to give you a definition of a word, to tell you how to live... i could say ANYTHING and it wouldn't matter. if i have to TELL you how to be a free man then you are clearly unable to handle the responsibility of being one.

LMMFAO- Ok.....here we go.

Would you be frightened of a world where there was no government, nobody to make laws and tell people what is legal or illegal and I would be free to burn your house down if I decided I felt like doing so?

well, considering i hate my house i'd encourage you to do that. i want you to do it right now in fact.

now to your hypothetical situation--yes. yes, you would be. in fact there is nothing stopping you even now. so hypothetically if you wanted to burn down my house and if i liked my house i'd be just as free to put a bullet in you if i saw you running up my driveway with a molotov in hand as you would be to burn down my house because you think i'm an a**h***. if i didn't want you to burn down my house i'd be your buddy and we could go slap the asses of fine ladies together while enjoying some brewskis, and if you didn't want to get shot you wouldn't try to burn down my house.

 

[HTRN]

LMMFAO- Ok.....here we go.

Would you be frightened of a world where there was no government, nobody to make laws and tell people what is legal or illegal and I would be free to burn your house down if I decided I felt like doing so?

I answered your question. Care to answer mine?

 

[joeendris]

LMMFAO- Ok.....here we go.

Would you be frightened of a world where there was no government, nobody to make laws and tell people what is legal or illegal and I would be free to burn your house down if I decided I felt like doing so?

We, as humans, have the inherent ability to self-police without some brazen group deciding they "need" to do it for us, under the guise of "for our safety" or "for the children" or some other catch phrase-of-the-day. We have the ability to know what's right or wrong. There will always be some bad apples in a group, I'm not arguing that. Those are the folks who would burn down your house "because they think they can". Those are bad people, and in a self-policed society, those people tend to get taken down hard (with a hard block, of course ). Burn it, and run the risk of receiving a round in the skull. Risk assesment tends to take over here

Most folks don't go around hoping to burn it all down though, as empathy and preservation tend to rule the mindset.

 

[HTRN]

 

[cekim]

So people can lose their rights under circumstances as you see fit but if you don't see fit you disagree with them losing their rights. Alright then.

No, the narrow circumstances under which the state can take away someone's rights is actually pretty well defined by principles that go back before the Constitution - but the Constitution further restricted it. Obviously if someone can be arrested and imprisoned, then the concept presented in the BOR allows for this. The important thing is that it sets an extremely high and specific bar(s) to do it.

Your argument is the typical progressive one "well, if it is possible to abridge rights then we can decide to abridge them as we see fit since there is no absolute prohibition of it."

Bull!@#$!

This whole concept of pre-crime (convicting people of malum prohibitum acts which have had no harmful effect on another citizen) is BS. No one was harmed. PERIOD. Is it reasonable for a cop to notice it, contact him and say, "hey buddy, not a good idea"? Sure, that's what being part of a community and in particular a police officer of it, involves.

 

[banned]

I thought we were trying to figure out if we can get this guy his license back.

 

[Rick8325]

This whole concept of pre-crime (convicting people of malum prohibitum acts which have had no harmful effect on another citizen) is BS. No one was harmed. PERIOD. Is it reasonable for a cop to notice it, contact him and say, "hey buddy, not a good idea"? Sure, that's what being part of a community and in particular a police officer of it, involves.

I know what you mean man! Over the limit = under arrest, tax evasion, selling drugs in a school zone, and copyright infringement, whatever!

A contractor who built a house with many code violations could only be held liable if someone is harmed. Drunk driving should only be an offense if someone dies. I finally get what you've been preaching now!

Cops are in place to serve and protect. Not be your buddy or life mentor. That's Dog the Bounty Hunter's job.

 

[lancecolonel]

I thought we were trying to figure out if we can get this guy his license back.

some are trying to convince others that it never should have been taken in the first place......

and +1 to you for the free legal advice. i hope the guy follows it and gets his ltc back soon.

 

[flintoid]

I know what you mean man! Over the limit = under arrest, tax evasion, selling drugs in a school zone, and copyright infringement, whatever!

A contractor who built a house with many code violations could only be held liable if someone is harmed. Drunk driving should only be an offense if someone dies. I finally get what you've been preaching now!

Cops are in place to serve and protect. Not be your buddy or life mentor. That's Dog the Bounty Hunter's job.

then how will this man's firearm in a locked vehicle ever harm someone?

Should my wife be ticketed for too much cleavage since, you know, it's going to tempt someone to rape her?

Better yet- should a stranger staring at her tits be arrested for attempted rape?

Under your logic, this should be the case.

 

[atilla]

I know what you mean man! Over the limit = under arrest, tax evasion, selling drugs in a school zone, and copyright infringement, whatever!

A contractor who built a house with many code violations could only be held liable if someone is harmed. Drunk driving should only be an offense if someone dies. I finally get what you've been preaching now!

Cops are in place to serve and protect. Not be your buddy or life mentor. That's Dog the Bounty Hunter's job.

no no no NO NO NO NO!

you stop it right now.

bad poster, bad! wrong! NO!

 

[Boghog1]

I'm not sure. What would exist without a state?

So it is the state that prevents you from gunning people down? Not things like a moral compass or the fear of retribution?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

This thread is like herpes.

 

[banned]

I'll be 110% honest. Growing up many years ago, before I owned a gun I had a rather dismissive attitude about these kinds of things. I just figured "oh they've already banned pretty much everything already, what difference does it make". I wasn't really an anti, per se, I just didn't care. Then I went through the hoops to get my LTC. In the process of that and much research afterwards, I started reading about all kinds of heinous shit that has happened to gun owners, and that gave me a whole new perspective on rights and so forth. It was a pretty eye opening experience.

-Mike

I really didn't experience the doomsday passage of Ch. 180 in 1998 as I was living in New Orleans with my nose In law books. I didn't return to Massachusetts and pass the bar until 2000. I returned to a chaotic and treacherous battlefield where gun rights were being destroyed. It really wasn't until then that I knew what was happening here. I know how difficult it was for me to experience, I can only imagine what it was like for those of you who experienced it throughout the late 90s.

 

[cekim]

I know what you mean man! Over the limit = under arrest, tax evasion, selling drugs in a school zone, and copyright infringement, whatever!

A contractor who built a house with many code violations could only be held liable if someone is harmed. Drunk driving should only be an offense if someone dies. I finally get what you've been preaching now!

Cops are in place to serve and protect. Not be your buddy or life mentor. That's Dog the Bounty Hunter's job.

Not building a house that passes code brings harm to the owner. They cannot sell it (at all), and certainly not for price commensurate with the expenditure assuming it would be built to code. It is a violation of the contract between builder and owner which can be presumed to produce a house that meets all regulatory requirements as well as standards of the market unless otherwise agreed.

Why do you own guns with such an irrational fear of them that the sight of one would make you think it was harming someone?

 

[HTRN]

So it is the state that prevents you from gunning people down? Not things like a moral compass or the fear of retribution?

I've often wondered if statists actually fear themselves.

Sent from my mobile device, please excuse typos and brevity.

 

[Colt Delta Elite]

This thread has pegged the full retard meter 24 pages? Holy sheet!

 

[Rick8325]

Not building a house that passes code brings harm to the owner. They cannot sell it (at all), and certainly not for price commensurate with the expenditure assuming it would be built to code. It is a violation of the contract between builder and owner which can be presumed to produce a house that meets all regulatory requirements as well as standards of the market unless otherwise agreed.

Why do you own guns with such an irrational fear of them that the sight of one would make you think it was harming someone?

How about homes that weren't recently built? I've recently purchased my house with pre-existing code violations by contractors that didn't even get permits. I know I said permits...more BS communism by our towns and cities!

Forget about homes. How about the contractors that were held liable after the tunnel collapsed on that car a few years back.

I don't have a fear of my gun being seen by others because concealed means concealed. Man I wish I have a nickel every time I've heard that phrase on this site.

 

[HTRN]

How about homes that weren't recently built? I've recently purchased my house with pre-existing code violations by contractors that didn't even get permits. I know I said permits...more BS communism by our towns and cities!

Forget about homes. How about the contractors that were held liable after the tunnel collapsed on that car a few years back.

I don't have a fear of my gun being seen by others because concealed means concealed. Man I wish I have a nickel every time I've heard that phrase on this site.

Do you understand the difference between good advice and bad law?

 

[Rick8325]

Do you understand the difference between good advice and bad law?

I agree it's a bad law but didn't know it was okay for me to break it. The only advice I'm getting is that it's okay to break any stupid law as long as nobody gets hurt.