Man kills self at Dicks Sporting Goods

[xtry51]

Why wouldn't you sell to them? It's their right to have that firearm. Even after telling you all that crazy stuff. That's the premise your telling me....And c'mon, if the police rolled up and placed him in cuffs you'd be out there screaming profanities at the police, then on here going "HA see what the evil empire did today with their minions! Look I have photos of JBTs infringing this guys rights!".

And listen... I don't know how it is on your island... but bad guys do get out of jail. A guy murders someone, unless he his put to death, even after a conviction he gets back out. Is he different? You think he's reformed? A guy who stabs someone , ABDW /Attempt Murd. maybe, gets what a few years MAYBE? If it's first time doing it not even, a few months tops? So 90 days later the guy gets out from stabbing someone.. hand him that gun...? How are you guys really ok with this?

You really don't get this whole freedom thing.

 

[seth72]

Why wouldn't you sell to them? It's their right to have that firearm. Even after telling you all that crazy stuff. That's the premise your telling me....And c'mon, if the police rolled up and placed him in cuffs you'd be out there screaming profanities at the police, then on here going "HA see what the evil empire did today with their minions! Look I have photos of JBTs infringing this guys rights!".

And listen... I don't know how it is on your island... but bad guys do get out of jail. A guy murders someone, unless he his put to death, even after a conviction he gets back out. Is he different? You think he's reformed? A guy who stabs someone , ABDW /Attempt Murd. maybe, gets what a few years MAYBE? If it's first time doing it not even, a few months tops? So 90 days later the guy gets out from stabbing someone.. hand him that gun...? How are you guys really ok with this?

I wouldn't sell to them because I feel they are going to harm someone. How is that hard for you to understand? He has the right to own a firearm if he is not in jail but not to harm someone. And, if he is in the process of harming someone I am going to take the appropriate action to prevent that, not sell him a F@$king gun you intellectually inbred POS.

I wouldn't scream profanities at the police after calling them to arrest someone who is making death threats and is in the process of carrying out a mass murder plot.

To your point about bad guys getting out of jail: Why don't you understand that this is the problem, not the fact that people who are not in jail have the right to be armed? The way to solve the problem is not to let murderers back into society. If you let them back into society, all of the gun laws in the world will not prevent them from reoffending. We know this because of the amount of felons who do reoffend, just as you suggest, despite laws that make it illegal for them to reoffend.

So, stop banging your head against the wall with laws that do nothing to prevent murderers from murdering and only prevent free men from exercising their rights. Start advocating for things that really make a difference, like keeping murderers and violent criminals incarcerated permanently.

 

[HTRN]

... but bad guys do get out of jail. A guy murders someone, unless he his put to death, even after a conviction he gets back out. Is he different? You think he's reformed? A guy who stabs someone , ABDW /Attempt Murd. maybe, gets what a few years MAYBE? If it's first time doing it not even, a few months tops? So 90 days later the guy gets out from stabbing someone.. hand him that gun...? How are you guys really ok with this?

So you really believe that some law will stop this guy from obtaining a firearm?

News Flash: Criminals don't follow laws.

But I can guarantee that a law stopping "crazies" from owning firearms will infringe on the innocent.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" -Blackstone

 

[xtry51]

I wouldn't sell to them because I feel they are going to harm someone. How is that hard for you to understand? He has the right to own a firearm if he is not in jail but not to harm someone. And, if he is in the process of harming someone I am going to take the appropriate action to prevent that.

I wouldn't scream profanities at the police after calling them to arrest someone who is making death threats and is in the process of carrying out a mass murder plot.

To your point about bad guys getting out of jail: Why don't you understand that this is the problem, not the fact that people who are not in jail have the right to be armed? The way to solve the problem is not to let murderers back into society. If you let them back into society, all of the gun laws in the world will not prevent them from reoffending. We know this because of the amount of felons who do reoffend, just as you suggest, despite laws that make it illegal for them to reoffend.

So, stop banging your head against the wall with laws that do nothing to prevent murderers from murdering and only prevent free men from exercising their rights. Start advocating for things that really make a difference, like keeping murderers and violent criminals incarcerated permanently.

You're wasting your breath. He loves being able to decided who is a lesser man than him and doesn't deserve the same rights.

This is exactly why it's quite frightening they would allow him, and others like him, to be a cop.

People like him are the exact reason the founders wanted us to all be armed.

 

[HKdrummer]

Lt. Henry Ward says the man had been involved in a standoff with Middletown officers in 2002.

So he was probably carrying illegally. Is this action covered by 2a? This is why crazy people shouldn't be allowed guns. When you become crazy you lose that right. You forfeit the right when you become a nut, or mentally ill. You can't drive blind, so you shouldn't carry crazy.

Ans definitely makes us all look bad, not what we needed.

I've read some pretty dumb shit on the internet, and namely this forum, but this is definitely in the front running for the dumbest thing i've read.

And who are you to, or anyone else for that matter, to decide what is crazy? Pretty subjective don't you think? Secondly, what if this guy woke up completely normal on a monday morning, got a ticket on his way to work, got laid of when he got there, got a flat tire on his way home, found his dog dead, and his wife in bed with another man, and snapped his shit and went bananas? Every man has a threshold, one that can be met on any given day, you will never stop "crazy" people from doing crazy things.

 

[seth72]

You're wasting your breath. He loves being able to decided who is a lesser man than him and doesn't deserve the same rights.

This is exactly why it's quite frightening they would allow him, and others like him, to be a cop.

People like him are the exact reason the founders wanted us to all be armed.

Ya, you're right. And, sorry to NES that I used profanity and insults in that last post. I've said all I can in this thread. Enough.

 

[HKdrummer]

I don't know if it is ok to some on here. I believe somone on here stated straight out that once they got released from jail they SHOULD be allowed to carry. I was floored. So by that mentality a guy who shoots someone for no reason, goes to jail, gets out, then gets handed his gun back to do it again? I get the point some guys are making here with the singling people out. But I'm sorry if your bat shit crazy you deserve to be singled out. Just like if not only are you "capable" but you show a INCLINATION to kill people (by doing it previously or harming poeple, etc.) then you LOSE that right. If these guys/girls want to keep their rights.... don't go crazy or hurt people. Is that much to ask?

Highlighted for a reason.....

Don't you think perhaps we should be talking about the root of the problem? As in, why the **** is he or she out after conducting themselves in such a way???

 

[Quiet]

No need, you guys are doing fine...

One question though .. while he's confined to a mental institution because you say he should be locked up or have his rights "restored", having committed no crime, please to tell me why he isn't allowed to carry his gun in there?

I know. It's hard to actually answer the question of why a felon loses his right to carry while incarcerated, or a person confined to an institution loses the right. There seems to be this magical component to SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (except while incarcerated, that's OK). I mean I don't think it's in the Constitution that incarcerated felons get stripped of their rights, it's kind of a state by state thingy. Some let felons vote, others don't. But every one of them strips them of their non-infringible RKBA.

How is that OK with you all?

I agree with that, but what about WHILE they are incarcerated?

I'm actually having a bad reaction to some medicine and my ears are ringing badly... so the silence on this is truly deafening.

The reason you're not answering is because the implication is obvious; the RKBA is not absolute, you lose it while incarcerated for obvious reasons. So now we're all about where to draw the line.

 

[bolt]

Bush did it.

 

[xtry51]

Highlighted for a reason.....

Don't you think perhaps we should be talking about the root of the problem? As in, why the **** is he or she out after conducting themselves in such a way???

Because like a good little socialist he doesn't want to admit personal responsibility exists. To do so would be to admit his stance is wrong. Instead it's society's fault he's going to commit another crime and so we should punish all of society by making up arbitrary laws where small groups of people get to determine what "crazy" means and who shouldn't have a gun. You guys in Mass already have this in full retard. It's called "suitability".

Of course Primal will never admit this directly, because it completely destroys his fantasy world where rules restricting the rights of men will only ever be applied in the most pure of purpose way by completely infallible laws systems.

 

[xtry51]

I'm actually having a bad reaction to some medicine and my ears are ringing badly... so the silence on this is truly deafening.

The reason you're not answering is because the implication is obvious; the RKBA is not absolute, you lose it while incarcerated for obvious reasons. So now we're all about where to draw the line.

Are you high? That's some pretty amazing circular logic you're working with their. Perhaps that's why no one is responding.

 

[GunGrey]

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Mods lock this thread. I can't read another thing without bleeding out on my keyboard.

 

[ruhip]

Looks like a nasty cleanup on aisle 6

 

[Quiet]

Are you high? That's some pretty amazing circular logic you're working with their. Perhaps that's why no one is responding.

No, I'm not high. I've asked the same question in various ways at least 6 times without an actual answer. I don't see a circular reference in what I wrote either. but maybe I'm missing what you're seeing since I wrote it.

If the RKBA is absolute, should people who are incarcerated be allowed to carry their firearms? If not, justify it.

 

[Boghog1]

I don't know if it is ok to some on here. I believe somone on here stated straight out that once they got released from jail they SHOULD be allowed to carry. I was floored. So by that mentality a guy who shoots someone for no reason, goes to jail, gets out, then gets handed his gun back to do it again? I get the point some guys are making here with the singling people out. But I'm sorry if your bat shit crazy you deserve to be singled out. Just like if not only are you "capable" but you show a INCLINATION to kill people (by doing it previously or harming poeple, etc.) then you LOSE that right. If these guys/girls want to keep their rights.... don't go crazy or hurt people. Is that much to ask?

why are you letting murderers back out on the streets, ooh that's right we need to put that guy away that was caught twice selling dope, you know the guy who couldn't get a decent job after the first time he was caught with a 1/4 oz of dope so he resorted to selling pot to feed himself and maybe his family. it makes so much more sense to release the murderer that it is obvious was never rehabilitated because our jails are no longer about rehabilitation.

 

[HKdrummer]

No, I'm not high. I've asked the same question in various ways at least 6 times without an actual answer. I don't see a circular reference in what I wrote either. but maybe I'm missing what you're seeing since I wrote it.

If the RKBA is absolute, should people who are incarcerated be allowed to carry their firearms? If not, justify it.

What the **** does that have to do with the rights of a free man? Of course you shouldn't be allowed to have weapons if you're in prison for xyz, you're there because you're a threat to society.

 

[xtry51]

No, I'm not high. I've asked the same question in various ways at least 6 times without an actual answer. I don't see a circular reference in what I wrote either. but maybe I'm missing what you're seeing since I wrote it.

If the RKBA is absolute, should people who are incarcerated be allowed to carry their firearms? If not, justify it.

Sigh....

OK, try this on for size and see if it can slice up that nice little mobius strip your brain is caught running around on.

If people's rights extend beyond their ability to infringe upon other's natural rights, then there's no such thing as an arrest and police shouldn't be allowed to exist because arresting people is really just kidnapping and kidnapping is a clear violation of rights.

Work that one out for us and provide a logical explanation. Bring a lot of weed, because there isn't one.

 

[In God We Trust]

No, I'm not high. I've asked the same question in various ways at least 6 times without an actual answer. I don't see a circular reference in what I wrote either. but maybe I'm missing what you're seeing since I wrote it.

If the RKBA is absolute, should people who are incarcerated be allowed to carry their firearms? If not, justify it.

For what its worth, when you are incarcerated, you lose all your rights. You can be searched at will, you can only read and talk to certain people, etc.

 

[Boghog1]

I'm actually having a bad reaction to some medicine and my ears are ringing badly... so the silence on this is truly deafening.

The reason you're not answering is because the implication is obvious; the RKBA is not absolute, you lose it while incarcerated for obvious reasons. So now we're all about where to draw the line.

the reason a felon has no right to carry a firearm is because he is no longer a free man, he has given up that right through injury to others rights. if he is safe to be let back out into the population that means he is no longer a threat to the population, are you saying he is a threat to the population? if yes why are you letting him out are you stupid?

 

[Quiet]

What the **** does that have to do with the rights of a free man? Of course you shouldn't be allowed to have weapons if you're in prison for xyz, you're there because you're a threat to society.

Where does it say in the constitution that only free men get the protection of the constitution? Where does it say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED unless you're in the hoosegow"?

So it's OK to infringe on the God-given rights of men if you're "a threat to society"?

 

[In God We Trust]

Where does it say in the constitution that only free men get the protection of the constitution? Where does it say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED unless you're in the hoosegow"?

So it's OK to infringe on the God-given rights of men if you're "a threat to society"?

EVen you don't agree with the position you are arguing. Funny thing is that these guys keep arguing with your obvious troll attempt instead of just adding you to the ignore list.

 

[HKdrummer]

Where does it say in the constitution that only free men get the protection of the constitution? Where does it say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED unless you're in the hoosegow"?

So it's OK to infringe on the God-given rights of men if you're "a threat to society"?

Is this real life?

 

[Quiet]

For what its worth, when you are incarcerated, you lose all your rights. You can be searched at will, you can only read and talk to certain people, etc.

Ummm no, you don't. You lose the rights that the state decides to take from you.

So what you're saying is that the state has the right to take your rights from you if they deem you to be a threat to society. They can take away your liberty, they can take away your right to carry, and everything else you mentioned. But you think that they MUST take away your liberty to take away your other rights?

For instance, they couldn't take away your right to associate with other felons if you're not in the pokey?

 

[xtry51]

Where does it say in the constitution that only free men get the protection of the constitution? Where does it say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED unless you're in the hoosegow"?

So it's OK to infringe on the God-given rights of men if you're "a threat to society"?

This is the reason everyone is ignoring you. The constitution recognizes natural rights. Natural rights dictate that if you are attacked, you are allowed to attack in response. A violation of your rights by another allows you to counter and stop said violation by whatever means necessary.

If you can't understand this 1) You're an idiot and 2) no one will engage in further discussions with you because you lack basic logic.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Is this real life?

Srsly

 

[GunGrey]

Where does it say in the constitution that only free men get the protection of the constitution? Where does it say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED unless you're in the hoosegow"?

So it's OK to infringe on the God-given rights of men if you're "a threat to society"?

Ummm no, you don't. You lose the rights that the state decides to take from you.

So what you're saying is that the state has the right to take your rights from you if they deem you to be a threat to society. They can take away your liberty, they can take away your right to carry, and everything else you mentioned. But you think that they MUST take away your liberty to take away your other rights?

For instance, they couldn't take away your right to associate with other felons if you're not in the pokey?

Jesus christ

 

[BerkshireHunter]

I never get my threads locked, even when I ask.

 

[seth72]

If the RKBA is absolute, should people who are incarcerated be allowed to carry their firearms? If not, justify it.

Same reason that we don't let people leave their cell until their time is up even though SCOTUS has recognized "freedom of movement".

Free men can move about. In the same state, to another state, to another country.

Not while they have been removed from society and incarcerated.

If this gives you a boner because you think you've come upon some enlightenment that rights are not absolute. So be it. The rest of us think the fact that prisoners lose their rights while incarcerated is pretty strait forward.

 

[Quiet]

EVen you don't agree with the position you are arguing. Funny thing is that these guys keep arguing with your obvious troll attempt instead of just adding you to the ignore list.

I'm not a troll.

This all started because some people have taken issue with the Supreme's comment that there are NO absolute rights. People get very upset by this because their whole basis for life is shouting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" as if it is an absolute.

I've just shown beyond any doubt whatsoever that the government can in fact, take that right away, and it does so every time they incarcerate someone.

Is there ANY disagreement with that statement?