RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 10:30:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit? [8|]





Please don't trivialize domestic abuse by saying things like this.

I've lost three people from my life because their abuser violated the restraining order and killed them.

As a gun owner, even I think this makes sense. It's temporary while under investigation...which is true of many things.



No trivialization here what so ever and you should not paint it that way.

I have lost friends too, that does not change my position.

The state has no authority to simply come in and clean out your weapons simply because a restraining order was taken out against you nor is there any authorization for a shrink to be judge and jury to qualify anyone to have a weapon.

Sadly it has to remain that way to prevent nibblers from nibbling away at the edges like they did with everything else such as due process and the 'original' intent of the law as they have done to completely reverse its meaning in many cases or render it functionally useless.

Now if you can come up with a way to prevent the nibbling and slicing away (despite that is what you are doing) then I am all ears.

Until then there are other laws that cover these matters instead of immediately pointing the finger at a gun and stomping on 'reserved' [iow *not* granted] rights.

Taking away guns is always the first target while many other solutions exist




mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 10:35:01 AM)

and an enumeration of these solutions are in order of efficacy:


????




Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 10:42:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit? [8|]

Yeah. Sign me up for that sh^t.

Last June, I walked into Howard County, District A court, WITH a judgement from the SHARP office, 94 electronic files, and every bit of courage I could muster. Do you know what I got? Sore feet from wearing a pair of heels, and a very apologetic man in a black robe saying, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Rxxxxx. This court can't help you."

Please feel free to tell me about 'trumped up' bullshit. If all it took was to be a good enough liar, I'd work my tail off to be an actress.





I have no idea what you put before the court, iow I would actually need to review the paperwork and the laws in your state and compare them. Courts are like door locks, you have the have the proper key to properly open the lock. The scum bag BAR 'association' and friends have long since done away with justices of the peace in the original sense who had wide discretion to read interpret your complaint and those courts no longer exist and today even small claims courts are infested with attorneys which totally changed the nature of the judical system. Like the previous post your problem may lie elsewhere for all I know and it is impossible to make any kind of solid dertermination whithout examining your paperwork, but it that judge treated it that way then I expect you had the wrong key sorry to hear.




Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 10:43:28 AM)

got a translation for that cryptic nonsense?




kdsub -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 10:50:09 AM)

In the latest Supreme court ruling on the second amendment the Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Butch




mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 10:54:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

got a translation for that cryptic nonsense?


its in response to the horseshit you posted. You got a list of those solutions that you said there were and give it in order of best solution to worst.

Nothing cryptic about it, the only nonsense is the horseshit you posted.




Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 11:02:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit? [8|]



Sir, I am long on record as being a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. So, I won't take this as one of your usual attempts at discrediting by ridicule.

I will say this: I made my position quite clear, but let me take a different tack (hopefully not into the wind):

Your "argument" which I quoted above seems (to me) to be that "everyone else's rights" are being "violated". Let me say I own two handguns and a rifle (There's bears in dese here hills).

When some people are accused of homicide, murder, (I think even) some rapes, they're held without bail. It is (I feel) a legitimate (temporary) move to ensure the public safety.

I also wish to remind you that my post included this:


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

... I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not.





People who are living with weapon owners that may be violent are in proximity to danger. However, I believe that each situation is different and that they should be taken that way; not covered by a one-size-fits-all law. I know how easy it is to be accused of domestic violence with no foundation in fact. I surrendered my weapons for a total of five days. They were returned, outside the courtroom when the ignorant bitch was shown to be a liar.

Please read everything I type before cherry picking the hay for your strawman bullshit.



Michael




I am glad you didnt take it that way since it was not intended that way.


quote:

Your "argument" which I quoted above seems (to me) to be that "everyone else's rights" are being "violated". Let me say I own two handguns and a rifle (There's bears in dese here hills).

When some people are accused of homicide, murder, (I think even) some rapes, they're held without bail. It is (I feel) a legitimate (temporary) move to ensure the public safety.


Public safety? In order to be 'public' it would be legally required to affect the population at large, and it seems to me this would be a private affair between 2 individuals purely exclusive of the 'public'. I assume you intended to use some other description?


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

... I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not.





The flaw in the above of course is precrime thought policing. In other words a 'violation of due process'. Without a threat to commit murder or cause some kind of harm there is no probable cause for any action, hence no case, hence unlawful with respect to the constitution and the law it was created under which is the only 'possible' way any action can lawfully be taken against the gun owner.

Like so many state actions today which are a pure violation of peoples rights.

quote:

People who are living with weapon owners that may be violent are in proximity to danger. However, I believe that each situation is different and that they should be taken that way; not covered by a one-size-fits-all law. I know how easy it is to be accused of domestic violence with no foundation in fact. I surrendered my weapons for a total of five days. They were returned, outside the courtroom when the ignorant bitch was shown to be a liar.

Please read everything I type before cherry picking the hay for your strawman bullshit.



I hope you sued for damages, once proven. They had no authority to take anything until her accusation was proven in court. We are talking legal now, not tea time talking here. Making allowances where they do not exist in the original design has proven to be the cancerous corruption that has put and now keeps the people of this nation on their knees. Hence my position and fix the root cause of the problem which is not a gun in most cases and or do not violate our rights in doing so. What you suggested was a 'procedural' violation which which leads to a rights violation which is why I made the point. [:D]




Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 11:06:45 AM)

I should have known, just another typical pointless snotty tail drive by rant.




Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 11:08:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

In the latest Supreme court ruling on the second amendment the Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Butch



Oh? thats what the supreme court says?

Butch care to tell me where the creemee supreeemeees have the jurisdiction to adjudicate much less regulate a reserved right? [8|]


So what that means is that all I need from you is 'one' presumption, just one.


I have not been aboe to come up with one yet so you would be doing me a big favor.


Oh and feel free to quote them if you like or feel they have a bonafide 'presumption' that can be made against a reserved right.








bounty44 -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 11:11:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

<Fast Reply>
Fourteen? Really? I could go to Stanford tomorrow and find that many people in a DV shelter. Knock it off.



"fourteen" was quoted in reference to domestic homicides, not domestic violence.




Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 11:16:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

<Fast Reply>
Fourteen? Really? I could go to Stanford tomorrow and find that many people in a DV shelter. Knock it off.



"fourteen" was quoted in reference to domestic homicides, not domestic violence.




yeh the idea that suicides be counted in gun ban agenda that Lucy would have is patently ridiculous since those who commit suicide have been shown to choose another method so guns are not of consequence.

I suppose we would rather they do like one gal did and take out 3 others by driving down the freeway in the wrong direction as one of several 'better' methods to accomplish suicide.




mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 11:37:20 AM)

quote:



Taking away guns is always the first target while many other solutions exist


More RealZero imbecilic slobber post 42. Now its cryptic, a rant he says.




kdsub -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 2:53:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

In the latest Supreme court ruling on the second amendment the Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Butch



Oh? thats what the supreme court says?

Butch care to tell me where the creemee supreeemeees have the jurisdiction to adjudicate much less regulate a reserved right? [8|]


So what that means is that all I need from you is 'one' presumption, just one.


I have not been aboe to come up with one yet so you would be doing me a big favor.


Oh and feel free to quote them if you like or feel they have a bonafide 'presumption' that can be made against a reserved right.








You know you are not making sense ... I pulled the quote directly from their judgement... if you don't like it see if they will take up your case. Until then they have the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution... not you.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 4:38:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
More people killed by cars than guns. Shouldn't they confiscate cars of people accused of domestic abuse?


What's the comparison of domestic violence deaths caused by guns vs. cars?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 4:40:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Fourteen? Really? I could go to Stanford tomorrow and find that many people in a DV shelter. Knock it off.


You're going to go to a DV shelter and find more than 14 cases of domestic abuse homicides?!?




Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 5:04:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

In the latest Supreme court ruling on the second amendment the Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Butch



Oh? thats what the supreme court says?

Butch care to tell me where the creemee supreeemeees have the jurisdiction to adjudicate much less regulate a reserved right? [8|]


So what that means is that all I need from you is 'one' presumption, just one.


I have not been aboe to come up with one yet so you would be doing me a big favor.


Oh and feel free to quote them if you like or feel they have a bonafide 'presumption' that can be made against a reserved right.








You know you are not making sense ... I pulled the quote directly from their judgement... if you don't like it see if they will take up your case. Until then they have the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution... not you.



Of course if you dont do your homework how would you expect me to make sense to you? Its fine to cite authority as your free ticket to ride, but then you are in the same breath conceding that you cannot support the position in argument when challenged.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/judiciary_act.asp

So being the helpful kinda person I am there is the link where congress authorized the courts and duties therein. I do not see any authority to ajudicate or legislate anything with regard to our express rights. But by all means cite where they have been granted the authority and or jurisdiction to adjudicate much less regulate the rights we expressly declared [and they stipulated] are off limits to judicial purview?

If you express that you have the right to breath where does the other party have the authority or jurisdiction to regulate how you breathe and worse how does the other party get the 'final' say on the meaning of the contract?


So you have one party to the contract [da gubmint] who is the sole judge of the contract and the other party [you me us] can simply fuck ourselves if we do not like the da gubmints boilerplate version.

For real butch? you buy that shit? That is what you are trying to tell me you know.

Where does the supreemeeeos (or the legislature or congress for that matter) get the 'legitimate' jurisdiction to regulate an expressly reserved and 'stipulated to' right?




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 6:00:05 PM)

quote:

Butch care to tell me where the creemee supreeemeees have the jurisdiction to adjudicate much less regulate a reserved right?

Care to tell us where they do not?




Butler2024 -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 6:16:28 PM)

SO here is the real question...is the Bill of Rights incorporated, or unincorporated. I am in the camp that says it is unincorporated--Meaning the supreme court cannot rule on state laws, because states of Constitutions, and rights too. This means it is well within the state of CT's rights to ban ALL guns. Under the 2nd Amendement the federal government has no right to even so much as banning a bazooka. Now before all the moron liberals get upset about this, tell me one state that would allow their citizens to have a bazooka. The Bill of Rights was conscripted to limit the powers of the Federal government, while our founders understood that states rights were plenary.




mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 6:18:58 PM)

Nope. The plain English and the intent is and was that the Fed will regulate (and particularly the people) or suffer the state regulation (within limits) of arms.




Termyn8or -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/5/2016 6:49:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Butch care to tell me where the creemee supreeemeees have the jurisdiction to adjudicate much less regulate a reserved right?

Care to tell us where they do not?


I'll field that one : everywhere.

Their job is to enforce the Constitution. They did right with Castle Law, not so right with Citizens United but for better or worse that is their interpretation of the Constitution.

Castle Law Doctrine is based on one of the ten inclusive, that means the first ten amendments. I do not agree with Citizens United though because nowhere in the Constitution is the right to bribe public officials.

And somewhere actually in the Constitution are the words to the effect that noone can be deprived without due process. Some broad walking into the clerk or courts office because her Husband told her to go fuck off and she wants to throw him out of his own house is NOT due process.

If you are going to deprive people of rights, let's figure out who. A guy sell a quarter pound of weed for example, that is not violence whatsoever, in fact it should be legal. now if he attacked someone and put them in the hospital that is a different story. Your second DUI in Indiana is a felony, even if you really were OK to drive but exceeded the limit. no accident, no victim, I see no crime here.

They can make anything a felony. They canmake not cutting your grass a felony.

This is the problem with deprivation of rights, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. In fact give them a femtometer and they'll take a parsec.

The problem is it always seems to go the same way. Deprivation of rights does not ebb and flow like the tide. They get tot a certain point and all they see is how much farther they can go. The addiction to power is like any other addiction, insatiable. Same with money. The Rothschild family wealth is most conservatively estimated by Credit Suisse at $230 trillion. That is trillion, not billion or million. Alot of it is invested. Real estate holding and whatever, and there is probably a big pile of gold somewhere nobody else knows about, but they still strive to make money. You think in the businesses they control they pay better because they can ? Fuck no, no rich people do that. And rich is not even the word.

And democracy does not equal freedom. If I were dictator of this country you would have alot more rights than you have now. But then you have no reason to believe me. Or anyone who says such a things.

Therefore governments are instituted. Governments are intended to protect people's rights, not take them away. Unfortunately because of the psychology of mankind it does not work that way in practice. It say it in that forgery called The Protocols - every Man would be a dictator if he could.

But the implication is beyond that. When someone gets power they think they are the boss, the leader and are the smartest and the bestest and going to show the country a ew and better way. The fact is a true leader is a servant.

Really smart and moral people might not want to lead. If you are a leader and you lead wrong, you are responsible, in fact GUILTY of whatever goes wrong. You have to think out your decisions and not try to make them correctly, you MUST make them correctly. If not, you got the fucking mess we're in now. You got wars and all kinds of shit.

They say we should have picked our own cotton, well OK but we should have pumped our own oil too then. People in the middle east would not call us the Great Satan, they would not be grooming terrorists eery day. In fact they would not have the money, and that means they would not have had the money to feed enough kids to become 2/7ths of the whole world. There would be a hell of alot less of them.

How did the US get the right to invade South American countries backin the early 1900s ? (research Smedly Butler for a starter course on that shit) The answer is they did not. All that shit was illegal and is why we got HFCS instead of real sugar in Coca Cola. I am not oging into the details right now but suffice it to say, THEY DO NOT LIKE US. And they never forget. The Arabians are never going to forget the house of Saud we support against their will. the Iraqis are never going to forget Saddam that we imposed on them against their will. The Iranians are never going to forget the Shah we imposed on them against their will.

But in eight years, stupid USians are going to forget the asshole that the political parties forced on us against our will.

But I won't. I'll remember it to the day I die. I remember what it used to be like. People had respect. We had guns in the glove box, which is why cops were the most nervous asking for your registration (not even insurance) back then. Today, unfortunately there are some people who will shoot someone over a parking spot. (AT A FUCKING GYM NO LESS, yup, get the closest space you can to go take an elevator up to use the treadmill and stairmaster) Fucking goofy.

But the only way to solve this is to let them pull their piece and do their thing and then kill them. I support Castle Law and the right to kill if someone breaks in. I also support the death penalty but only when there is no doubt of guilt. This removes these animals from the gene pool and betters the human race.

Those who do not want to better the human race have a serious defect. What fucking kind of world do you want for your kids ? Or any future generations. Do you have to have kids to care ?

The main problem is people are immature. She wants him to change but he won't, he wants her to stay the same but she won't. Instead of working it out they argue, and I don't mean argue like people do online or just talking, I mean like a verbal fight. Then the insults come out. Then anger takes over and the vindictiveness is amazing. I know a guy whose olady told him she had a restraining order on him but she didn't, then filed for divorce on grounds of abandonment.

It has to stop. It is not going to receded, it is only going to advance until we need a license to take a piss. They are already charging us for air. Yup, what do you think happens to all that money from the carbon credits ?

We have nothing but the right to have guns, free speech and that means to say D6MRD. What else. They don't need a warrant for anything, the fifth is gone, even states are fighting them over tenth amendment rights.

I want them to do NOTHING. NOT ONE MORE THING. Someone said that nobody's life or liberty are safe when congress is in session. They were right. Every new law is the removal of a right. Requiring a license is to make it illegal and then award a special privilege, for a fee of course.

T^T




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625