Limbaugh Blames NYC Shooting On Obama

Don Quixote said:
are you saying that all cops are members of a street gang
Click to expand...
with the exception of the VERY FEW that report misconduct or violations and unfortunately, they get drummed out real quick. otherwise, yes. all cops are members of a street gang. they will cover for other cops that do wrong, or at least remain silent about it which is just as bad.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
did I say NO departments? or just MOST departments? and since this incident just occurred, we can't tell if this will be compiled in an annual stat or report yet, can we? not only that, but I couldn't find an annual report for bystanders shot by NYPD, could you? so I guess you're not as smart as I am.

the next thing that should be approached is should each officer in the country be required to buy a million dollar insurance policy to protect the citizens from random police gunfire? if it's good for the citizens, wouldn't it be better for the police? think of how much tax payer settlement money that could save.
Click to expand...

or cost as it would have to be paid by taxpayers either directly or indirectly by an increase in police salaries and would encourage more lawsuits

oh well
 
And there is supposedly no police misconduct in SmarterThanFew's neighborhood, for some reason...
 
Don Quixote said:
it was sarcasm
Click to expand...

It wasn't when the board drunk said it. He was lying.

King of Owls said:
yes, colorado is a rather liberal state.
Click to expand...


Colorado has a history of broad support for Second Amendment rights.


Colorado law still prohibits local governments from restricting gun rights in several significant ways.


People in Colorado are allowed to carry firearms in a vehicle, loaded or unloaded...


Carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit, but Colorado is among those states whose rules on permits are relatively lax...


Colorado is one of 38 “shall issue” states.


James Holmes, 24, the former neuroscience student believed to be the lone gunman in Friday’s shootings in Aurora, armed himself with an assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun to allegedly kill 12 and wound 59 others, many critically.


All were weapons that would probably be legal for him to possess.


Luke O’Dell, a spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado-based group that fights gun control measures, said private gun restrictions may well have had “tragic consequences” in the shootings.


He noted that the theater chain that owns the Aurora movie house bans firearms on the premises, and said that if other patrons had been legally able to carry weapons, the death toll might have been less.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-gun-laws-remain-lax-despite-changes-after-columbine.html



[url]http://www.rmgo.org/gun-law-faqs
[/URL]
 
\\((|))// said:

It wasn't when the board drunk said it. He was lying.




Colorado has a history of broad support for Second Amendment rights.


Colorado law still prohibits local governments from restricting gun rights in several significant ways.
Click to expand...
denver gets to prohibit open carry though, since they seem to be special
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.rip.uscourts.gov/rip/supervision/firearmpossession/FirearmPossessionProhibition.pdf

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922[g][1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms,
ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a
$250,000 fine. Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release)
makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted
to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
(8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person
participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening
an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the
person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits
the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or
partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Click to expand...

That's because as a felon, they have certain rights restricted.
Once their rights are reinstated, then this is of no consequence.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That's because as a felon, they have certain rights restricted.
Once their rights are reinstated, then this is of no consequence.
Click to expand...

The one that bothers me is the last one. I am in no way defending anyone who beats on a woman. But to lose a fundamental constitutional right because of a misdemeanor seems extreme.
 
WinterBorn said:
The one that bothers me is the last one. I am in no way defending anyone who beats on a woman. But to lose a fundamental constitutional right because of a misdemeanor seems extreme.
Click to expand...

So wife beaters should have the access to items that can inflict extreme damage?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So wife beaters should have the access to items that can inflict extreme damage?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they already do. I doubt many of them are without knives, cars, or even dangerous chemicals.

My point is that a constitutional right is taken away based on a misdemeanor conviction. No one likes wife beaters any more than people like child molesters or whatever. If the crime is so bad that they should lose a constitutional right, make it a felony.

Also, from what I have read, getting those rights back is much harder than for a convicted felon to regain their rights. That doesn't make much sense.
 
WinterBorn said:
The one that bothers me is the last one. I am in no way defending anyone who beats on a woman. But to lose a fundamental constitutional right because of a misdemeanor seems extreme.
Click to expand...

i would too, except to many wife beaters go on to become wife killers, frequently with a firearm

a close friend of mines sister was killed by her husband with a shotgun in a murder/suicide when she told him that she was leaving him

also, while wife beating is assault (sometimes with a deadly weapon (like a baseball bat or the fists of a much larger person)), it is classified as a misdemeanor in too many jurisdictions
 
WinterBorn said:
I'm sure they already do. I doubt many of them are without knives, cars, or even dangerous chemicals.

My point is that a constitutional right is taken away based on a misdemeanor conviction. No one likes wife beaters any more than people like child molesters or whatever. If the crime is so bad that they should lose a constitutional right, make it a felony.

Also, from what I have read, getting those rights back is much harder than for a convicted felon to regain their rights. That doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

lets also remember that domestic violence seems to be the one thing that the courts are in support of using ex post facto in removal of your firearms rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top