29 Dec 2012 2:18 pm
teacher
posts
The punishment imposed by the state has ended, prison sentence, parole, probation. Yet, you desire to punish the person throughout the remainder of his life.Punishment has not ended. Jail and parole have ended. The con will have a record for the rest of his life. He will be considered differently from a non-convict in things like employment, military service, insurance, loans, he may be included in a list of suspects for a crime in his area, if he breaks he law again his record will come into play, there may be places a community will not allow him to live. Sex offenders have served their prison and paroles terms yet they still have to register. Hell yea a violent offender will be punished for the rest of his life. Deservedly so. Stick a gun in someones face and rob them then doing x amount of time in jail does not erase the fact that he was the kind of fellow that would stick a gun in someones face and rob them. Few are the times that a person really changes. Behavior can change.The implications of your statement lead me to believe that you considered him dangerous.Fine.Then.A Bulgarian Nun on a missionary job here in America to read to blind orphans does not get to keep and ear arms in America.If the Bill of Rights don't apply to foreigners, can you explain when they are accused of a crime they are required their day in court under the Bill of Rights?apples and orangesAh yes, replace those dictators with people who put in place a constitution where all legislation is based upon Islamic Law. But you know, they get to vote for their subjugation and bondage. Cause voting is what's important. Change the dictator, but make it worse. Wonderful system.I believe it was Churchill that said that democracy was the worst system of government, except for all others.We give the oppressed in other nations to choose their future. If they choose islamic law, so be it. But at least they got to choose it.When it comes to freedom and liberty, you take the good with the bad.ou mean like someone voting themselves islamic law?You compromise once. You compromise again. You compromise again. Then you get the realization that you can't compromise anymore, not because you're gonna hold your ground, but because you already gave them everything.Maybe you should look up the definition of compromise. In compromise you give up sumpin to gain sumpin, so you haven't given all. My compromise is to have non recorded background checks in trade for vast, federal concealed carry laws. What do we lose? Criminals not being able to get their hands on some guns. What do we gain? Buku law abiding folks having greater access to guns. More guns for good guys, less guns for bad guys.In what world is that a bad thing? What have we lost?Since you're arguing the 2nd Amendment, what part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing you?The Founding Father's intent of the second amendment was to keep us free, for us to be able to protect ourselves. I say arming felons goes against that intent.So, to be clear, you advocate that violent felons, foreigners, crazy people and Mehican drug cartel members in the country illegally should be able to purchase weapons in America with zero oversight?And the morale of the story?The liberal says he is not against the 2nd amendment. The liberal says he does not want to take away guns from law abiding citizens. They say they are for "common sense" solutions to curb the deaths. I say bull$h!t. I say everything the liberal does is to castrate the 2nd amendment without repealing the 2nd amendment cause they know that ain't ever gonna get that done. Look at this thread. The liberal wants background checks real bad. This thread clearly shows that the amount of weapons being purchased without a background check is very low. Bushmasters, I don't believe, would be covered under concealed carry laws. I'm not asking the liberal, with my compromise offer, to allow Joe and Marsha, Marsha, Marsha Sixpack to allow me to keep a M-60 in my pants. (Insert penis insults here, you know, derringer/snub nose 22 references, shooting blanks...) I'm asking that the liberal allow more law abiding citizens to be able to carry a pistol under stringent rules. Now, Mr. Swine, this is an internet political debate forum. We ain't gonna make no laws, we ain't gonna legislate nuttin, we ain't gonna change nuttin here. All we can hope to accomplish is to show the other side is full of $h!t. One thing, among others, that I have learned in my years of being The friggin Man on internet political debate forums is that the liberal is fairly easily shown to be full of $h!t. One just has to ask the correct simple questions that the liberal dare not answer less he exposes his true agenda. I don't hope for answers, the liberal knows more betterer by now to answer my questions. Most likely cause I splain all this to them from the get go. So all that is left to the liberal is to not answer my simple questions, or, in this case, address my compromise. Ignoring sumpin at an internet political debate forum is an answer in itself, would you not agree? I've got a thread that gets some few views. This Monkey thread gets some few views. Not a single liberal has touched my compromise offer. Oh, they'll take the background check, but they ain't gonna go near the concealed carry part of the compromise. If they did that would lead to more simple questions. "So, you don't want more law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves yet you claim that you are not against law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves. Why is this?" If they answer that one it will be a crap answer that leads to more simple questions. Eventually they are firmly painted into a corner, at which point they flee the thread and go start another thread on the same topic with the same swill hoping I won't notice. I notice, but I let them slide. What's the point of destroying some idiot twice? We all know what happened the first time. One of my main missions here is to show liberals are liars and hypocrites. An example I love is I offer the compromise of raising taxes on the rich in exchange for a balanced budget amendment. The liberal wont touch that, kinda shows they really don't want a balanced budget, right? And then why don't they want a balanced budget amendment? Cause that would be good for America and the liberal does not want capitalist America to exist as it does. They want socialism/communism/Marxism/statism and a way to accomplish that is to bankrupt America and then say "see, capitalism doesn't work, now try our way." They can't address that, it's a slam dunk. It's a formula that works.All that being said I still don't want violent felons, whackjobs, a Mehican drug cartel member in the country illegally or a Nun from Bulgaria to be sporting a weapon in my nation.