Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 161

Thread: Felon and GCA 1968: Actress cries as she pleads guilty in college admissions scandal

  1. #46
    Senior Member Rep Power: 4
    Reputation: 884
    Rep Level: PDF Colonist
    Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Posts
    581
    Threads
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    27 Post(s)
    As I'm sure you're well aware the Founders made several statements about no free man shall be denied the right to bear arms.......I'm not falling for the bait, much less "hook line and sinker".....folks locked up are NOT free (that would be the entire point of locking them up) I have no issue of WHILE locked up they're denied rights of travel and RTKABA.....once they're set free , they should have ALL their rights (which the .gov doesn't grant anyway, they simply recognize them when they have to do so it seems) IF they're not folks who can be trusted back in society then DO not release them; making more laws has resulted in the overcrowding (which those making BIG $$$ from this Love ) most of our country's past there was no "convicted felon with a gun" charge.....wonder HOW we survived treating free folks exactly like they're free for so very long?

    Again folks should not ignore the many lessons Prohibition has clearly taught us.

  2. #47
    Senior Member Rep Power: 8
    Reputation: 5119
    Rep Level: PDF American
    nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 26th, 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,499
    Threads
    289
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    525 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    COTUS and the BOR don't say that. "Prisoner of the people" is not a constitutional or legal term.

    You have argued that if 2A doesn't say the RTKABA can be restricted, then any restriction in unconstitutional. You can try to have it both ways, but it doesn't work. Either the government has the power to restrict the RTKABA in some circumstances, or it doesn't.
    The power the government was given by the States and the people was limited enumerated and defined. So a better question is, where in COTUS did we the people give the central government the power to ban anything? I'll wait!!!

  3. #48
    Senior Member Rep Power: 8
    Reputation: 5119
    Rep Level: PDF American
    nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 26th, 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,499
    Threads
    289
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    525 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As I'm sure you're well aware the Founders made several statements about no free man shall be denied the right to bear arms.......I'm not falling for the bait, much less "hook line and sinker".....folks locked up are NOT free (that would be the entire point of locking them up) I have no issue of WHILE locked up they're denied rights of travel and RTKABA.....once they're set free , they should have ALL their rights (which the .gov doesn't grant anyway, they simply recognize them when they have to do so it seems) IF they're not folks who can be trusted back in society then DO not release them; making more laws has resulted in the overcrowding (which those making BIG $$$ from this Love ) most of our country's past there was no "convicted felon with a gun" charge.....wonder HOW we survived treating free folks exactly like they're free for so very long?

    Again folks should not ignore the many lessons Prohibition has clearly taught us.
    Hey Ace, hope all is good with you!!! Funny you mention prohibition, seems back then at least they didn't ignore the COTUS, the went through the process of amending it so they could ban alcohol. What has been happening since is another story all together.

  4. #49
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3073
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,351
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As I'm sure you're well aware the Founders made several statements about no free man shall be denied the right to bear arms
    But they did not say "free men" in the document they signed. 2A says, "the people" and obviously prisoners are still people. So obviously you do believe there is a line that can be drawn by the government to deny the RTKABA, which is people in prison (which I agree with, BTW) even though it has no basis in 2A.

    Also, as I'm sure you are aware, when the Founders wrote about "free men" they meant free, white men who were not indentured servants:

    "The rules against owning guns were aimed not just at those nominally deemed “slaves” in America; they were aimed at all subjected peoples. The text of Virginia’s first slave code applied the same restriction to “free” blacks and indentured servants (mostly Irish Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians, but also criminals). Nearly all other Southern slave-holding states copied Virginia’s lead, passing laws banning the ownership of guns for both slave and free African-Americans. These laws stayed in effect and were updated after independence from Britain,"
    "The Racist Origin of America’s Gun Control Laws" -The New American, Tuesday, 09 September 2014

    BTW, the Virginia Slave Code was in effect the day the BOR was signed and continued in effect afterwards, including its infringements on the RTKABA for freemen in the classes mentioned. The Founders would have known that well because the slave codes of several other states was based on it. So the signers of the BOR had lines that they were drawing on the RTKABA, contrary to what they wrote and what they signed.

  5. #50
    Senior Member Rep Power: 12
    Reputation: 8991
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,274
    Threads
    79
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    985 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But they did not say "free men" in the document they signed. 2A says, "the people" and obviously prisoners are still people. So obviously you do believe there is a line that can be drawn by the government to deny the RTKABA, which is people in prison (which I agree with, BTW) even though it has no basis in 2A.

    Also, as I'm sure you are aware, when the Founders wrote about "free men" they meant free, white men who were not indentured servants:

    "The rules against owning guns were aimed not just at those nominally deemed “slaves” in America; they were aimed at all subjected peoples. The text of Virginia’s first slave code applied the same restriction to “free” blacks and indentured servants (mostly Irish Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians, but also criminals). Nearly all other Southern slave-holding states copied Virginia’s lead, passing laws banning the ownership of guns for both slave and free African-Americans. These laws stayed in effect and were updated after independence from Britain,"
    "The Racist Origin of America’s Gun Control Laws" -The New American, Tuesday, 09 September 2014

    BTW, the Virginia Slave Code was in effect the day the BOR was signed and continued in effect afterwards, including its infringements on the RTKABA for freemen in the classes mentioned. The Founders would have known that well because the slave codes of several other states was based on it. So the signers of the BOR had lines that they were drawing on the RTKABA, contrary to what they wrote and what they signed.
    The RTKABA was not granted by the founders not the 2A.
    That is not just my opinion but a fact upheld by the courts including SCOTUS.

    It can only be infringed or taken by force or the threat of force, as in the case of criminals submitting to arrest before death.

    Might however doesn't make right in such matters where a God given right is stolen and seldom do the oppressed tolerate it more than a few decades.

    The RTKABA is limited not by any law since all such laws,are,repugnant to the COTUS and void.

    It's only limted by the use or threat of force illegally applied to limit it. Such is the case with free felons. And prisoners of the people.

  6. #51
    Asst. Administrator Rep Power: 100
    Reputation: 7182
    Rep Level: PDF American
    DogWalksWithMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,702
    Threads
    365
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    954 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    COTUS and the BOR don't say that. "Prisoner of the people" is not a constitutional or legal term.
    But Due Process is.

    ​No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

  7. #52
    Senior Member Rep Power: 7
    Reputation: 3665
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,053
    Threads
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    526 Post(s)
    Martha Stewart is a felon. She should not be, but she is.

    She spoke to a Federal Employee on her porch that was asking her questions about her investments. She told him she did not know as she had a guy that did that stuff for her. The agent was persistent and asked her to answer to the best of her knowledge. She fell for it and tried to answer his questions. Then, when her investment guy was questioned, the answers were not perfectly aligned.

    So they charged her with lying to a Federal Agent, a felony.

    She had told the guy at her door that she was not sure but they did not care.

    She should not have been put in jail and she definitely should not have been hit with a felony.

    Does anyone think Martha Stewart is a danger to society?

  8. #53
    Senior Member Rep Power: 4
    Reputation: 881
    Rep Level: PDF Colonist
    Arthur H's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31st, 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    529
    Threads
    4
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    69 Post(s)
    First let me say that I believe prison should be punishment and not an alternative resort. People in prison should hate being there.

    If felons have successfully concluded all of the terms of their incarceration--prison, probation, halfway house, counseling, etc., they should be as free as any other free person. The wages of their sin against society should have been paid in full. Though recidivism is likely, the opportunity exists for the freed felon to make a societally contributive use of his/her restored liberty. As it stands now, a convicted felon serves a life sentence. When I was in college, I was taught that one of the reasons that indeterminate sentencing was harmful to the desired rehabilitative process of incarceration was because the convict never knew when they would be set free and so, hardened them further against society and increased the likelihood of recidivism. If true to some degree or another, I think that can be extrapolated out to the "life sentence" feature of a putatively freed felon. It's silly to presume that a permanent second-class person would ever want to rejoin society and adhere to its highest norms when he/she can never in fact do so. This to me seems a guaranteed path back to a life of crime. Imagine, being free on the street but never really being free would serve only to rub a person's nose in that fact and feed resentment.

    I remember being punished as a child. I was often spanked and set apart from the family for a period of time. Being told that I could come out when my parent said when I could come out was harder on me that being given a definite time period. Anyway, when the temporary banishment was over, I was once again restored to the family. The price had been paid. On an elemental level, I believe that process works for adults as well.

  9. #54
    Curmudgeon Rep Power: 20
    Reputation: 28626
    Rep Level: PDF Gold Member
    OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    12,761
    Threads
    189
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2227 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RScottie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Does anyone think Martha Stewart is a danger to society?
    If one is susceptible to being bored to death, yeah.
    Official Forum Curmudgeon Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself.
    Tact: The skill of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

  10. #55
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3073
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,351
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The RTKABA was not granted by the founders not the 2A.
    That is not just my opinion but a fact upheld by the courts including SCOTUS.

    It can only be infringed or taken by force or the threat of force, as in the case of criminals submitting to arrest before death.

    Might however doesn't make right in such matters where a God given right is stolen and seldom do the oppressed tolerate it more than a few decades.

    The RTKABA is limited not by any law since all such laws,are,repugnant to the COTUS and void.

    It's only limted by the use or threat of force illegally applied to limit it. Such is the case with free felons. And prisoners of the people.
    Since you have now fallen back to the "COTUS and the BOR doesn't grant rights" argument it seems you have backed off of the idea that 2A actually does not protect against all infringements. I have provided references that it never has done so from day one.

    And thanks for referencing SCOTUS because in that same decision, they allowed that there is room for reasonable restrictions. Either SCOTUS is authoritative or it is not.
    Last edited by jmf552; May 15th, 2019 at 03:43 PM.

  11. #56
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3073
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,351
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RScottie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Does anyone think Martha Stewart is a danger to society?
    She voted for Hillary. She collaborated with druggie and violent criminal Snoop Dogg. And she just irritates me. So, yes.

  12. #57
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3073
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,351
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nlyric View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The power the government was given by the States and the people was limited enumerated and defined. So a better question is, where in COTUS did we the people give the central government the power to ban anything? I'll wait!!!
    The first time they did ban something and we complied, we passively agreed they had the authority to do it. COTUS became irrelevant on that issue, at that point.

  13. #58
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3073
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,351
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DogWalksWithMe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But Due Process is.
    Glad you brought that up. Due process helps make my argument. Why would we have due process in the BOR if we were not at the same time granting the central government the ability to pass laws and enforce them? Clearly, COTUS enumerated that authority in Articles 1-3 and limited, but did not eliminate that authority with 4A and 5A.

  14. #59
    Senior Member Rep Power: 12
    Reputation: 8991
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,274
    Threads
    79
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    985 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Since you have now fallen back to the "COTUS and the BOR doesn't grant rights" argument it seems you have backed off of the idea that 2A actually does not protect against all infringements. I have provided references that it never has done so from day one.

    And thanks for referencing SCOTUS because in that same decision, they allowed that there is room for reasonable restrictions. Either SCOTUS is authoritative or it is not.
    SCOTUS is a blind squirrel that occasionally finds a,nut.

    No I haven't backed off anything.

    Fact . RTKABA preexisted this nation by thousands,of years. The founders nor the 2a grant it not does gov have the authority to limit it. As clearly written in the 2A.

    SCOTUS has never opined anything but that fact and that any law repugnant to the COTUS is null and boid.

    The big question is,why some gun owners so strongly try to argue the anti gunners side.

  15. #60
    Senior Member Rep Power: 12
    Reputation: 6133
    Rep Level: PDF American
    Nakyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Under the Twister
    Posts
    4,311
    Threads
    72
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1474 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    The big question is,why some gun owners so strongly try to argue the anti gunners side.
    I've wondered the same thing in more than a few threads here, and elsewhere.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •