3rd Circuit A DUI can cost you your Second Amendment rights

Boats · Jan 27, 2020

RoadDawg said:
So you have no issues with allowing irresponsible people who have demonstrated over and over that they do not GAF about ANYONE but themselves by placing other folks lives in peril on MULTIPLE occasions... to have the same "rights" as we who have NOT shown such a cavalier and irresponsible trait.

By that logic... Patients in mental Hospitals are citizens too... let's give them ALL guns and see how long it takes for you to realize that Rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES. And those who are not responsible and endanger the lives of other for their own lusts and addictions... should have those rights revisited to prevent the carnage they would visit upon the innocent and law abiding members of society.

I do agree with you that right do come with responsibility. I do.

I am saying that we as a people are both quick to judge and quick to permanently remove rights.

I would agree that his priveledge to drive should be revoked for a good long while, if not forever. But his right to own firearms? nope.

And your (strawman or slippery slope) argument of mentally deficient people doesn't really apply here.

Lalez · Jan 27, 2020

Reading this post is just cringe, I'm literally amazed that you Marylanders have ANY gun rights left at all with some of your views.

danb · Jan 27, 2020

Boats said:
I am not arguing whether or not DUI is or is not a crime. It is, and should be.

I am arguing that, as heinous as it is, it does not warrant the PERMANENT removal of RIGHTS.

Should people who drink/drive be punished? Yes. Should they be punished further if they hurt or kill someone else while drink/driving? Also yes. Should their rights be permanently removed?

No.

What I actually said:

danb said:
I have mixed feelings about this. Dont drink and drive! its easy enough to avoid this problem. You could kill someone, so as a rule the penalty is going to be (and should be) as harsh as it needs to be to deter people from DUI, up to and including the loss of some or all of your rights. I do not think that imposing such a penalty (>2 years, loss of rights, etc) is unconstitutional. Dont. Drink. And. Drive. easy-peasy. I do not have much sympathy for people who complain about the penalty for this.

Now, where it gets sticky is permanent loss of rights. If you have done the time, paid your fines, and a significant amount of time has elapsed without any recurring behavior, your rights should be restored.

Inigoes · Jan 27, 2020

Boats said:
I would agree that his priveledge to drive should be revoked for a good long while, if not forever. But his right to own firearms? nope.

And your (strawman or slippery slope) argument of mentally deficient people doesn't really apply here.

Using the above positions:
it's okay for the Plaintiff to hurl a 1/2 ounce projectile 1250 FPS at a target, and it is not okay for the Plaintiff to direct a 1-2 ton projectile @ 88 FPS?

The right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention anything about being sober either.

The plaintiff's repeated poor choices, are what did him in in the eyes of the court.

KevinK · Jan 27, 2020

Inigoes said:
Using the above positions:
it's okay for the Plaintiff to hurl a 1/2 ounce projectile 1250 FPS at a target, and it is not okay for the Plaintiff to direct a 1-2 ton projectile @ 88 FPS?

The right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention anything about being sober either.

The plaintiff's repeated poor choices, are what did him in in the eyes of the court.

He can always walk.

2A = arms

Travel does not equal car.

RoadDawg · Jan 28, 2020

KevinK said:
He can always walk.

2A = arms

Travel does not equal car.

What do you care if the irresponsible habitual drunk hits you or your loved one with a car or a bullet? Either in the hands of a dangerous person is going to be tragic.

Rights? What about the rights of the victims of these pukes who think only of themselves?

How is it that habitual drunks with cars are a danger... but habitual drunks with guns are NOT???

adit · Jan 28, 2020

If they are that much of a danger they should be incarcerated or institutionalized.

RoadDawg · Jan 28, 2020

adit said:
If they are that much of a danger they should be incarcerated or institutionalized.

Well then... when do you start incarcerating the tens of thousand of new prisoners/mental patients who are so criminally driven or mentally uninterested... that your life means NOTHING to them other than one more person in their way when they want to do what pleases them at your expense.

It's a pretty thought to say... "If they are that much of a danger they should be incarcerated or institutionalized." But the actual practice of doing so is quickly realized to be impossible to afford. And... NO court in our land is going to agree to imprison/institutionalize that many people who have otherwise not committed any crime which warrants a lifetime sentence.

adit · Jan 28, 2020

RoadDawg said:
Well then... when do you start incarcerating the tens of thousand of new prisoners/mental patients who are so criminally driven or mentally uninterested... that your life means NOTHING to them other than one more person in their way when they want to do what pleases them at your expense.

It's a pretty thought to say... "If they are that much of a danger they should be incarcerated or institutionalized." But the actual practice of doing so is quickly realized to be impossible to afford. And... NO court in our land is going to agree to imprison/institutionalize that many people who have otherwise not committed any crime which warrants a lifetime sentence.

Turning this around, today it is a DUI. Tomorrow it is a speeding ticket; speech run afoul; protesting the govt.

It is either a God-given right or it is not. Choose wisely.

Inigoes · Jan 29, 2020

KevinK said:
He can always walk.

2A = arms

Travel does not equal car.

If that is the case, the plaintiff can use Black powder or tasers.

They are not considered firearms.

KevinK · Jan 29, 2020

Inigoes said:
If that is the case, the plaintiff can use Black powder or tasers.

They are not considered firearms.

I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine.

The right to keep and bear is in the Constitution.

You say travel is also, I don't doubt you. But the right to drive a car is not.

Again, neither will change the other's mind, so I won't respond again.

If one is free to walk the streets one should be free to keep and bear arms.

Inigoes · Jan 29, 2020

KevinK said:
If one is free to walk the streets one should be free to keep and bear arms.

I do agree with this statement in general.

I have little sympathy for addicts of all kinds. Some of my views are in the extreme like: believing in capital punishment, which would reduce the inmate population. Maybe, if there were less inmates doing life, there might be room to keep the others in for their full sentence.

But then again, society is kinder and gentler now-a-days. Allowing for perps to have the ability to hurt good people over and over...

RoadDawg · Jan 29, 2020

adit said:
Turning this around, today it is a DUI. Tomorrow it is a speeding ticket; speech run afoul; protesting the govt.

It is either a God-given right or it is not. Choose wisely.

Why refuse to admit that there really are some humans who are too dangerous to the other humans... and therefore must not be allowed the means to rain down destruction on whom ever displeases them when they are drunk/high/uncontrollably angry out of their minds.

I fight for the rights of the innocent and the honest folks who act responsibly.

By criminal action or by mental defect... those who show and prove themselves irresponsible AND a danger to themselves and others... are the enemies of freedoms, rights, and the welfare of us all. I refuse to argue for their ability to possess the tools of the destruction of others.

adit · Jan 29, 2020

RoadDawg said:
Why refuse to admit that there really are some humans who are too dangerous to the other humans... and therefore must not be allowed the means to rain down destruction on whom ever displeases them when they are drunk/high/uncontrollably angry out of their minds.

I fight for the rights of the innocent and the honest folks who act responsibly.

By criminal action or by mental defect... those who show and prove themselves irresponsible AND a danger to themselves and others... are the enemies of freedoms, rights, and the welfare of us all. I refuse to argue for their ability to possess the tools of the destruction of others.

I agree. They are dangerous. They should not be on the road to cause harm. They should be incarcerated.

In El Salvador, a conviction for DUI can be as severe as the Death Penalty. We can even keep them in jail here. :sad20:

3rd Circuit A DUI can cost you your Second Amendment rights

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Boats

Broken Member

Lalez

Active Member

danb

dont be a dumbass

Inigoes

Head'n for the hills

KevinK

Ultimate Member

RoadDawg

Nos nostraque Deo

adit

ReMember

RoadDawg

Nos nostraque Deo

adit

ReMember

Inigoes

Head'n for the hills

KevinK

Ultimate Member

Inigoes

Head'n for the hills

RoadDawg

Nos nostraque Deo

adit

ReMember

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page