[speechlesstx]

Obviously you don't give a damn about public safety and cannot see that giving an arrested fellow the right to buy a gun is a lousy idea.

People get arrested for lots of things, it doesn't mean they're violent, it doesn't mean they'll ever be convicted of anything nor does it mean they lose their constitutional rights. What's so difficult to understand about that? Which constitutional rights do you lose just for being arrested??? Hmmm???

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Man, oh man, don't those twists HURT??? Do you DENY that we have FREEDOM of movement, and if your passport is withheld, that freedom is denied you???

Never mind.. I can see that you won't be deterred until EVERYBODY, including the likes of me, and some NOT so nice, are WELL ARMED. I can't wait.

excon

[speechlesstx]

So you do have a constitutional right to a passport? Where is that found exactly?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The Ninth Amendment... What? You STILL deny that you have the right to move about as you wish?? They do that in North Korea, and the failed Soviet Union. We don't do that..

excon

[speechlesstx]

I don't need a passport to drive to Lubbock, do you? The point is the cops would have the discretion to determine who are "unsuitable persons" based purely on the fact they've been arrested, in spite of no conviction. It means they could prevent you from buying a gun for the simple fact you were arrested 5 years ago, but not convicted, of buying weed.

We do not lose our constitutional rights when we're arrested, we do not have a constitutional right to be allowed entry into another country as far as I know and I'm really surprised you're on the cops' side in this.

[talaniman]

Nobody has said that, you just keep adding on to the facts and getting wound up. Chill baby chill.

[speechlesstx]

Nobody has said what, and what facts exactly am I adding?

[talaniman]

"It means they could prevent you from buying a gun for the simple fact you were arrested 5 years ago, but not convicted, of buying weed."


You went from arrested, to arrested 5 years ago.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Why shouldn't I be on the cops side??? You're on the crooks side? This isn't a matter of sides, anyway. You asserted that NO rights were lost if you were arrested. I was just saying that there were. Of course, I don't AGREE with those restrictions, and I don't think people should be restricted from owning a gun simply because they've been arrested.

But, IF you were arrested for a violent crime, and the court KNOWS you have guns, it's gonna DEMAND they be turned over the cops pending the outcome of the case... That's so even if they've NEVER been convicted. I have no problem with that. Why shouldn't that person, or ANY person who's been arrested for a VIOLENT crime, be prevented from BUYING a gun???

excon

[speechlesstx]

What 's the difference if it's 5 years or 5 minutes? It means the same thing, police can "prohibit people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime" from buying guns by designating them "unsuitable persons" under the proposal.

It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.

In fact, it sounds as if they already may use that discretion with handguns. Tell me where the box is on the application of whether or not you've been arrested. Are people, not incarcerated for any crime no longer innocent until proven guilty? Where did anyone say this doesn't apply to past arrests?

[speechlesstx]

Why shouldn't I be on the cops side??? You're on the crooks side? This isn't a matter of sides, anyway. You asserted that NO rights were lost if you were arrested.

No, I'm on the side of innocent people, the constitution and not allowing cops the discretion to decide who is "unsuitable" based merely on the fact of an arrest, any arrest.

[paraclete]

you really haven't got it, it is a police state, eh?

[excon]

Hello again,

It HAS come to this... A lady at a Republican town hall, shouts out about KILLING Obama, and the Republican answers her cordially...

You guys are getting LOWER, and even LOWER than that... You CAN'T make this stuff up.. If I was a Republican, I'd KILL myself..

excon

[cdad]

And here I thought you were for freedom of speech ? I watched the video and he didnt rally the troops into support of what the lady was saying instead he just moved things right along without elevating it. I dont see anything wrong with the situation I saw on that video.

[speechlesstx]

Being statesmanlike like with your constituents, even when they're nuts, is "low?" Geez, I guess they should just smack 'em around like Dems want to do.

[NeedKarma]

And here I thought you were for freedom of speech ?

[speechlesstx]

Try making sense.

[NeedKarma]

Guess I'll have to explain it to you.

A repub calls calls out about killing Obama. Cdad shrugs it off under the guise of freedom of speech - it's in the post right above yours.

You post about a dem wanting to smack around another dem. Isn't it the same issue as above?

And which is worse in your opinion: calling for the death of the president or someone saying they want to smack another around?

[speechlesstx]

Pay attention, my answer was no more about about speech than ex's was, it was about the character of two politicians, the Republican was statesmanlike in the face of intolerance, the Dem was an a$$ apparently just for the hell of it. It's that simple. Got it? Cdad made the free speech remarks, not me bucko.

[NeedKarma]

Ok bucko :-) So what do you think about what cdad said?