the world. It is also an indication that the Founders had a strong trust in our constitutional democracy.

If he's in jail, he's there because due process resulted in his conviction and he cannot have any guns.

I trust everyone until I have a reason not to.
The governments have folks in their employ who are in the suspicion business. I trust them a bit less.

My short answer is yes, until a conviction or other reason for prohibition of the NICS list, I support the RKBA for all people in the US subject to federal and state law.

If you feel that he shouldn't have been permitted to acquire firearms, please outline on what that denial should be based.


(Feel free not to answer as 'an inability to actually refute an opponent's argument is a concession that the argument is true.'

Those murders were despicable. I think Ready was probably unstable and should have been on the prohibited list with the NICS. I don't know how he acquired his weapons.

Whats the difference.

If you had any respect for people like me, you wouldn't be trying to dictate the choices available to us, and you'd be focusing on the problem individuals and the things that cause them to misbehave instead.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that its your words that matter, rather than your actions.

From carrying a gun?

I'm wasn't offended.

Why are you?



In fact, I agreed to not carry any guns, out of respect for him.

He has no reason to trust me with guns, any more than I would have a reason to trust him with guns.

He didn't trust you, what has he done, what action has he taken, to earn your distrust? I'm not offended, I'm somewhat puzzled by your view point.

Are you unable, or unwilling?

The OP DOES advocate disenfranchising folks who can NOT be trusted with guns.

That's what I am objecting to here.

I'm standing up for human and civil rights of folks who can NOT be trusted with guns.

Those are the people whose voting rights are under attack in the OP.

So no, I'm not going to change the subject.

...perhaps you could identify generically who "can NOT be trusted with guns."

...the intersection of the set of all people who I believe can not be trusted with guns and the set of all people who you believe can not be trusted with guns.

I was asking for a criteria based qualification.

YOU said neither could be trusted with firearms. By what metrics do you judge each not trustworthy? Is there one or more similar characteristics?

You don't have a criteria based idea(s) of who should not qualify to own a gun.

You do.

Is Zimmerman in the intersection or isn't he?

He's in the one set that is under my control, but the other set being interested is under your control.

Is he in it or not?

You need to tell me.

I can't tell you.

I am again asking for the criteria which determine you set.
I have not much interest in discussing particular individuals as much as I would the criteria used in the determination.

Weird.

I don't even know what to make of that.

...by answering the question.

I'm unable to answer your question and you refuse to answer mine.

Apparently you're operating with a defective definition of "answered".

I just did a counterpoint OP with the opposing viewpoint to your OP, instead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172200221

well established criteria to base a judgement as to whether or not an individual, or groups, cannot be trusted with firearms. It would have required MUCH less time and effort to simple list those rather than obviously avoid the question. Why don't you want to share this information? Why would you not want any one to know? It's very peculiar.

He also has had several posts locked for clearly breaking the SOP. Even after being told by the host nicely the reason, he continued posting threads and disrespecting the group host.

With firearms?

He runs away or changes the subject. Every so often he just just responds sadly with insults.

In dozens of encounters with you have proven them to be factual. I am sorry if you take that as insulting. I apapologizto you sir, but they are facts.

That you do not answer questions?

That you run away when called to respond to questions?

That you insult people? You really do not want me to go there.

Because your insults are starting to really bore me.

You haven't even been a part of this discussion.

If you find that insulting, behave differently.

1. What criteria do you apply to determine you do not trust a person with firearms?
2. What condition has Beevul met to fall within your do not trust set?

I was mistaken. The evidence would seem to suggest so.

With a total lack of self control, methinks he is on his way out the door.

Very hard to do in the Group.

At allowing open discussion as long it even is remotely related to the SOP. Takes a lot to rule him up, he has given several kind warnings that have just been blown off in a very disrespectful way.

A lot of folks think the game of dodgeball was banned in schools because it allowed some kids to bully others. I don't agree.

It was just plain boring.

I'm not opposed to voting. I was pointing out an issue about trust.

I'm not changing the OP JUST FOR YOU because the majority here EXCEPT FOR YOU understand the OP.

I'd say that if you want to dictate EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT in an OP you should write one but you don't seem to be having much luck with that here.

Yes, I can see an edit link. Maybe have a word with the admins about starting your own 'ban the NRA group'.

If that is intentional, then there is no need for anybody to edit it.

It's a pretty straightforward statement and comparison of two equally significant civil rights, as defined by SCOTUS, our party and our President.

YMMV but nobody cares if it does.

Here. Read it again.

The NRA candidate has demonstrated exactly how this works in the most recent debate.

That being the case, what are we left to assume about your motive for using it? A character assault?

...the OP argues for disenfranchisement.

Your brain fart into JT Ready land is just another example for your failure to remain on the topic of the OP. Your use of the present tense in your reference to him is inaccurate and distracting from whatever you were trying to convey. As far as trusting him with guns, yeah I trust him completely. He's dead and can't hurt anyone unless dropped sufficient height onto them. He can't buy, steal or borrow a gun nor pull a trigger nor can he vote. This reply of yours predates your voting thread-jack so I infer you don't care about his voting rights.

I don't think much of your efforts to CONTROL what I say or how I choose to say it but I'm sure that few in this group are surprised. Some pro-control folks have a long history of reading their desires into (and out of) things they read so as to conform to pro-control thinking.

Since the people (of "We the People" fame) ARE trusted with voting, they ought as well, barring some type of due process, to be able to own weapons, that would include firearms.

AFAIK all states and the federal system restrict weapons from inmates. This is a consequence of conviction and sentencing. Our prisons are constructs of our government here as are prisons everywhere. Those rights and freedoms, which are restricted by their sentencing explicitly or by the conditions of their confinement, do in all respects remain the rights of all of the people. It is within government's authority to restrict a right in those circumstances. The restriction is tied to the individual, his crime and sentence. His right persists but the is superseded by the restriction(s) imposed. I am against the removal of rights unless the courts fix a sentence in accordance with the legislature's existing law that requires it. I am of the opinion that when a sentence is completed, all restrictions should be removed. I don't feel most non-violent criminals should be jailed nor should their rights to voting, speech, firearms, religion... be suspended or restricted.

The fact that you don't, can't, refuse to... get it (the OP's meaning) amuses me. Carry on.

many of them removed somebodies right to live, probably violently.