Fine, so take away their rights to own a baseball bat, knife, gasoline, rat poison, or cars also. None of which has to deal with the Second Amendment, so it has no place in this discussion. Oh, and yes there is indeed "legal justification" to keep them from possessing or owning firearms. It is 18 U.S.C. 922, Section D Paragraph 4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 Funny, you say there is no "legal justification", yet there it is right there. I would say that the United States Code more than qualifies as "legal justification". Next spurious claim? No, this is done by a court of law, after the individual has been convicted of serious crimes (felony) that infringes on the Constitutional Rights of others. I guess you missed this part of the law. BTW, in many states they have also forfeited the right to vote. It is a court of law that has done this, after legal proceedings. And the crime must be a serious one, not just a minor infraction. And the same can be done with the other "rights" you outline. Break the 1st Amendment in regards to hateful or slanderous speech, and an individual can find themselves placed under a gag order. Once again, a fully legal curtailing of their "Constitutional Rights" because of their own actions. The same with a religion. As for religion, can you name any cases where because of a felony conviction an individual was refused their right to worship as they please? I want them to be treated in regards to the law, in proportion to the crime they have committed. That they are a family member does not matter. BTW, my oldest son is a felon. He has lost his gun rights forever, and also can not vote. And he is even more conservative than I am. He understands that his actions in the past will forever have consequences, and accepts them.
You wrote: "The generally accepted legal terminology is somebody who can be considered to be a "Danger to themselves or others". And this covers a great many illnesses, from psychosis and schizophrenia to those who are clinically paranoid and those who are delusional. However, it does not cover those who are OCD, have PTSD, depressed, or a great many other mentally ill, unless the severity of their disease cosses over to a point they become a danger." I replied: "Unless those conditions are added to the list of mental health disqualifiers in 18 USC 922g, or those so afflicted are adjudicated mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institution, there is no legal justification to prevent them possessing or purchasing a firearm." Why did you quote 18 USC 922g back to me? You stated that the generally accepted legal terminology is somebody who can be considered to be a "Danger to themselves or others", then pointed out that the language in 18 USC 922g is very specific - that for a mental health issue to be a disqualifer the sufferer must have been adjudicated mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institution. Without those two actions the mere fact that someone suffers from psychosis and schizophrenia, or are clinically paranoid and who are delusional, or have OCD, PTSD - that 18 USC 922g does not come into play, and there is no legal justification to deny them a firearm purchase.
You see no difference between the government jailing someone for speech vs a private employer using an existing contract provision to sanction an employee? What color is the sky in your world?
Trump have zero business telling the NFL how to treat their employees. That you can't tell the difference is amazing. What color is the sky in your world.
When it comes to a constitutional issues yes he have limited "free speech." Trying to use his office to influence a private business on the issue is a breach of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That you can't recognize this is ludicrous.
no it's not, once the sentence is over, they should have their right to vote, free speech, Religion and guns restored if you want a longer sentence that should be done during sentencing why are republicans so anti-Gun?
"where do I claim that..." ? It's right here, in your question: "I am asking why the President called those black players SOB's" You're not asking why he called all of the kneeling SOBs, SOBs. You're only asking why he called the "black" kneeling SOBs, SOBs. Why should "black" kneeling SOBs be immune from being called SOBs? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1070194290#post-1070194290
sure he did, he was upset these players would dare speak out about cops mistreating black citizens, trump did not think they knew their place and called them SOB's - real Presidential of him
He did not use his office, no power of the presidency or other executive branch office was used to coerce the NFL into any action. He spoke. He did not tortiously interfere with anyone's contract. That's not the standard. You want to see an ACTUAL violation through speech of the president? Look no further than Obama running his mouth about the Zimmerman case. THAT was actually tainting the jury pool of an active murder case, and if zimmerman had been convicted he would've won on appeal over that issue.
Fine, then give all felons their right to have guns back. Do not dare complain at all if a 3 time armed robber then robs you with a gun. You have given up any right to complain because you think it is the right of everybody to have a gun, if they have committed serious crimes or not. And this is why nobody takes the fringe of the Libertarians seriously. They think that even hardened gangbangers with a rap sheet 6 feet long should have M-60 machine guns. Of course, none can also explain how we can maintain bridges or any other infrastructure without taxes. They live in a delusional fantasyland. Sorry, the moment you tried to explain that criminals should have guns, I admit I tuned you right out. That is an extremely asinine claim if I ever heard one. Of course, I also believe strongly in the "Three Strike" laws, and that "Habitual Criminals" should be locked up for life, so that should never be a problem in the first place. I have absolutely no interest in pandering to criminals, and in giving them no more than "3 hots and a cot" at a maximum security penitentiary in Central Alaska until they die of old age.
now you sound like a gun grabber, attacking people for support the 2nd Amendment and telling them the bad that could happen with guns if a ex-frlon was busted when a teen for stealing a car, doing drugs or whatever... once he or she serves their sentence, all rights should be restored "hardened gangbangers with a rap sheet 6 feet long should have M-60 machine guns." nope, I think during sentencing, those people should be given LWOP.... see, I see sentencing as the place to issue punishments for crimes... but thank you for confirming you are Anti2nd Amendment
