22yr Police Veteran Tells Congress “I Will Not Comply.”

[zukiphile]

^About the bolded part if said "convicted felon" repaid their "debt to society" yes, but we don't have a "justice system" anymore, instead we have a "legal system" with a Prison Industrial Complex to boot, also if a "convicted felon" is too "dangerous" to be trusted to possess/carry a firearm, then said "convicted felon" is too "dangerous" to be released in to society.

I don't raise the question about voting for the purpose of addressing the merits, but to illustrate how ideological alignment can influence the view of how a civil right is applied.

Repeating a false or irresponsible assertion doesn't support the assertion.

On what basis have you concluded that Muller doesn't believe that arms bans are wrong?

I don't think Muller thinks arm's bans are wrong, obviously. Her present vocation, where she is sponsored by Benelli(others?), it's in her best interest to oppose these things because it has an adverse effect on her livelihood..pretty simple..she's not a Jane Q Public, as I mentioned.

We already knew that you had concluded that you believe Muller's stance is insincere. The question was the basis on which you reach that conclusion that she was bribed.

That the continued legality of arms is in her interest is not a reasonable basis for holding that she was "bribed" into taking the position dishonestly.

 

[44 AMP]

So, she is essentially being 'bribed', just like the congress people who were listening to her...

Gentlemen, please, cool your jets....

I think, with regard to this statement, that there is a level of implied sarcasm that is being missed by some of us.

In the view of certain (anti's) people, anyone who speaks against the gun control de jour MUST have been "bribed" in order to do so. And, any connection with any part of the firearms industry is PROOF to them that is so.

To these people, there is no fundamental right involved (despite what that pesky old outmoded Constitution thingy says...), the ONLY reason anyone would be in favor of having guns MUST be because they are getting PAID, in some way. To them. "decent" people don't have guns, don't support having guns, and do support gun control. Any and everyone who doesn't must be either "evil" (doing it because they want to) or "amoral", (not really caring, doing it because they are being paid).

This may not actually be the way they think, but its the way they act, and speak, so....draw your own conclusions...

I don't think the statement about bribery was meant to mean actual bribery, only that "bribery" is the way one side is going to look at it, no matter what.

 

[zxcvbob]

What I understood was she was bribed to be for gun confiscation (because police, and often even retired police officers, are always exempted) and she didn't take it.

 

[MTT TL]

What I understood was she was bribed to be for gun confiscation (because police, and often even retired police officers, are always exempted) and she didn't take it.

This is a common misunderstanding. Normally those exemption laws says something about "law Enforcement Officers in the course of their duties" and nothing about them on their own time. Even less seldom does it mention retired officers. The proposed Federal magazine ban is a good example:

“(i) a Federal, State, local, or tribal law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties;
“(ii) a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard while engaged in the performance of official duties;
“(iii) a Federal employee who is required to carry a qualifying firearm in the capacity of that individual as a Federal employee while engaged in the performance of official duties;

Not a whisper about anyone retired.

Local mileage may vary.

Still, police unions tend to support such things because they are unions.

 

[Pahoo]

Draw your line !!!

I have been saying we need a Rosa Parks moment.
Could it be????

Perhaps abut my take-away on this is that eventually we all have to draw the line. It may be collectively or as individuals but everyone who support the 2A will say; I've had enough. Until today, I have never supported any politician, financially. .…..

Be Safe !!!

 

[USNRet93]

I don't raise the question about voting for the purpose of addressing the merits, but to illustrate how ideological alignment can influence the view of how a civil right is applied.



We already knew that you had concluded that you believe Muller's stance is insincere. The question was the basis on which you reach that conclusion that she was bribed.

That the continued legality of arms is in her interest is not a reasonable basis for holding that she was "bribed" into taking the position dishonestly.

‘WE’ do?

 

[zukiphile]

We already knew that you had concluded that you believe Muller's stance is insincere. The question was the basis on which you reach that conclusion that she was bribed.

‘WE’ do?

Yes.

On what basis have you concluded that Muller doesn't believe that arms bans are wrong?

I don't think Muller thinks arm's bans are wrong, obviously.

Where you have concluded that she doesn't believe her stated position, you believe her position isn't held sincerely.

USNRet93, I am reading your words for what they mean. If, as 44AMP, suggests, you mean something else entirely, there would be no harm in clarifying.

 

[USNRet93]

Yes.



Where you have concluded that she doesn't believe her stated position, you believe her position isn't held sincerely.

USNRet93, I am reading your words for what they mean. If, as 44AMP, suggests, you mean something else entirely, there would be no harm in clarifying.

Pass, taping out of this....you win.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Should convicted felons be able to vote and hold arms?

Zukiphile, I pondered a minute in my head prior to making my post the other day, whether or not I wanted to insert some sort of qualifier. I probably should have, but my point in general was regarding those who hold different political or social ideologies than we do. The lack of rights for convicted felons were not part of my statement.

My guess would be that lots of repub voters (though maybe not so many office holders) don't like flag desecration or Westborough Baptist service funeral protests protected by the 1st Am.

Too many people have forgotten about the whole "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". That being said, I admit I too don't like either of those examples. The flag burning/desecration, I do not necessarily classify as an expression protected by the 1st amendment. For the most part, its being done by people who want the shock value, rather then having an actual reason, with that desecration intended to resolve the problems they are 'protesting'. Funeral protests by Westboro, well, I have plenty of opinions about why that is a retarded idea.... This is not the proper place for that topic though.

Once again, my point in general was painted with a broad stroke. Not meant to include those fringe elements.

 

[zukiphile]

Too many people have forgotten about the whole "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". That being said, I admit I too don't like either of those examples.

I dislike those activities as well, and I wouldn't even presume that your qualifiers would have lacked merit. My point is just that the ideological alignment wouldn't be "Only people like me have the to X"; it would be found in assertions that "conduct I dislike isn't really part of the right to X".

I have real contempt for the behaviors I named, but I am loathe to invest in government the power to regulate speech.

 

[rickyrick]

To truly embrace freedom, you must realize that you will disagree with someone else’s freedoms.
There’s lots of things people do that I don’t like. Even when something that I dislike or disapprove of is heavily regulated, I sometimes feel that regulation is an overreach.
That’s why I consider myself a moderate, because some conservative and liberal ideals trample on other’s rights.
If one chooses a side in our modern political climate, you are simply choosing who’s rights you want to have infringed.