I say the sample "deadbeat dad" should be allowed his 2nd Amendment rights....one has nothing to do with the other. On the other matters opined on..there are different circumstances, not all the same. If the woman has done wrong, initiates divorce, gains custody of kids, "turns" them against you, does not provide a healthy home environment, instill in them values and morals (or lack of) that you dont condone...I really think you should be able to walk away...she, does, afterall, hold all the cards, from deciding to have the kids initially, to keeping the kids after the divorce, from what I've seen. I know it can go both ways..but I don't see where all should suffer from some. Could be simliar to garnish,charge, or otherwise seek recompense from all illegal aliens for their childrens education, healthcare, and border security that they were able to defeat (actually, they just walk around them, or better yet, actually get a "permit" to do so)..I'd like to see them pay that debt back.
Opinions wanted - Non-payment of child support?
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
FrankDrebin
Moderator
No, but I would be in favor of barring felons from carrying guns at my church. We don't have the time or resources to evaluate which felons would be safe gun owners. Therefore, generalizations must be made. If you've been found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed a crime that could sent you to prison for more than one year, and the government says you can't have a gun because of it, that's good enough for me.
A father should support his children- true.
A mother should support her children- true.
Go to Walmart and look at the kidnapped child board and see who is abiding by divorce decrees and who isn't. Those kids aren't being kidnapped by their non-custodial fathers.
Non-payment of child-support is serious, but in my experience here in Texas, you can be ahead on your obligations a few months (I was), and still be sentenced to jail because of a late payment. You can have your wages garnished without writ, and for no reason. When it is discovered that the person sitting in jail, now freshly fired from his job, actually had paid his child support and was ahead, do you think the the Attorney General will give you your money, your job and your life back?
Divorce courts in the US are a circus where neither side is believable. Rights don't exist, and guidlines are ignored.
There was a good point about if you can take one right from somebody, you can take them all. Rights cease to be rights. There are people who abuse the system on both sides, so I am not in favor of stripping anybody of rights because of it. Besides if a right is "God-given" how on earth can a human being take them away?
A mother should support her children- true.
Go to Walmart and look at the kidnapped child board and see who is abiding by divorce decrees and who isn't. Those kids aren't being kidnapped by their non-custodial fathers.
Non-payment of child-support is serious, but in my experience here in Texas, you can be ahead on your obligations a few months (I was), and still be sentenced to jail because of a late payment. You can have your wages garnished without writ, and for no reason. When it is discovered that the person sitting in jail, now freshly fired from his job, actually had paid his child support and was ahead, do you think the the Attorney General will give you your money, your job and your life back?
Divorce courts in the US are a circus where neither side is believable. Rights don't exist, and guidlines are ignored.
There was a good point about if you can take one right from somebody, you can take them all. Rights cease to be rights. There are people who abuse the system on both sides, so I am not in favor of stripping anybody of rights because of it. Besides if a right is "God-given" how on earth can a human being take them away?
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
Code:
generalizations must be madeI'd be careful with that statement, Frank. Those same "generalizations" are primarily the ammo gungrabbers are using to take firearms out of all of our hands.
THe rights of the People are not general. They are individual and specific, and the day they are not is the day we all lose as a free people.
A felony used to be for specific crimes, but as we go down the slope, a felon can be just about anything above a jay-walker. That line is getting very blurred indeed, and from recent decisions handed down by the court, I will not put my faith in the court as quickly as I once might have.
These days, it seems to be fairly easy to buy your way out of circumstances in the court. Most folks seem to know or at least know of someone who got a felony charge reduced to a misdermeanor. That takes money. Money should never buy a court, but we know it does in some cases-maybe more often than we know!
Better to put faith in the people, IMO.
Jason Baker
Inactive
Quote:
Saw this and have to ask, would anyone be in favor of barring the convicted from attending church services?
Quote:
No, but I would be in favor of barring felons from carrying guns at my church. We don't have the time or resources to evaluate which felons would be safe gun owners. Therefore, generalizations must be made. If you've been found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed a crime that could sent you to prison for more than one year, and the government says you can't have a gun because of it, that's good enough for me.
So either you don't consider owning a firearm a God granted right, or you consider government a god who can grant or retract rights?
By the way, in the last couple of years a gun show promoter crossed in to mexico for dinner and forgot he had a box of shells in the car and presto he became a felon. After several months he got out of the mexican prison, but in the US he is now viewed as a convicted felon. Kind of interesting that we would recognize felonies from other countries, huh? Past and/or current foreign "felonies" I can think of include speaking or writing the truth, your religious beliefs, or some crats whim were/are grounds for "convictions." In this country being black was legally frowned on(Dred Scott), Mormons for awhile(MO's Governor Boggs), and even Japanese were put in concentration camps back in the 40's so I don't put a lot of faith in the US legal system's ability to operate in a morally correct fashion.
Saw this and have to ask, would anyone be in favor of barring the convicted from attending church services?
Quote:
No, but I would be in favor of barring felons from carrying guns at my church. We don't have the time or resources to evaluate which felons would be safe gun owners. Therefore, generalizations must be made. If you've been found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed a crime that could sent you to prison for more than one year, and the government says you can't have a gun because of it, that's good enough for me.
So either you don't consider owning a firearm a God granted right, or you consider government a god who can grant or retract rights?
By the way, in the last couple of years a gun show promoter crossed in to mexico for dinner and forgot he had a box of shells in the car and presto he became a felon. After several months he got out of the mexican prison, but in the US he is now viewed as a convicted felon. Kind of interesting that we would recognize felonies from other countries, huh? Past and/or current foreign "felonies" I can think of include speaking or writing the truth, your religious beliefs, or some crats whim were/are grounds for "convictions." In this country being black was legally frowned on(Dred Scott), Mormons for awhile(MO's Governor Boggs), and even Japanese were put in concentration camps back in the 40's so I don't put a lot of faith in the US legal system's ability to operate in a morally correct fashion.
Last edited:
Dead beats not taking responsibility for there own children
Should be allowed to own guns, they just should not be able to reproduce again. Remove a part of there body to make sure, just the twins, and give them back when they stand up and prove there a man again by taking care of what they brought into this world.
Should be allowed to own guns, they just should not be able to reproduce again. Remove a part of there body to make sure, just the twins, and give them back when they stand up and prove there a man again by taking care of what they brought into this world.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
God doesn't grant rights. Governments grant rights.
As far as I know, a felony is still a crime that is punishable by more than 1 year in a state or federal penitentiary. Nothing ambiguous about that.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
there are people who believe their God is the government. Why, I have no clue, but they kneel and bow to their every wish without much of a thought.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Yep. God didn't give you the right to carry a gun. You don't lack the right to walk down the sidewalk and smoke crack with a naked whore because God forbids it, you lack that right because the government forbids it.
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Frank,
Then all of the above means what? Just so much ink on parchment? Is that what it's all come down to?
sad...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Frank,
Then all of the above means what? Just so much ink on parchment? Is that what it's all come down to?
sad...
FrankDrebin
Moderator
No, it means that the people who wrote it included God in their statement. That's all that means. Just like the guy who designed the belt buckle that the Nazi's wore. If you're in a country that legally puts a bullet in the back of your head for saying the wrong thing, you don't have the right to free speech there, regardless of what our forefathers thought about God and rights. The fact that some of the guys who signed that document were slave owners negates any personal insight they may have had with regard to the relationship between God and rights, in my opinion.
MeekAndMild
New member
Back to the original question, about whether people who get behind on their child support can/should lose the RKBA I will quote the following:
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Basically what this says is that there is no protection against slavery for people who have been convicted of a crime. So this means there is a theoretical possibility that men convicted of civil crimes including failure to pay child support (or running a red light for that matter) could be condemned to work in the salt mines, castrated and sold into brothels, condemned to carry Ted Kennedy's sedan chair up and down the capitol stairs or sold as organ donors.
Forget cruel and unusual. That goes out the window if the particular punishment becomes usual and cruelty is redefined to apply only to non-slaves.
Of course some people might object to calling it slavery so in some jurisdictions it might be ruled easier to just kill the guys and let their kids draw on their social security.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Basically what this says is that there is no protection against slavery for people who have been convicted of a crime. So this means there is a theoretical possibility that men convicted of civil crimes including failure to pay child support (or running a red light for that matter) could be condemned to work in the salt mines, castrated and sold into brothels, condemned to carry Ted Kennedy's sedan chair up and down the capitol stairs or sold as organ donors.
Forget cruel and unusual. That goes out the window if the particular punishment becomes usual and cruelty is redefined to apply only to non-slaves.
Of course some people might object to calling it slavery so in some jurisdictions it might be ruled easier to just kill the guys and let their kids draw on their social security.
So if you are UNABLE TO PAY, due to lack of income you become a felon once you hit the 10K mark in unpaid child support? What BS! Regardless, while I do feel for the children in this case, making it a felony for non-payment of child support is utter crap. There can be way to many variables taken into account to setup "a number" at which point one is considered a felon.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
wow, I wanna work there if that's the "general" increase......We're lucky if we get raises that average out to 3% per year.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
What's to stop the guy who is legitimately "unable" to pay from going to court to get a reduction? If you're "unable" to pay because you spend all your money at the bar or on your girlfriend, or decided to hook up with another woman of breeding age and have more kids and refuse to get another job to subsidize your chosen lifestyle and take care of your legal obligation to your kids, then, yes, you should be subject to the possibility of spending more than one year in prison.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Edward429451
Moderator
Frank makes a pretty good point here. I don't know a lot of men legitimately unable to pay for their own children. I know a few who use every excuse in the book to shirk their duty to their family. Irresponsible whiners.
Of course the State goes overboard in taking advantage of the situation to its own benefit, but that another thread...
