arma virumque cano (et alia)
Don't worry. They're in Washington. They don't really have their rights back.
Apparently they do, and apparently some of them really shouldn't, at least by all reasonable people's opinions - which excludes Kurt Hofmann of course.
I'm vastly more reasonable than you, of course.
Since Kurt thinks being a criminal thinking liar, is most reasonable.
Ah, well--at least museums can't have guns.
Well, they could have except they wanted to make a statement by pretending to be poor persecuted victims of the new law.
So again, I ask--are you advocating that they break the gun law? Because that's exactly what they would be doing.Guess it's time to add "pretending" to the Mikeb-to-English Dictionary.
It's either that, or they become part of the "bad laws be damned hidden criminal" croud. There's no winning with you.
The solution was had for a small amount of money. Does that sound like a no win situation? How about simply complying with the law? Is that so difficult?
The solution was had for a small amount of money.More money than would be necessary to acquire a state-issued ID required for voting in some states--but I hear that's "racist," some how.How about simply complying with the law? Is that so difficult?Difficult enough that your advice earlier was to simply ignore and violate the law.
MikeB: "How about simply complying with the law? Is that so difficult?"Hold on. Should he comply with the law, or not? Early you said this about the guy:MikeB: "That museum is obviously run by some whiny gun-rights sympathizer. I doubt very seriously if anyone was going to make a big deal about guns on display in a museum, that is except those who want to make a big deal out of it for their own ends."Plus this is the same attitude you take when we “whine” about the harmless and common transfer scenarios that are now crimes because of this law.
Kurt, you have proven you don't know the first thing about following the law and refuse to when YOU think it's a bad law.
"More money than would be necessary to acquire a state-issued ID required for voting in some states--but I hear that's "racist," some how."Yeah, that is racist because it disqualifies more Blacks and Hispanics. Besides, it has nothing to do with this.
Yeah, that is racist because it disqualifies more Blacks and Hispanics.And adding a fee for gun transfers also "disqualifies more Blacks and Hispanics."Imposing the equivalent of a poll tax on gun transfers has everything to do with the notional "racism" of voter ID requirements.
Hey Kurt, bone up. There is a law against poll taxes. There is no law against a gun transfer fee. Being a criminal thinker, I'm not surprised you don't know the law.
Mike, I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything here. Is it a video? Could you supply a link?
I've got the video there. It's from KIRO 7 in Washington.
I did finally find the article.http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/some-violent-felons-legally-getting-guns-washingto/njCPP/ Must be a slow news day. We have a procedure in which there is a process to have a felon's civil rights restored, that has apparently been in place for many years. As often seems to be the case, the author laments that due process resulting in a conviction is required to be being disqualified to regain rights. There has been a movement over the years in regards to formalizing felons reentering society including regaining civil rights. I can remember way back when the loss of rights was considered something to avoid because it was permanent. What was interesting is that I ran across this bit of information,"Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a certain amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may petition to have their firearms rights restored in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that specifically confer gun privileges."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 The article I just cited seems a lot like this article too.
As I said with my tags, what we need is one-strike-you're-out combined with may issue to solve all these problems.
A convicted violent felon should never get his gun back. Even if he gets a pardon, that doesn't mean he did not commit a violent act.
This is interesting. There is some movement (admittedly not much yet) on a compromise that would restore felons' voting rights and their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.The rationale seems to be that Democrats favor restoring their voting rights, but Republicans aren't likely to get on board in great numbers unless they're thrown a supposedly "conservative" bone--gun rights, in this case.I can't imagine this going very far (at least not right away), but it is an interesting idea.