- From: grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx (Gray Ghost)
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:20:39 -0500
"tsar" <tsar@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:h675i6$aq5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
"tsar" <tsar@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:h672ag$6er$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"tsar" <tsar@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:h6701h$3de$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
"tsar" <tsar@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:h66qg6$rvc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
How many people think felons should be allowed to legal possess
That depends on whether the felon was convicted of a violent or a
non violent crime. A person convicted of a violent crime has
already shown a propensity to use violence to achieve an end.
He/she probably should not have that right restored.
So you oppose the Second Amendment?
No, he supports the 5th Amendment.
So you think something in the 5th contradicts the 2nd?
No we think it's stupid argument.
Any person convicted of a crime is likely to have some rights
curtailed. Otherwise how could you punish them? But once thier debt
is paid they can have thier rights restored.
Part of the deal with being a citizen is that you contribute to or at
least not detract from society. So when you violate other people's
rights by stealing from them or hurting or killing them you should
wxpect to have your
I am not considering those incarcerated but those who have been
convicted in the past but is now a free citizen.
Removal of certain rights is part and parcel of the current justice
system. The person may petition the courts to have those rights
restored. In many cases, most of them are.
That abrogates the 2nd. It does not say 'except for those who have been
convicted of a felony' nor does the 5th say 'due process allows for the
abrogation of the 2nd'
Thisn't really a very complex issue. What you ar trying to do has
before and doesn't usually end well for the instigator.
I can understand how you and others might find it difficult to
Find what difficult to consider?
That as written the 2nd is not now nor ever been accepted litterally by
and court or government.
Due process? Loss of rights for crimes against society?
Then the 2nd is a dead letter as it offers a right that can be abrogated
Well if you could grasp it properly...
The 2A doesn't "offer" a right. Rights can not be offered.
The right to the ability to defend oneself and the right to own property
preexisted the Constitution. The 2A is a limitation on goernment infringing
that right. Even though one can deny this right to convicted felons one
cannot deny this right to freemen who have done no harm.
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too,
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.
- Prev by Date: Re: felons?
- Next by Date: Re: felons?
- Previous by thread: Re: felons?
- Next by thread: Re: felons?