Printable View
I beg to differ Sir, the ACLU has fought and won several cases confirming that incarcerated felons do indeed have access to the Bill of Rights. In some states, these criminals are even afforded sex change surgery while in prison, it is their right, or so we're told.Quote:
Originally Posted by musketjon
Wasn't it just last year that some felon ran in a primary vote from prison and won?
It was on the east cost somewhere, I think he beat Obama in the primary, I think that is why it made the news. I do reserve the right to be complety wrong in this :)Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wtCU_blog.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Brinks352
Ok guys here is my take on this. A Felon who is a citizen of this country and who is not on parole or probation (has completed his sentence) is Constitutionally protected under all the Amendments except the 2nd. That was done under the GCA of 68 and misdemeanor domestic violence under the Lautenberg act. Now since the lawmakers can choose to take away a person rights for a crime after they have paid their debt to society what would stop them from saying that Stu if he was found not to be totally faithful to Judaism could no longer practice his preferred religion because he broke a religious law. After all if the citizen was deemed to worthy to be let back into society and his debt was paid to society than he being a citizen is entitled to all the rights of a citizen. That is why they are rights they can not be taken away by lawmakers they are not privileges. If they can not be trusted with those rights than they should not live among free men. This goes for convicts and the mentally ill. I dont believe that most convicts should ever be released from prison but since so called better men than i do think so they should not have their rights infringed on. If we allow one or two categories of citizens to have their rights infringed on by lawmakers for any reason what can you say when they come after your rights? Stu you were only used as example and no disrespect was meant.
Mack
Mack, you said nothing offensive. When I started this thread I knew that nobody would want a criminal to live next door to them, let alone to own a firearm. However, under the Constitution, firearms are a right and not a privilege as you said. "To Keep" is in the process of being infringed, and "And Bear", which the Oxford Dictionary defines as "to carry" has been infringed almost to the point of non-existence in many cities and states.
So, how do we correct this? Somehow, the lawmakers feel that the way to justify infringing on the rights of a segment of society is to equally infringe on all members.
I'm open to suggestions.
If you are not on parole, in prison, or declared mentally unstable and institutionalized, the 2nd amendment applies to you. It's really quite simple. I don't frankly care what some gun control act says. The gun control act, all of them, are unconstitutional and not recognized by me as real law. I still follow these laws because I don't think I would like jail but I don't consider them just.
Basically before the 1850's in this country we did not have state prisons. There were 2 types of crimes felonies and misdemeanors. if you were convicted of a felony there was one sentence death and it was carried out swiftly. If convicted of a misdemeanor you were given corporal punishment. Then came the quakers who thought people could be rehabilitated and such began the criminal system as we know it where it has become better to live in prison than out on the street. I say since they must keep wanting to go to prison since they get out and commit more crime to go back why dont we just keep their worthless asses inside or better yet since they are felons hand out the original punishment for a felony. Society would be alot safer then and we would not have to have a gun control debate because the communists would not be able to say it is to keep the guns out of the criminal hands since we wont have any criminals. Then they could be exposed for what they really are freaking communists. But as I said before I know nothing and much better men than I have determined criminals belong in society.
Mack
Some people should not be allowed to have firearms--the kinds of people who have demonstrated they don't respect the safety and lives of others. That just makes sense. But here's what troubles me....
Should someone with a record of domestic disturbance be allowed to have a firearm? What if some woman claims her husband's firearm makes her feel "unsafe" and "in fear for her life," and he refuses to get rid of it just because she wants him to?
Should child abusers be allowed to have firearms? After all, they obviously have no regard for the well-being of others. Is it not child abuse to have a firearm in a home where children are present, given how many children gain access to such firearms and hurt themselves or others with those guns?
What about a person who is armed and has threatened to resist arrest? Now think of all the yahoos on Internet forums who bluster "my cold dead hand" and "molon labe."
I fear the authorities making criminal what I would not consider criminal, then depriving those new criminals of their rights, all by due process.
Paltik,
By your logic then since you define who should be allowed to enjoy 2nd amendment rights, how about we take your favorite whatever(preacher,tv host, newspaper ) and ban them from exercising their 1st amendments rights because im sure in their life they have shown a disregard somewhere for someone else. You cant choose which citizens can exercise Constitutional rights, They are god given rights that every citizen enjoys. If those you think who should not be allowed to have firearms are so dangerous, why in the hell are they still a part of society? I wish people would understand that while I detest criminals who are citizens I will back their rights under the Constitution just as I would back a citizen who is not a criminal. That goes for the 1st,2nd and all the Amendments. If they can legislate a convicted felons rights away after he has fully paid his debt to society than the can legislate yours away for whatever reason they want. Oh BTW your point about the husband and wife if she doesnt like him having a gun in the house then she should leave the house and get a divorce. Marriage is not a Constitutional right owning a gun is.
Mack