A question of trust of fellow citizens

That is why the death penalty is important, and should be used more often.

At a minimum, those convicted of violent rape, murder, etc should be executed.

When the Constitution was written, the death penalty was neither cruel nor unusual.

Liberal policies have created the situation where everything is a crime, more people have to go to jail, more jails are needed, but jail isn't nice so you let them out, then they commit another crime, back they go, infinite loop.

 

What would be the justification for doing so? Is it arbitrary?

 

No sir, society has no such right. You confuse power with rights. Society has no Right to take from any individual that which society did not give. While you MAY be able to enforce such a position for a time, that attitude causes the people to rebel and change the status quo, by force, when necessary.

 

I agree, and will add that "society" is not a thinking moral agent capable of moral choices or capable of having rights. Only individual people fall into that category.

Anyone who says "society has a right to" is essentially saying "certain people have a right to". And that's where they demonstrate that they are primitive adherents to the notion of "divine right". It's primitive and barbaric.

 

sure we do.

its our society.

we can do what we want to protect our society.

don't like it? find a new one.

 

quintessential doublespeak

 

You may apply any label you wish. You can even label my post as "quintessential doublespeak". Okay.

So, your position is that a person who has committed a felony ought to have his right to keep and bear arms infringed. Can you tell us why this would be necessary?

 

do we let folks in prison possess firearms?

why not?

 

Um...because it's prison and they are being incarcerated.

So, your position is that a person who has committed a felony ought to have his right to keep and bear arms infringed. Can you tell us why this would be necessary?

 

If you trusted your fellow citizens, you would have no need of a personal killing tool.

 

Umm
Well as the whole country increases in size and complexity, there are ever more laws..., that cover even remote areas. Still, as far as i know, if you live in some remote cabin in akaska, there is not much to prevent you from living your dream

 

I trust the vast majority of my fellow citizens with the means to protect ourselves from the small minority who wish to do us harm. Most people are good. Only a small minority are scumbags. If it weren't so, we wouldn't have civilization.

 

What if gun lovers convicted of gun crimes by a jury of their peers, being required to help with better aqueducts and better roads, through more well regulated militia service?

 

Unfortunately our daily headlines demonstrate that utopia doesn't exist.

 

no moral of goodwill toward men, but plenty of the abomination of hypocrisy; over two thousand years of organized religion, gentlemen. are stakeholders being lied to for the sake of lucre.

 

in the 22 years the brady bill has existed, there is ZERO proof that the millions spent on this placebo has done a damn thing to reduce violent crime at all

its a felony for a criminal to possess a gun. Catch a crook with a gun-put him in jail

 

Please don't give the GOP ideas - they might take your advice to heart and apply it to the surveillance state.

 

Every right, no matter its origin, is limiting by its very nature, you right to life can be taken dependent upon conviction of a heinous crime. Felons can not vote either.

Why do you think you have to be 21 to buy alcohol? Why do you think yo have to provide ID to purchase alcohol/tobacco? Poisens are limited to those with the proper licensing, knives require ID, etc.

That is what the laws are now, whats their to get?

 

Its called parole, which is usually set for a specific amount of time.

 

Society has every right to create laws for the regulation of those very people. Its been done for centuries and in every society.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you think we elect people for govt roles?

A right by its very nature is limiting and can be limited.

 

It's obvious here that the liberals don't understand the nature of Rights nor the Constitution. One of the many things that the United States Supreme Court have said about the Second Amendment is this:

"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.

...The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It "derives its source," to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 211, "from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world." It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution

...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence....." United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

John Adams, the second president of the United States stated:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." (A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765)

Unalienable Rights are beyond the reach of the federal government, and consequently, above the reach of local governments. The liberals try to mix oranges and apples to make a point, but it is lost in the fact that they contend that rights are limited by their nature. Their point is disputed by every single founding father that ever lived.

Unalienable Rights are not given to us by government. They are secured by the Constitution. When the liberals try to confuse the matter, they mix "rights" with unalienable Rights. An example: There is no "right" to vote in a federal election. It is but a mere privilege, doled out by government.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - unalienable Rights. Those are reserved to the people.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.
A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v State
24 Tex.394, at 401-402 (1859)

 

how about we prevent them from buying guns, with background checks.

seems logical.

 

You are not that naive to believe that a background check will prevent a felon from getting his girlfriend to by the gun for him.

 

And your UNALIENABLE right to life can be taken by a jury of your peers. Your UNALIENABLE right to liberty stops once it infringes upon my right. So even UNALIENABLE rights are limited.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Society did not give you life, but if you commit a heinous enough crime in that society then that society can take your life through a jury of your peers.