If they are too dangerous to vote or own a gun after they get out you should not have let them out. My point is that you cannot indefinitely extend the effects of incarceration when the person has served their sentence. You may SENTENCE them to life in prison, you may not sentence them to 5 yrs and then pull them back in for life on a civil commitment (which happens) or let them out after 5 but keep them a 2nd class citizen for life. Due process of law does not mean "we passed a law and you went before a kangaroo court so its all good". As with censoring the internet, gun control and numerous other things: if you want what you want you'll need to change the constitution. What you've got now is an arrangement unsupported by the text.
That is your viewpoint. Legally, felons can be considered to be on some sort of probation. They can be second class citizens. This has been upheld, so at this time, it is legal. We already acknowledge that we can take away life, liberty and property by due process. In this case, by a felony conviction. What kangaroo court? The court that disallows them from voting/owning a gun for life is the same court that convicted them beyond reasonable doubt of a felony. This is simply part of the punishment for a felony. Richardson vs Ramirez (1974) upholds the disenfranchisement of felons. It's related to section 2 of the 14th amendment. Well, I agree with you on the above, but the Constitution (per the 5th and 14th amendments) specifically allows for the taking of life, liberty and property from criminals.
That's what is supported by the text. Showing what is currently held and standing on that gets us no where: they are arguments from authority and without merit. You have to at least offer the arguments used. Simple hyperbole: I'm extending the concept from felons to others. Above your concept of due process seemed to be "well there's a law and there was a trial so yeah". << That's not due process. I'm simply trying to illustrate that right now its felons and later its bad thinkers or people who grow beards. Section 2 of 14 only mentions males having their citizenship divested and the count only changing for same. Which means you can do it to males but not to females. Its a case of writing a law meant to be taken and examined literally, and to bind upon its plain meaning, and not doing a very good job of it. Also: the taking of life liberty or property comes only from the legitimate use of the police power. You can use the police power under closely prescribed limits, not any other way. Saying "i'm using the police power to bar this person voting and owning a gun because they're just that dangerous to society" is foolish because what you SHOULD be using the police power for is to take the person off the street and put them in prison if they are so dangerous as to warrant the police power in the first place. If they're that dangerous then the police power COMPELS us to incarcerate them. Literally. Its an on/off switch. Either they are applicable under the police power which means they need to be incarcerated, or they are not which leaves you with no right to restrict their behavior.
Of course a criminal trial is due process. It is pretty much the definition of it. There is no way to stretch this into suddenly disenfranchising people with beards. Regardless, the 5th amendment is clear, and liberty (rights being one example of liberty) can be taken away from somebody using due process. Due process isn't simply passing a law.
WHY are you guys so hopped on having a gun? (I think I know why but won't be the first to bring it up) I mean, really, you act as if it's the ability to drive, or have sex, or the end all and be all of everything, the one thing that gives meaning to your entire existence I have lived a fairly long and eventful life. I have never owned a gun nor felt any need or desire to. I've never been hurt in any way as a result of my not having a gun. If I felt as attached to almost ANYTHING as much as some conservatives here or I know seem to be to their guns I would seek help, because I would have to say I was living a sad and unfulfilling existence, dependent on one thing alone.
Due process isn't just the dog and pony show. It also entails the entire show following a certain script, step 1 of which is "what does the constitution provide for? What powers does the government have over this issue (if it has any at all), and how may that power be employed?" The constitution is either silent (in the original BOR) or fatally inconsistent where the 14th does mention it. Not abiding by the process? Yeah violates due process even if there are rules, the rules are clearly announced and available to both parties, the defendant was read his rights and counsel made available, discovery occurred as prescribed, a jury of peers assembled etc. If the basis for the law written is horse(*)(*)(*)(*), due process has not been followed.
Why are you so hopped up on other people having/not having guns? (I think I know why but won't be the first to bring it up) I mean, really, you act as if its the ability to drive, or have sex, or the end all and be all of everything, the one thing that gives meaning to your entire existence I have lived a fairly long and eventful life. I have never cared if someone else owned or carried a gun, nor felt any need or desire to. I've never been hurt in any way as a result of my not caring if other people choose to exercise their 2nd amendment rights and own or carry a gun. If I felt as attached to almost ANYTHING as much as some here or I know seem to be on their idea that they should care whether or not someone else owns or carries a gun I would seek help, because I would have to say I was living a sad and unfulfilling existence, dependent on one thing alone.
divorce attorneys representing women married to cops or soldiers are telling these women to threaten their partners with the "Lautenberg Amendment"
You know, I have never owned a golf club so lets ban golf. Think of all the archery ranges and frisbee courses we could use the land for. And I have never owned a Tutu or a dance belt so why should we allow ballet and all the eating disorders that come from girls trying to squeeze into leotards three size smaller than they should wear if they ate a healthy diet? the main reason why we should be well armed is because there are far too many control freaks out there who want to tell us what we can own or what sort of hobbies we should have
there are many reasons to own guns which Is why I own many. protecting ones self and family from criminals is one. recreation is another. My son hopes to got to college on a shooting scholarship. and having weapons that would allow us to prevent control freaks from running our lives is yet another. . as Reality notes correctly, control freaks are thieves., they steal freedom which makes them the worst sort of criminal
Come to my home and try to force me to do something or not do something. Then I'll show you what it means.
Hunting, target shooting, collecting, shooting sports, building firearms, trap shooting, competition, and protection of your family, are some of the reasons people own firearms.
Touche, well sorta We are not talking about my being concerned if YOU have a gun or want one. We are talking about whether convicted felons should be able to. I say we should realize that since having a gun is not really a necessary thing for living a full and healthy life and this guy has already committed a felony I think it's reasonable to scrutinize just WHY he wants a gun . I can agree we shouldn't do it if the felony was speeding but some of you guys seem to want to permit it even if the guy was convicted of freaking domestic violence (apparently on the theory that most domestic violence charges are trumped up) And what if you want to kill the judge who took away your iicense? (Even if the problem is a Lamborghini and a less-than-light foot I'd still be concerned. If you can afford a Lamborghini you should be hiring an assassin. Hit men gotta eat too
If they are so dangerous that we must abrogate their rights outside of formal incarceration they should still be incarcerated. If we're going to incarcerate them for life we should kill them and have done after a sufficient chance for appeal.
So, you really and truly think you need a gun to survive, or will someday? If so, I'd really recommend you review your behaviors. Most people, even gun owners and advocates, go through the entirety of their lives with no occasion to ever use a gun for self-defense in any way. These btw, are also the ones who are most likely to have the gun taken away and used against them. Gun handling is, as I've been told here several times both more than a little difficult and a perishable skill.
Jesus Christ, I was only speeding in a really nice car, just take the freaking gun already. This is exactly what i'm getting at. Life, to you, is apparently not worth living unless you have a gun. And, in a weird sort of Catch 22, doesn't that make you JUST the sort that should NOT have one?
This is hilarious. Did you know that you're talking to an NRA certified firearm safety / CCW instructor? You trying to impart wisdom about my expertise would be like me giving you tips on how to do your job. Would you take me seriously? For many millions of Americans, it is better to have a firearm and never need it for self preservation, than to need it and not have it. Every day we read of several successful defensive gun uses. These people are grateful for the right to defend themselves, for they may be dead right now.
Yes, vehemently. You would have us incarcerate anyone who was ever dangerous to society forever. However, it is not unreasonable to suppose we can take away a right which is, to most sane people, trifling at best as a further penalty
1) no one is getting life for speeding in a really nice car. Nor should they. 2) why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would I remove someone's right to vote or have the end all beat all tool for self defense the ownership and bearing of which is explicitly protected in the law of the land that I would be basing ANY ruling on, AFTER their sentence which is supposed to reflect their debt to society for violating the law? If I've let them out, it is because their debt is paid. If their debt is paid I cannot keep (*)(*)(*)(*)ing them in the ass with interest. My concern is that the rule of law is followed. The rule of law in america starts with the constitution which has some VERY specific language concerning both firearms and voting. Its actually rather more clear on firearms than voting but still fairly clear on voting. Little mission creep bs like this? It continues if you do not hit it with a hammer, put it back in the deep, dark, hole that it crawled out of and demand that it put the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. First its small: Murderers can't vote. Then its Murderers and Rapists. Then its Murderers, Rapists, and Thieves. Then its murderers, rapists, thieves, and known liars (forgers, bribers, perjurors). Then its just "Felons". Then having a bag of flowers is a felony, or attending some march that turned into a riot where the cops turned the hoses and dogs on everyone in sight and rounded everyone up for charges without a care for who was rioting and who was bystanding or peacefully protesting is a felony. Then hate speech is a felony and what exactly "hate speech" is is defined by those currently in power to be things people say that they find offensive or mean. And then you have facist dictatorship. Don't want rapists and murderers voting or owning a gun or having the right to peacefully assemble? Death Penalty is your answer, not making them 2nd class citizens. If they are a rabid dog such that constant state monitoring or large abrogation of rights is required to control them, then they should be SHOT and put out of their and our misery. Its not that life is not worth living if I do not have a gun. Its that life is not worth living if my nation is not going to follow the laws upon which it was founded and will instead have its direction decided by the bleating of the mob of sheeple that makes up its citizenry. The entire idea of a republic is that you CAN'T "Just Pass a Law" because people want it or because it might make sense to some people. You have to go by the process. The process requires an amendment for this, the stipulations of which are clearly laid out.
once a person has done their time all rights should be restored... common sense every free American has the right to protect their homes and families the only ones effected by these laws is law abiding citizens... real criminals will not be effected in any way it's a right to own a gun... not a privilege.. just like free speech .
