No basic rights for felons who've paid their debt?

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Now, honestly, I don't see any conservatives calling for the restriction of free speech of felons. For instance, a law that stated that anyone caught doing union activity which was found to be disruptive to the community would no longer be able to speak freely would be highly objectionable and would probably be struck down by everyone.

Now then, why are felons denied the right to own a gun, which is every bit the same as free speech, by conservatives? Anyone have the answer?

It seems - just a little - that conservatives are advocating a restriction *gasp*. Yes, a reasonable restriction. In doing so, they are candidly admitting that the second ammendment isn't exactly the same as the first ammendment, and that it isn't even absolute.

More gasps.

This is interesting.
 
In any case, restricting basic rights after they're out of prison seems like an awfully weird way to punish them. I mean, is restricting free speech/gun rights really a "punishment"?
 
So the other day I walked into the grocery store, got 15 dollars worth of stuff, and went up to the grocer.

He said "You got the money to pay for that?"

And I said "Nope."

He said "Well, sheesh, how are we going to work this out? Why don't you, say, not own a gun for a day or two?"

I accepted and walked out a very happy man.
 
The 5th amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The implication accepted as truth in that statement is that a person CAN be deprived of life, liberty or property WITH due process of law.

There is such a thing in the criminal justice system as a life sentence. When given a lifetime sentence in a penal facility, the majority of constitutional rights are either significantly curbed, or outright suspended. (ie: liberty is deprived by the due process of law that placed them in prison.) For instance, a prisoner in a government jail does not in any way have protection against random search and seizure of their cells or person.

Lifetime sentences, through due process of law, have the ability to permanently suspend constitutional rights. As such there is no reason a lifetime sentence against certain constitutional rights cannot be reasonably extended to violent felons whose jail sentences were not lifetime.
 
Good Luck said:
The 5th amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The implication accepted as truth in that statement is that a person CAN be deprived of life, liberty or property WITH due process of law.

There is such a thing in the criminal justice system as a life sentence. When given a lifetime sentence in a penal facility, the majority of constitutional rights are either significantly curbed, or outright suspended. (ie: liberty is deprived by the due process of law that placed them in prison.) For instance, a prisoner in a government jail does not in any way have protection against random search and seizure of their cells or person.

Lifetime sentences, through due process of law, have the ability to permanently suspend constitutional rights. As such there is no reason a lifetime sentence against certain constitutional rights cannot be reasonably extended to violent felons whose jail sentences were not lifetime.
Click to expand...

Such as free speech?
 
Watermark said:
Now, honestly, I don't see any conservatives calling for the restriction of free speech of felons. For instance, a law that stated that anyone caught doing union activity which was found to be disruptive to the community would no longer be able to speak freely would be highly objectionable and would probably be struck down by everyone.

Now then, why are felons denied the right to own a gun, which is every bit the same as free speech, by conservatives? Anyone have the answer?

It seems - just a little - that conservatives are advocating a restriction *gasp*. Yes, a reasonable restriction. In doing so, they are candidly admitting that the second ammendment isn't exactly the same as the first ammendment, and that it isn't even absolute.

More gasps.

This is interesting.
Click to expand...

the first amendment isn't even absolute, you can't yell fire in a theater for instance... And I bet you had to strain to come up with that...
 
WRL said:
the first amendment isn't even absolute, you can't yell fire in a theater for instance... And I bet you had to strain to come up with that...
Click to expand...

You can't yell fire in a theater because it's directly a lie and victimizes people. Me owning a gun cannot possibly victimize anyone.
 
Racist rethoric is a lie and victimizes people and yet it's protected, try again...
 
Watermark said:
Such as free speech?
Click to expand...
I doubt that free speech would be considered as a reasonable method to protect society from a released felon.

But when addressing a violent felon who has already proven a willingness to use violence against innocent members of society, removing their right to weapons of violence (again, via due process of law) is a reasonable precaution in protecting society from the felon.

Due process is the crux of it. A person violates the law, is arrested, tried and convicted of the crime, then due process has been satisfied, and the resulting sentence which deprives them of liberty, either temporarily or permanently depending on circumstances, is just.

But placing a blanket prohibition or barrier (ie: infringement) to the people's 2nd amendment rights does not use due process. Therefore it is unconstitutional.
 
It seems to me to be tangled up with the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. But there's really no contradiction. No right is absolute, all rights are conditional. That being so then the right to bear arms is not an absolute right and there can be reasonable restrictions placed either collectively or individually on the right to bear arms. I think it was Locke who stated that "liberty" didn't mean "licence".
 
Diuretic said:
It seems to me to be tangled up with the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. But there's really no contradiction. No right is absolute, all rights are conditional. That being so then the right to bear arms is not an absolute right and there can be reasonable restrictions placed either collectively or individually on the right to bear arms. I think it was Locke who stated that "liberty" didn't mean "licence".
Click to expand...

On Restrictions, that's true to a very small extent, such as in the first amendment... I would oppose 99% of any gun control laws, in fact the only one I support is the felon restriction... I do agree with the Locke quote however...
 
Last edited:
Can anyone please tell me any other possible definition of the word liberty that "freedom from restraint"? Could you quit pussy-footing around, and stop changing the meaning of sacred words so that you don't have to disagree with their positive connotations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top