A Felon Is Denied The Right To Own A Gun to Protect His Family

Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed with both of you.

Add to this, if a person can't be trusted with a gun, then why should they be allowed to vote? People are either citizens or they are not. I don't like the half-assed shit.
Click to expand...

I never understood the concept of not allowing them to vote. The reason I have heard is because they would be voting for corrupted politicians. Aren't all politicians corrupted anyway? :laugh:
 
AProudLefty said:
I never understood the concept of not allowing them to vote. The reason I have heard is because they would be voting for corrupted politicians. Aren't all politicians corrupted anyway? :laugh:
Click to expand...

While there's a large measure of truth about politicians, the point being a government's power over its own people versus the power of people over government. Not just all collectively but also individually as note by our unalienable rights per the Declaration of Independence.

If a person has served their sentence, they should be freed and see a full restoration of rights. All their rights. Otherwise keep them in prison or execute them. Offer free suicides.
 
AProudLefty said:
You should worry about our Constitutional rights being eroded.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The problem, IMO, is that too many on the Left believe that the Constitution limits the rights of citizens when, in fact, it limits the powers of the Federal government...which We, the People keep empowering.
 
whaap said:
So, you say a convicted felon can't buy a gun to protect his family. Is that one sentence true or not??
Click to expand...

The law says a convicted felon cannot buy/own a gun for any reason. That doesn't stop him from buying/owning a gun.

The law is unconstitutional.
 
AProudLefty said:
The law says a convicted felon cannot buy/own a gun for any reason. That doesn't stop him from buying/owning a gun.

The law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Who gave the Federal government the power to remove all or some of a citizen's rights forever?

It's stuff like this that makes me wary of empowering the Federal government to arbitrarily put citizens on restrictive lists without due process. First there was the "Terrorist Watch List" with babies on it. Then Obama wanted to put citizens on a gun ban list, again, without due process and nearly impossible to be removed from. This type of mindset is dangerous to American ideals.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. Who gave the Federal government the power to remove all or some of a citizen's rights forever?

It's stuff like this that makes me wary of empowering the Federal government to arbitrarily put citizens on restrictive lists without due process. First there was the "Terrorist Watch List" with babies on it. Then Obama wanted to put citizens on a gun ban list, again, without due process and nearly impossible to be removed from. This type of mindset is dangerous to American ideals.
Click to expand...

Recall the SCOTUS vs. Larry Flynt for example. Apparently we need the SCOTUS' permission to exercise our First Amendment right for "certain speeches".
 
AProudLefty said:
The SCOTUS apparently, as far as I recall.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS rules on present laws passed by Congress or lower reps. Despite all of the gaslighting and general bullshit, SCOTUS doesn't make law.

An example is Citizens United. SCOTUS ruled on multiple lower court decisions. Fine. Congress can fix the problem, but they need to write legislation that passes Constitutional muster. This is unlikely to happen for two reasons: Congress can't find it's own ass with both hands and they don't want to mess with the status quo.
 
AProudLefty said:
Recall the SCOTUS vs. Larry Flynt for example. Apparently we need the SCOTUS' permission to exercise our First Amendment right for "certain speeches".
Click to expand...

Not SCOTUS. Others tried to limit free speech and Flynt fought them in court. Every time he lost, he appealed to a higher court until SCOTUS ruled against the Free Speech hating assholes.
 
whaap said:
So, you say a convicted felon can't buy a gun to protect his family. Is that one sentence true or not??
Click to expand...

In most states, it's true. It shouldn't be since it every free citizen should be able to defend themselves. Do you agree with this unalienable right to self-defense?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
when did allowing the government to ignore the constitution become a good thing to you traitor?
Click to expand...

I don't give too much of a fat flying fuck about either firearms ownership OR the US Constitution, but I do believe in beginning a sentence with an upper case letter.
We each have our own priorities.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I don't give too much of a fat flying fuck about either firearms ownership OR the US Constitution, but I do believe in beginning a sentence with an upper case letter.
We each have our own priorities.
Click to expand...

Good job, neef. You finally landed a joke with general appeal. :thup:
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I don't give too much of a fat flying fuck about either firearms ownership OR the US Constitution, but I do believe in beginning a sentence with an upper case letter.
We each have our own priorities.
Click to expand...

being a grammar nazi is the first sure sign of someone losing an argument.............

and I get that you don't care about 'muh constitution', but maybe you can answer why? is it because it limits government too much for you? does it allow too much freedom to people? why don't you give a flying fat fuck about the US Constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top