Do Americans Stop Being American Citizens.....

T. A. Gardner said:
No, it is reasonable to charge them with rioting and not accept a defense of "free speech" as their reason for rioting...
Click to expand...

Ok. So it is unreasonable to deny them their First Amendment right after they served their time? Correct?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can openly and freely slander someone either. But both are illegal. There are plenty of laws that reasonably abridge your Constitutional rights based on your actions. Having committed a felony is one that abridges your right to possess a firearm.
Click to expand...

That's civil laws. Bad analogy.
 
AProudLefty said:
Ok. So it is unreasonable to deny them their First Amendment right after they served their time? Correct?
Click to expand...

No but it might if they kept doing it incessantly. Denying a violent felon legal access to a firearm makes sense. The same can be said of denying say someone who ran a securities scam access to a broker's license. They've proved they can't be trusted with (respectively) a gun and selling securities.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No but it might if they kept doing it incessantly. Denying a violent felon legal access to a firearm makes sense. The same can be said of denying say someone who ran a securities scam access to a broker's license. They've proved they can't be trusted with (respectively) a gun and selling securities.
Click to expand...

So you agree that Tim Allen should have the right to own guns?
 
AProudLefty said:
So you agree that Tim Allen should have the right to own guns?
Click to expand...

Probably. I think a blanket ban on any felon owning a firearm is too broad a brush to paint a law like that with. I fully agree that career criminals (those with multiple felonies) and violent felons should be restricted from owning a firearm. That makes sense. I think it's wrong that a misdemeanor domestic violence charge can get your firearms taken away.

When it comes to guns, the government of late is looking for any excuse to abridge that right for life.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Probably. I think a blanket ban on any felon owning a firearm is too broad a brush to paint a law like that with. I fully agree that career criminals (those with multiple felonies) and violent felons should be restricted from owning a firearm. That makes sense. I think it's wrong that a misdemeanor domestic violence charge can get your firearms taken away.

When it comes to guns, the government of late is looking for any excuse to abridge that right for life.
Click to expand...

So basically the laws make them less of an American? A citizen of American with restricted rights? Cannot vote?

To vote is to be a genuine American. They are even denied that.

Does that make any sense to you?
 
AProudLefty said:
So basically the laws make them less of an American? A citizen of American with restricted rights? Cannot vote?

To vote is to be a genuine American. They are even denied that.

Does that make any sense to you?
Click to expand...

Voting is a different matter. I can see voting abridged while you are in prison or even on probation / parole / supervised release. In all of those you have many rights restricted because you are in state custody to one degree or another. Once you are finished with your full sentence, you should automatically have the right to vote restored.
 
AProudLefty said:
That's exactly my point. All the Constitutional rights should be "restored" after they served their time.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. Firearms being withheld from career criminals and those with a history (not just one incident but a string) of violence shouldn't own a gun. That's reasonable. They've proven they can't be trusted with a weapon.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I disagree with that. Firearms being withheld from career criminals and those with a history (not just one incident but a string) of violence shouldn't own a gun. That's reasonable. They've proven they can't be trusted with a weapon.
Click to expand...

Even those who have never used any kind of weapon?
 
AProudLefty said:
Even those who have never used any kind of weapon?
Click to expand...
For career, that is repeat offenders--I differentiate here. Someone who committed multiple felonies all at once is a different case from someone who committed one or more, got out committed more, got out committed more. It's that last sort I'm concerned about--yes, they should never be allowed to own a firearm regardless of what their felonies were. That's a case of demonstrated unreliability. If being a drug addict is sufficient cause to keep someone from possessing a gun, then it's certainly reasonable that someone who keeps committing serious crimes should be prohibited too.
It's sort of like someone who repeatedly drives drunk and gets repeated DUI's. At some point regardless of whether they ever caused an accident or injury in that condition, they are just too likely to eventually cause one by their actions so they should be denied a driver's license.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
For career, that is repeat offenders--I differentiate here. Someone who committed multiple felonies all at once is a different case from someone who committed one or more, got out committed more, got out committed more. It's that last sort I'm concerned about--yes, they should never be allowed to own a firearm regardless of what their felonies were. That's a case of demonstrated unreliability. If being a drug addict is sufficient cause to keep someone from possessing a gun, then it's certainly reasonable that someone who keeps committing serious crimes should be prohibited too.
Click to expand...

I did not mention multiple felonies.
 
Flash said:
Not when the Constitution gives that power to the states because it is not a power the federal government is granted.
Click to expand...

In other words the states can deny the First Amendment right to those who committed felonies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top