A constitutional question - Page 4
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 65

Thread: A constitutional question

  1. #31
    Interesting Quiet, I didn't know they could do that for somone with that many offenses. Whether this is a good or bad thing i am unsure, but it's interesting.
    David

    The only person available to protect you 24 hours a day is you.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidM View Post
    Interesting Quiet, I didn't know they could do that for somone with that many offenses. Whether this is a good or bad thing i am unsure, but it's interesting.
    Under most conditions once a felon serves his entire time, including probation, many rights can be returned. Because of the federal laws, and I may be wrong, firearms possession is a permanent loss.

  4. #33
    The fact that the constitution itself doesn't allow the right to bear arms to be taken away after incarceration, reveals much about the pragmatic way the country used to deal with crime.

    It also reveals the hypocrisy and falseness of a system of 'corrections' which everybody knows doesn't correct anyone. I'm assuming here that the reason we incarcerate individuals is to protect society. Why would we release someone who can't be trusted with a firearm? It's clear that weaponry of all sorts are readily available to any able-bodied person, whether it be a gun, a brick, a kitchen knife, rat poison or an electrical cord.

    If somebody is convicted of armed robbery, rape or attempted murder, how can we really justify releasing this person afterwards, unless we're certain that they're no longer a threat to society? Do we really believe that 20 years of incarceration can make them gentler? If we do believe it can, we need to do more to actually make it work, since it isn't working now. If we don't believe it can, there can be no justification for releasing them.

    2nd amendment supporters know that banning inanimate objects doesn't stop crime. The illegalization of Alcohol in the 1920s only lead to packed prisons, thriving gangs and organized crime, and incidents of poisoning from bad batches of moonshine. Hmm, where have we seen these symptoms before?

    Our criminal justice system is in dire need of reform, like the rest of the government.
    1) Decriminalization of drugs to open up prison space
    2) Mandatory life sentences for violent criminals.
    3) a return to the rule of the Constitution and
    4) transfer of power from the national government to state governments.

    If I'm not mistaken, this closely resembles Ron Paul's platform.
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  5. Ishi you must also realize that while you are property of the uncle sam you do not have constitutional rights.

  6. #35
    ? ?
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Puppy View Post
    If what you say is true, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court. Everyone would agree on what the constitution says and no court would be necessary. The fact is that almost every case which comes before the SC gets there because the two opponents involved have a different opinion as to what the constitution says, i.e. they have different interpretations. The court decides which is right; they interpret it to settle the case.

    Additionally one has to decide what the founders intended. They were brilliant men, not darn fools who though it was proper to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns.

    While all homicidal maniacs are felons, all felons aren't homicidal maniacs. The fact is, if the founding fathers had intended for RKBA to be contingent upon whether one has felony convictions on their record (or mental illness or anything else for that matter), then it would be written. Since it isn't, however, then obviously they did not have that intention.

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    While all homicidal maniacs are felons, all felons aren't homicidal maniacs. The fact is, if the founding fathers had intended for RKBA to be contingent upon whether one has felony convictions on their record (or mental illness or anything else for that matter), then it would be written. Since it isn't, however, then obviously they did not have that intention.
    By definition a felony is a serious crime punishble by more than one year in prison up to execution. While the Constitution does not address this directly, the intent was shown by our forefathers. My apologies to those who have read this reference before. "....and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of press .... or to prevent the people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms...." Samuel Adams. Note the use of the term "peacable" here showing that criminals may not retain this right.

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    By definition a felony is a serious crime punishble by more than one year in prison up to execution. While the Constitution does not address this directly, the intent was shown by our forefathers. My apologies to those who have read this reference before. "....and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of press .... or to prevent the people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms...." Samuel Adams. Note the use of the term "peacable" here showing that criminals may not retain this right.
    I have a legal problem with interpreting the constitution through quotes by well-known founders. One, each was speaking for himself. They frequently disagreed about important points and debated them at length. It's easy enough to find some piece of writing from a founder to support almost any position. Only the constitution itself is the document which represents their collective and final deliberations.

    Two, the constitution was written by people who were literate and capable, so if the final wording did not intend that felons should retain the right to bear arms, they could easily have inserted that exception into the language of the law.

    (Please, everyone remember that was not originally a debate over the utility of denying felons the right to bear arms, or a question about current law. This is a constitutional debate.)
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by ishi View Post
    I have a legal problem with interpreting the constitution through quotes by well-known founders. One, each was speaking for himself. They frequently disagreed about important points and debated them at length. It's easy enough to find some piece of writing from a founder to support almost any position. Only the constitution itself is the document which represents their collective and final deliberations.

    Two, the constitution was written by people who were literate and capable, so if the final wording did not intend that felons should retain the right to bear arms, they could easily have inserted that exception into the language of the law.

    (Please, everyone remember that was not originally a debate over the utility of denying felons the right to bear arms, or a question about current law. This is a constitutional debate.)
    Good point Ishi. I guess to become binding the "intent" must be in writing.

  11. You first must know the persons history to to know were he is coming from.Books have been written on the history of the Constitution.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast