Posted on 06/04/2013 7:36:55 AM PDT by marjiwoj
If they should not be allowed to carry arms than they should either be (a) dead, or (b) in some sort of care (i.e. parents caring for their mentally-retarded adult-child). I reject utterly the idea that some infraction should end all rights someone might have, turning them into a second-class citizen whose 'rights' have been transformed into privileges bestowed by his master. (In other words: even the vilest felon, after serving his sentence, must be considered free/blameless by the law*.) To assume otherwise is to say that the law is never satisfied in some cases; and some will argue that being stripped of the right to keep & bear arms "is part of the sentence": they are wrong, it cannot be so because the 'law' which prohibits them is, even by the screwy definition the Supreme Court uses, an Ex Post Facto law, and therefore contrary to the constitution, and therefore nullity.
* - Granted, the sentence might be death, but if he should rise from the grave then I would have no objection to his carrying of arms.
Ever since I was big enough to have some idea of what was going on, the dems have promoted huge wasteful programs that endangered America’s security, monetary and militarily.
They seemed to know that soon the Pubbies would be back to fix up the economy and cover all the money they wasted.
Afterwards without exception, it was found that during all the waste, many of the dems were getting filthy rich on the “loose unaccounted” money.
Many, many are helping with the charade and gathering up all that unaccounted for money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.