Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mechanicos
That puts the Constitution in conflict to read it that way — shall not infringe is a bright line rule.

Not really, because there are other bright lines that protect life, liberty and property. The right to keep and bear arms is both a liberty and a right to property. Nobody at the time felt that felons had a right to anything - by committing a felony, and being fairly convicted (much of the bill of rights concerns the fairness of the judicial process) criminals forfeit any or potentially all of their rights.

Your only plausible argument is an 8th amendment one -- that taking away gun rights is "cruel and unusual." But there you're getting into squishy progressive territory.

105 posted on 10/20/2014 3:41:20 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: Alter Kaker

Actually my argumet is the specific vs the general and the superior position of the 2nd to the 5th. Notwithstanding what else has such a strong “shall not.” Its not a permissible or gray statement.

To follow the logic you are using is a slippery slope since felony is whatever the democrats want it to be now. You really want them to take away your right because you are a Christian? No “shall not” means shall not.


108 posted on 10/20/2014 3:52:23 PM PDT by Mechanicos (Nothing's so small it can't be blown out of proportion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson