|
|
Posted on 12/29/2006 10:32:28 AM PST by neverdem
|
|
With gang-bangers you still need to guard the islands, in case their fellow gang members rent a boat
I think that after the third conviction, it should be an option to fry them, without appeal. My reason for having it be after the third conviction is because of all the people who will cry "well, what if he's innocent?". The probability of a true innocent being convicted three times is vanishingly small. If he was innocent of the third crime but truly guilty of the first two, I would say "so what?".
Great article and thanks for the link.
I totally agree and I wish we hadn't gotten so far from the founders' ideal as to be now under the tyranny of an unlimited federal government or one that is only limited by the current tide of public opinion.
I also noted that when describing the rights and principles of our constitution the phrase, peaceful people is continually used. Violent felons are not peaceful people.
A convicted felon has been through due process. It was quite clear that the Framers included the death penalty among Constitutionally acceptable punishments for persons who had been convicted via due process. It's a bit ridiculous to claim that they didn't also intend for loss of 2nd Amendment rights to be an acceptable punishment. In fact, in their outside writings on the subject at least a couple of them specified "felons" and the "insane" as not being covered (sorry, don't have citations, and don't have time to dig up right now), but common sense ruled back then, so for the most part it went without saying. The extrapolation that they would certainly NOT have approved of is the current scheme, under which the government claims a right to screen/regulate/record all persons' possession/carrying/purchases of firearms as a means of trying to limit prohibited persons' access to firearms.
The founders did not want our inalienable rights to be subject to 'regulations' by majority voters.
Can you agree?
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness is also a right. But I doubt those that wrote that meant that nobody could ever lose those rights for committing certain crimes. If that were true nobody could ever be hanged, put in jail, or restricted from doing anything that made them happy.
No one is disputing that criminal acts can lead to losing those rights.
I asked for your agreement that the founders did not want our inalienable rights to be subject to 'regulations' by majority vote. -- Thanks for your reaction.
Same for here in Michigan.
Uhh, yeah, I think. Write small, miss small.
What is 'felon' or 'felony?' It varies among jurisdictions. In SC, a felony is defined by the punishment and not by the crime. 'Liable to 365 days or more of incarceration.' Then there is a legislated schedule of punishments for crimes that can change with administrations.
There is no problem with incarceration or capital punishment. If they can't be trusted with guns then they can't be trusted with enfranchisement and they can't be trusted in society.
But there is no way to misinterpret the principle (that which will not be compromised) behind 'shall not be infringed.' Compromise is tyranny on the installment plan, tyranny at the bottom of the slippery slope slid.
Democracy is the rule of fools by fools. So many have been foolish.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns. I am not equal @ +4 s.d.
He just grimmaced and agreed with me. Another friend of mine who is on the police force also expressed that many officers feel the same way.
If Texas is any indication as to how long those signs designating "Sheep Zones" remain, those signs won't last long.
What has replaced those signs are ones which ban unlicensed firearms.
But he was a niggro there special doncha know.
He was a felon on probation/parole. I don't care what his skin tone is.
Good to know. Might be moving down that way in the not too distant future.
Same here in MN ,but not as much as most other places.
But fart in the wrong direction and they'll yank your permit and call you felon.
Same here in NY... each county grants pistol permits. Believe it or not, it is pretty easy to get the permit in most counties up here. The only places that give people a hard time are NYC, Albany, and Buffalo. Westchester may be a pain in the neck also.. but I know a few guys that have permits there.
Our legislature has mandated that 8 hours of classwork is required to get the permit. So one has to sign up for the class, and then the class goes on and on and on... from 8 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon with an hour off from lunch. By the end of the day the instructor is doing anything he can think of to fill the time.
And then one goes back the next day to qualify on the range. And it's like $100 to take the class, and $100 to file for the permit. And trips to the downtown sheriff's office for fingerprinting and again to pick up the permit.
So it's a fairly onerous process but once completed, it's good for five years so at least that's a good thing. And renewing doesn't require "re-education". So could be easier, but once you're done, you're done.
A proper reading of the intent of the 2nd Amendment would allow "felons" as defined under common law to have their 2nd Amendment rights abridged (just as any of their other rights may be abridged, AFTER due process). Obviously the sort of administrative felonies that have been invented in recent decades, including many which are obviously in conflict with the 2nd Amendment, are NOT what the framers had in mind.
Your black and white analysis assumes that the Constitution requires that anyone who isn't "good" be incarcerated for life or put to death. That's just not reasonable. There are plenty of people, both felons and those with serious mental illnesses, who should not be subjected to such extreme measures, but who also should not be free to run around carrying a loaded gun. Should all elderly people who are in sufficiently advanced stages of Alzheimer's that they can't reliably recognize family and friends, be locked up in an institution for the rest of their lives? Obviously not. But the idea of someone in that condition being legally free to carry a gun or keep one handy around the house is preposterous -- they cannot legally be held responsible for an unprovoked murder they might commit, when they imagine their adult child or regular home health attendant to be a criminal intruder entering their home.
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.
