Which of one’s Constitutional rights should be “infringed” upon conviction for/of a felony. Think about it please.
I am struggling to understand how, of all the rights enumerated, the ONLY ONE that is up for grabs is one’s Second Amendment right.
How can one be logically consistent regarding the RKBA on the one hand, and then taking that right away from someone who has a felony conviction?
I have not seen a convincing explanation.
Perhaps if convicted felons were allowed “constitutional carry”, ..... more people would realize that they are responsible for their own safety?
It is strange to realize there is a segment of society (one could even say, entire industries) that has an agenda that runs counter to the idea “you are responsible for your own safety”
“Which of one’s Constitutional rights should be “infringed” upon conviction for/of a felony. Think about it please.”
Some believe that only those rights infringed upon by the conviction of the felony itself, are the only infringements the felony conviction should carry; that extending the penalties (additional infringements) after the convicted’ sentence is carried out is not “just”.
Oh now you’ve done it...
Your argument makes too much sense...
Prepare to be flamed..
(I’m on your side, that pesky constitution thingie keeps getting in the way of people’s agendas)
Oh now you’ve done it...
Your argument makes too much sense...
Prepare to be flamed..
(I’m on your side, that pesky constitution thingie keeps getting in the way of people’s agendas)
If they can't be trusted to be armed, they should not be running around loose.