The punishment here is the unConstitutional part. 15 years mandatory sentencing for owning an inanimate object. There is nothing in his history that demonstrates that he is unsafe with guns, nothing to indicate that he assaults others or is violent in any way. He is being punished for something that you cowards fear he might do. Once you allow government to prosecute unpopular members of society in this way (it was blacks a few decades back, Jews and Chinese before that... are you proud of the company you keep?), you invite some real governmental abuse. How many times do you need to learn this lesson?
Historically speaking, who is more likely to shoot someone, a person with a history of armed assault, or a farmer?
Exactly proving my point. You are looking, eagerly, to punish someone you think is a lesser citizen than yourself. You support unequal treatment in the law, and you support punishing those based on crimes that you feel they are likely to commit. In short, you're an elitist who delights in using the power of the state to hurt others who have done nothing to warrant it. You're just as much of a thug as you think he is, but you use your "moral superiority" to use the power of the state, whereas all he ever hurt was a lock on a door (burglary is forcible entry to commit larceny inside... no violence necessary).
How about a person who's only crime is robbing a bank, you would actually defend his right to go out and buy another gun?
Yes. Say he was 18 when he made that mistake, is 74 now, and is being threatened by a gang of drug-dealing punks around the corner? His infirm wife is terrified and bed-ridden, and you can't move out of the subsidized housing you live in because there are no other homes available. You would mirthfully stand by and applaud his murder (after watching his wife get raped and bludgeoned, of course), all because he made a mistake, paid his debt to society, and you want to look down your nose at him. Truly, you're a prince among men.
Exactly what public purpose is served by prosecuting this man so harshly, other than putting the populace on notice that guns are evil, and the state will assume that if you own one, you are a threat. The purposes of confining someone are to deter others, deter the individual, incapacitate him (for public safety for the term of his incarceration), punish him, rehabilitate him, or to condemn the act. Plainly, he would have been deterred by far lesser sentences (hell, a $1000 fine would have done that), he does not need to be removed from society because he has never physically harmed another human being, his desire to own a gun can't be "rehabilitated"... that leaves punishing him (and again, 15 years easily violates the 8th Amendment since a third burglary or even a physical assault on another would carry far lesser sentences than he got for injuring no one!), or condemning him so that the public gets the message that if you have ever committed a crime, you're rights are rescinded forever, and that you no longer have the right to self-defense, even though you are no longer a threat to society (if you were, you'd still be in jail). So, please, tell us which purpose is being properly served by 15 years in a federal penitentiary for owning an inanimate object and never physically injuring another human being?
I suppose you would be offended if a drunk driver who has had 2+ DUI convictions loses his drivers license? If you demonstrate the ability to misuse your freedoms, the freedoms will be taken away. And that is hardly uncounstitiutional.
Duh. The Bill of Rights explicitly mentions ONE product... and it ain't modes of transportation. You can think this is a comparable argument?
Exactly. He is a felon (a double loser as he has 2 convictions), thus gets to enjoy the bounty of his foolish decisions. Part of his penalty is that he can never vote, or own a gun. He KNEW that after his FIRST conviction. It's clearly explained to him, and it's no big state secret.
You are looking, eagerly, to punish someone you think is a lesser citizen than yourself.
Do I think I'm superior to a convicted felon? Hell yeah. In every single category you can think of. I'm smarter, honorable, trustworthy, and have demonstrated that I can be trusted to act responsibly. Every single thing I own, I bought with money I earned. I grew up poor, and worked full time to put my way through college. Compared to this piece of human refuse, I'm freakin' superman.
You're just as much of a thug as you think he is, but you use your "moral superiority" to use the power of the state, whereas all he ever hurt was a lock on a door (burglary is forcible entry to commit larceny inside... no violence necessary).
Boo-freakin-hoo. I have had my home invaded by a degenerate like this creep. A person who felt that everything I owned was his to take. Now, some idiot like you propose that these degenerates are just as worthy as everyone else to possess a firearm.
His infirm wife is terrified and bed-ridden, and you can't move out of the subsidized housing you live in because there are no other homes available. Oh, bring me a Kleenix, you are killing me.... we all make decisions in life. Some of us chose to work to get ahead, others chose to steal from the people who work. You would mirthfully stand by and applaud his murder (after watching his wife get raped and bludgeoned, of course), all because he made a mistake, paid his debt to society, and you want to look down your nose at him. Truly, you're a prince among men.
Again, boo-freakin-hoo. Let's contrast this with the number of innocents who are killed/robbed every year by thugs who have been convicted not once, not twice but three times. The odds are that he's more likely to be the cause of violence, than the recepient of it.
15 years easily violates the 8th Amendment since a third burglary or even a physical assault on another would carry far lesser sentences than he got for injuring no one!)
Stupidity should be painful. This is called escalated punishment. The first conviction should have sent a message to this degenerate. But, this specimen of humanity was a little slower than the average idiot. So, his second offense usually carries with it a longer sentence (for those who are too mentally inept to understand what they did was wrong). He was put on notice, and he stupidly thought otherwise. I have absolutely no pity for the criminal element. Maybe because I've experienced what they can do to people's lives. But bleeding hearts will always seek to blame someone else for the criminals poor decisions. You are blaming me, for wanting to punish a person who has been through the system AT LEAST twice. Perhaps some day you will be unfortunate to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time and expience first hand the utter disregard this element has for your property, your life, your possessions, and everything you hold dear. Then, I think you will change your tune.