To: cripplecreek
The 2nd’s wording is so strong that I’m not even certain that we should deny ex-felons the right.
23 posted on
04/15/2013 7:52:46 AM PDT by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: MrB
The 2nd’s wording is so strong that I’m not even certain that we should deny ex-felons the right.
I agree, there's no point in it. We used to hand weapons back over to felons upon release from jail or prison. If they wanted to commit a crime again they were going to do it anyway.
We used to keep truly dangerous people off the streets.
25 posted on
04/15/2013 7:56:46 AM PDT by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: MrB
We shouldn’t deny ex-felons the right. That’s what magnum revolvers and high-capacity magazines are for.
27 posted on
04/15/2013 7:57:52 AM PDT by
PowderMonkey
(WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
To: MrB
Seems pretty unambiguous to me in my state.
The Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963 Article 1, Section 6 reads, "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
30 posted on
04/15/2013 8:00:10 AM PDT by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: MrB
I’m with you on that. We don’t deny felons or anyone else their First Amendment rights; why are they not allowed their God-given right to defend themselves? Especially if their felony had nothing to do with shooting people? In all other jurisprudence, laws have to be carefully crafted not to impair an important right, which is how we get porn protected by the Constitution somehow, and why abortions are available to 12 year olds.
43 posted on
04/15/2013 8:54:42 AM PDT by
Defiant
(If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
To: MrB
82 posted on
04/15/2013 1:22:58 PM PDT by
mrsmel
(One Who Can See)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson