Posted on 10/20/2014 12:55:55 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Former border patrol agent, convicted on drug charges, appeals to high justices after lower courts bar him from selling weapons.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal prohibition on firearms for felons terminates all ownership rights.
The US Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a Florida man convicted on drug charges and forced to give up his firearms under federal law could sell the guns or transfer ownership to his wife or a friend.
The court agreed to hear an appeal filed by Tony Henderson, a former US border patrol agent who was convicted of distributing marijuana and other drug offenses in 2007 and sentenced to six months in prison.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
So punishing convicted criminals is your definition of a “police state”? Interesting, no wonder you have such troubles with big words like unalienable.
Let’s try again.
Is depriving convicted felons the rights of free men unconstitutional?
Yes or No?
The new American Police State attempts to deprive convicted felons the rights of free men at gunpoint for the rest of their lives.
I think we can safely put you in the Police State column.
Sentences including DEATH. Are you stating that restricted freedom is a worse punishment than death for a murderer?
Hey, I think you forgot that question:
Got a yes or no yet?
Oh, yea. Any society that would punish a rapist or murderer is definitely a police state. Did I mention that you must have a 50 pound head.
Oh, I think you missed a question:
Is depriving convicted felons the rights of free men unconstitutional?
Yes or No?
The new American Police State attempts to deprive "convicted felons", like Dinesh D'Souza, the rights of free men at gunpoint for the rest of their lives.
I think we can safely put you in the Police State column.
How do you like my new version, Gauleiter? LOL! :)
BTW - do you feel that Dinesh D'Souza, "convicted felon", should be denied the Rights of a free man for the rest of his life?
Yes or no?
Yes or No?
Yea, probably a strongly worded letter would keep them from more raping and murdering. Hard to believe the brutality of enforcing the criminal code with guns.
Answered that question yet?
Do you feel that Dinesh D’Souza, “convicted felon”, should be denied the Rights of a free man for the rest of his life?
Yes or No?
Got a rat in your pocket?
So, before you make yet unclever diversion attempt, tell me, is depriving convicted felons the rights of free men unconstitutional?
Yes or No?
Maybe you can point out where Dinesh D'Souza was doing all the "Raping and Murdering" - or was that just your usual hyperbole?
He IS a "convicted felon", after all...
But you know what you haven't done. Yea, that's right, answer a very, very simple, yes or no question. Is depriving convicted felons the rights of free men unconstitutional? Yes or No?
What I think his sentence should be has no impact on whether it is constitutionally allowable or not. But you know what is relevant?
Is depriving convicted felons the rights of free men unconstitutional?
Yes or No?
Yes or No? It's interesting that you accuse me of not answering a simple yes or no question, when you yourself refuse to answer a simple yes or no question.
You also refused to post the definition of "unalienable", because it shot down your argument. You act just like the Partisan Liberal Media (PLM)... LOL! :)
No, you didn't.
He answered the question in the affirmative, best I can tell. He says he covered the ground already. D’Souza is a felon, check. Part of the sentence is being stripped of the right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life, check. Yep, all the parts are there. I don’t see any analysis any deeper than those points. Felon is a yes/no. If felon yes, then stripped of right to keep and bear arms for life. Very simple to follow.
Is depriving convicted felons the rights of free men unconstitutional?
kiryandil: “Yes”
So no punishment for any crime. That's insane and will destroy the country over night. There is no reasoning with that kind of naive stupidity. Goodnight.
kiryandil: “No”
So, you agree that a duly elected legislature, empowered by the people to make laws can restrict the rights of felons and determine the period of those restrictions, including life-terms?
kiryandil: “Yes”
Thanks for wasting everyone’s time this evening with your senseless hissy fit, only to admit that you don't have any logical argument.
Many "FReepers" can't see the forest for the Tyranny... LOL! :)
Bill Clinton can Keep and Bear Arms for the rest of his life, if he feels like it. You were around back in the impeachment wars - what's your opinion on that?
Yes or No?
SampleMan: What I think his sentence should be has no impact on whether it is constitutionally allowable or not. But you know what is relevant?
Yes, I know what's relevant - and it's NOT your "answer", which is not Yes or No...
Is the law, including the punishment constitutional? Yes.
Was D’Souza afforded due process and jury? Yes.
Does the suspicion of corruption by the AG in selective prosecution in any way change the constitutional right of the people via the legislature to make laws depriving felons of rights? No.
I was here from the beginning. What scares me is the Police State mentality that has been adopted by a significant minority of FReepers like yourself.
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.