"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So back to the question you continually evade -- Why should
>>>>>> any punishment for a crime extend *beyond* the sentence imposed
>>>>>> by the court for that crime?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because society has an interest in preventing harm, thus protecting
>>>>> our rights to life, liberty, and property. Banning certain ***
>>>>> offenders from areas where children congregate, for example. If
>>>>> someone had a history of stealing airplanes, banning them from
>>>>> airfields. If someone has a history of burglary, forbid them from
>>>>> having tools that could be used to commit a burglary. If someone is
>>>>> violent when they don't take their meds, make taking their meds a
>>>>> condition of not having to live in a locked mental ward.
>>>>
>>>> So what rational relation****p does denying the RTKBA for life have
>>>> with ANY/EVERY Felony and some Misdemeanors, eh ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A demonstrated willingness to commit a serious crime.
>>
>> Really? Do tell.
>
> Felonies are serious crimes. A felon ipso facto is willing to risk
> serious consequences and has demonstrated poor judgment.
So poor judgement demonstrated once = poor judgement for life?
>>
>> And how does EVERY ex-Felon and some ex-Misdemeanants endanger
>> your "right to life, liberty, and property" , especially years/decades
>> after
>> the sentence imposed by the court has been discharged?
>>
>
> Because people who have poor judgment and a disregard for the rule of
law
You mean like "the rule of law" that said Negoes were 4/5ths human?
Or the "rule of law" that stated it was A FELONY for anyone to
render assistance to an escaped Slave?
Or the "rule of law" that said "niggers" had to ride in the back of the
bus?
Or the "rule of law" that said "women" were too hysterical to be trusted
with the right to vote?
Shall I continue ? There's 1000s more where those came from, Comrade.
> are made dangerous by possessing a firearm.
Really?
So someone who cheats on their taxes is "made dangerous by possessing a
firearm"
even AFTER their sentence for that "serious crime" has terminated?
Are you really that daft?
Are you really pig-ignorant of the 1000s of other *felonies* that involve
neither
violence, larceny nor in many cases a direct victim?
> Gee, willing to risk years in prison because of greed, or a bad temper,
or
> just plain stupid: those are people who shouldn't possess firearms.
Why not? None of those character traits were excluded from ANY of the
enumerated Bill of Rights.
So why wait until those "greedy, hotheaded or just plain stupid" people
commit a crime,
why not pre-emptively deny them arbitrary rights that make prejudiced
nitwits like you feel better?
>>>> And how does denying the Right to Vote, *beyond* the term
>>>> of the sentence imposed protect *your* "rights to life, liberty and
>>>> property" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't, it's a form of punishment.
>>
>> So, back to the question --
>>
>> Why should any punishment for a crime extend *beyond* the sentence
>> imposed
>> by the court for that crime?
>>
>
> Because society has an interest in protecting life, liberty, and
property.
And how does denying someone their constitutional rights *beyond* the
termination
of the sentence imposed by the court protect "life, liberty and property"?
And if protecting your "right to life, liberty and property" is so damn
im****tant,
why not pre-emptively deny arbitrary rights to arbitrary
groups/individuals
that
scare you? Like perhaps denying the human rights of "suspected
terrorists",
while they are waterboarded, tortured, killed, etc ...so that you feel
better
about your "right to life, liberty and property", eh?
>>
>>> Personally, I don't agree with it, I'm even willing to consider
>>> allowing inmates to vote while in prison. They are still citizens,
and
>>> I don't like playng games wtih voting rights.
>>
>>
>> But you don't mind playing games with other rights, like the RTKBA,
even
>> after
>> the termination of the sentence imposed by the court, eh?
>>
>
> All rights have some restrictions -
Funny. That's what all tyrants say ...
> you aren't allowed to own a machine gun,
A lie, and abject laughable lie that irrevocably demonstrates the
unbounded
depth
of your ignorance.
> or a flamethrower.
A lie, and abject laughable lie that irrevocably demonstrates the
unbounded
depth
of your ignorance.
> Freedom of the press is restricted by not allowing child ****ography to
> be published.
Define "child ****ography" ?
> I could come up with a dozen more examples, but the point is simple:
> rights are not absolute.
Says the tyrant in training.
>
> Some rights can be restricted in the interest of society or the
> individual's own health and safety.
Oh goody. Let's start by restricting some of your rights.
> Involuntary commitment is an example, no crime and no sentence
involved.
Just ask Rose Kennedy ...
> We don't let people wander in to certain government properties for
> security reasons,
Since when is tresspassing a "right" ?
> and don't allow airplanes in to certain airspaces at certain times for
the
> same reason.
Ibid. ?
> No crime involved.
Since when is trespassing not a crime?
> So losing the right to possess a gun isn't a part of the sentence,
OK, at lest you got that correct.
> it is a decision by society to impose a curb on a right in the interest
> of public safety.
1) So why apply it to ALL felonies and even misdemeanors, and why
apply it *beyond* the termination of the sentence imposed by the court
for the crime committed?
2) If society can "impose a curb on a right in the interest of public
safety"
why wait until people are convicted?
> If we passed a law that said children could not operate a gun without
> adult supervision, that is a curb on a right in the interest of public
> safety.
Do children have full rights in this country? Or are they still treated
like the negro slaves of old?
> Just as many cities have a ban on discharging a firearm in the city
> limits.
Not in self-defense they don't. The offence would be "unlawfully"
discharging
a firearm, the exceptions being the various lawful discharges, such as
when a police officer shoots and kills an unarmed negro in the back.
>
> You may not think this restriction is reasonable, but society as a whole
> has decided otherwise. And there is *your* reality check.
Interesting, albeit a little NSF. Tyrant Bo Raxo's "suspendible" human
rights ...tem****ary "rights" as long as you don't
scare him, even hypothetically, as long as he doesn't decide to revoke
them.
|
