"Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6eq0ciF8d7qmU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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?
That is the call society has decided to make. Most people manage to live
quite nicely without a gun, it isn't a huge imposition.
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
Sure, there have been stupid laws on the books. There still are. That
doesn't make *all* laws stupid. In a democratic society, we make
tradeoffs
between certain rights. You don't like this particular one. Society
doesn't agree with you.
>
>> 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?
>
Cheating on your taxes rises to the level of a felony only in the rarest
and
most extreme cases. A silly example.
> 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?
>
No I am not. Let's say you're a drug smuggler. Letting you possess a gun
is a bad idea for many reasons - you may go back in to the drug smuggling
business, which means you're now more able to kill rivals, cops, or anyone
who stumbles on to your illegal operation. So even though there is no
larceny, no violence, no direct victim, society thinks its a bad idea to
let
you have a firearm.
>> 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.
And the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. They are general
provisions and subject to some limitations, for one reason because they
conflict with each other. Freedom of speech is limited by things like
prohibitions on inciting to riot, disturbing the peace, civil suits over
slander, etc. Rights are not absolute, every right is subject to some
restrictions. Including your precious gun rights.
That's why there are waiting periods, background checks, certain types of
weapons are prohibited, clips above a certain capacity, etc. You can't
traipse down to the corner store and buy a fifty caliber machine gun.
So restrictions on rights are a reality. The only disagreement is where
and
how. Society has broad agreement that taking away the gun rights of
felons
is a good idea. You disagree. Fine, but don't remotely think you have a
constitutional argument here.
I would say there is a better case to be made for removing some other
restrictions on felons, like the prohibition for those convicted in
federal
court that doesn't allow wearing body armor. Gun possession for felons -
you just won't get much public sup****t for the idea. Which is why you
don't
see people clamoring for same.
Bo Raxo
>
> 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.
>
>
|
