Re: Felons Now Claiming Individualist Right To Guns

"Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:6enr7nF8043mU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9AE35B1736C2BSandman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:6ekv01F7ibriU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>
>>> "Sam Buckland" <nothing@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:g63e2h$6v0$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Reality_Check© wrote:
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9AE298196B069Sandman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> Mr. Albritton <albritton77@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>> news:2nj9841248e2g38o5vrup4ka7t7hji1dd2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:55:00 -0400, "RSweeney"
>>>>>>> <dockscience@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any
>>>>>>>>> of those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't
>>>>>>>>> from the RTKBA ?
>>>>>>>> So you once argued that honest citizens had no rights, now you
>>>>>>>> are arguing that criminals do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Felons have rights if they have served their sentence and done
>>>>>>> their time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, and loss of certain rights via due process is part and
>>>>>> parcel of that sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> What "due process", exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christ on a ****ing bicycle, you're even denser than "Kip".
>>>>
>>>> You're HEARD about "trial by jury", I suppose?
>>>
>>> So tell us moron, a "trial by jury" can deny someone any/all rights
>>> in the Constitution, eh numbnuts?
>>
>> Probably because Congress has passed legislation that says that
>> convicted felons are prohibited possessors of firearms
> 
> Not just convicted felons ...

True, but not the real point being addresses although mental 
adjudications also recieve due process just not always in a court. 


>> and the Supremes have not declared that unconstitutional.  Scalia
>> even noted that as a long
>> standing limitation on the right to keep and bear arms that the
>> Heller decision accepted that and did not change it.  ;)
> 
> Think Dred Scott ...

Which was overturned by later decisions.   Heller isn't.

>> You are aware that there are also other rights that are lost by
>> felony convictions such as the right hold certain offices,
> 
> Not the Presidency ... just ask Lyndon Larouche.

You ask him.

>> hold certain bonded positions,
> 
> ?
> 
>> etc..
> 
> And "etc" being such an im****tant right.

It is if the right you lack is etc...
 
>> You should also  be aware that there procedures to get
>> those rights back.
> 
> In *some* jurisdictions. In others, even death isn't a sufficient
> demonstration that the former offender has "changed".

If the perp is dead there isn't much need for a petition to the court or 
a redress of his loss of rights.

>>  In some states, it is a passage of time along with a
>> petition to the court.  In others it is simply a petition to the
>> court. Those petitions may or may not be successful.
> 
> 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?

And to the answer you continually fail to understand.  It isn't beyond 
the sentence.....it is part of it. If you don't like it, change the 
current justice system.



-- 
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

Never complain about old age......many others never had that op****tunity.