Restoration of rights?

[sovietak474u]

If he is interested in trying to get his rights back then I say that is a good thing. He could just say screw it and go get a gun anyway. So give the guy a break. People make mistakes.... he did his time so in my book he has paid for his crime. He can try to get his rights back but I would not count on it.

 

[GDAWG1958]

Anybody that does not feel this way does not believe that we have a RIGHT to bear arms.. but rather a privilege. a right cannot be taken away.. period

This IS my point, If the RIGHT to bear Arms is INALIENABLE, How can King George or the govt take that RIGHT away ?
ThesaurusLegend:
Adj. 1. inalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
unalienable
intrinsic, intrinsical - belonging to a thing by its very nature; "form was treated as something intrinsic, as the very essence of the thing"- John Dewey
alienable - transferable to another owner
2. inalienable - not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"
unforfeitableindefeasible - not liable to being annulled or voided or undone; "an indefeasible right to freedom"; "an indefeasible claim to the title"

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[shabam]

Maybe he should just Bowhunt.

 

[bearpugh]

you guys are acting like he just made a young man mistake. we all did our stupid stuff. but i never thought of picking up a pistol and robbing someone. the ones i feel for are the guys that got busted on a drug charge and lose their rights. thats a young mistake. thats why i think some felonies shouldn't be felonies. you say he paid for his crime. no, he did his prison time. PART of the punishment is also to los your rights for life. i feel for th guy but h made his bed. maybe a better solution would be to let the victims of a crime decide. if after 30 years they feel ok with him having a gun, good. the victims are the forgotten here. he's doing good but i wonder if someone he robbed doesn't still wake up at night seeing his gun in their face.

 

[rbstern]

1st... parade? no... thats a little over the top dont you think super moderator?

You're in the boiler room. If you can't handle a little hyperbole, you may not enjoy interacting with others in here.

My duties as a moderator don't restrict me from making illustrative points in a discussion.

2nd... yes! a founding principle of the justice system is REHABILITATION. If someone is in fact rehabilitated, then why should they not be allowed the privileges/rights of everyone else? If they are not rehabilitated and still a threat to society why are they let out?

I disagree that a founding principle of our justice system was rehabilitation. The central founding principle was justice, which was largely equated with punishment in those days. Some of the more "enlightened" founders were interested in the deterrent value of punishment, which was a modern idea at the time. The idea of rehabilitation didn't make any serious headway in our society for another 150 years.

3rd... problem is... even though the government is supposed to have to PROVE you knew and are therefore guilty... we all know in reality that it is actually guilty until proven innocent.

Really? If I am dragged to a hearing before a judge on suspicion of such an act, the judge will incarcerate me without actual evidence? Kinda doubt that. Does it happen? Sure. Is it the norm? No.

4th... agreed... never said they should just waltz out of prison and buy an RPG the very next day. All I said is that the option should be there. Anybody that does not feel this way does not believe that we havea RIGHT to bear arms.. but rather a privilege. a right cannot be taken away.. period

Don't limit your thinking on this to the 2nd Amendment. The removal of rights applies to any individual liberty. I have an inalienable right to move about freely in public without interference from the government. But, obviously, our society has formed a compact that limits my liberty if I use my liberty to hurt others. Simply incarcerating me for a crime is a limitation of my inalienable right to move about freely.

 

[Badger]

You're in the boiler room. If you can't handle a little hyperbole, you may not enjoy interacting with others in here.

My duties as a moderator don't restrict me from making illustrative points in a discussion.



I disagree that a founding principle of our justice system was rehabilitation. The central founding principle was justice, which was largely equated with punishment in those days. Some of the more "enlightened" founders were interested in the deterrent value of punishment, which was a modern idea at the time. The idea of rehabilitation didn't make any serious headway in our society for another 150 years.



Really? If I am dragged to a hearing before a judge on suspicion of such an act, the judge will incarcerate me without actual evidence? Kinda doubt that. Does it happen? Sure. Is it the norm? No.



Don't limit your thinking on this to the 2nd Amendment. The removal of rights applies to any individual liberty. I have an inalienable right to move about freely in public without interference from the government. But, obviously, our society has formed a compact that limits my liberty if I use my liberty to hurt others. Simply incarcerating me for a crime is a limitation of my inalienable right to move about freely.

Well said!!

 

[mikeh25]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The inalienable rights in this quote from the Declaration of Independence state nothing specifically about firearms, only Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In the Bill of Rights, passed as an amendment to the Constitution, the Second Amendment specified our right to bear arms.

You could argue that the "Liberty" mentioned in the DoI extends itself to the bearing of arms granted in the 2A. This argument would fall short because almost our entire body of laws within this country place limits on Liberty by limiting what you are lawfully allowed to do. Our laws limit your "Liberty" to do what you want: you cannot drive 100 MPH in a School Zone, you break a law you give up your personal freedom by becoming incarcerated. Without limits to our Liberties we would have anarchy. As such you cannot tie the 2A's right to bear arms to the inalienable right to Liberty.

Liberty as used in the DoI has more to do with the first definition in the dictionary:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

 

[jloneill17]

Why doesn't his wife go out an buy a firearm to keep at home?

 

[07JKX]

You're in the boiler room.

errr... nope... law and order .. normal forum.

I disagree that a founding principle of our justice system was rehabilitation. The central founding principle was justice, which was largely equated with punishment in those days. Some of the more "enlightened" founders were interested in the deterrent value of punishment, which was a modern idea at the time. The idea of rehabilitation didn't make any serious headway in our society for another 150 years.

you have the right to be wrong.. dont worry, i wont hold it against you

Really? If I am dragged to a hearing before a judge on suspicion of such an act, the judge will incarcerate me without actual evidence? Kinda doubt that. Does it happen? Sure. Is it the norm? No.

before a judge... possible but probably not... be called, interviewed, questioned, have your record pulled without your consent, have family members called... absolutely! been there done that.. see a few posts up.

Don't limit your thinking on this to the 2nd Amendment. The removal of rights applies to any individual liberty. I have an inalienable right to move about freely in public without interference from the government. But, obviously, our society has formed a compact that limits my liberty if I use my liberty to hurt others. Simply incarcerating me for a crime is a limitation of my inalienable right to move about freely.

so you say



it really has been fun... and now that badger has some back up that may have a very slight ability to help decipher his argument.. i bid you farewell. My points have been made.

cheers

 

[07JKX]

Why doesn't his wife go out an buy a firearm to keep at home?

possibly contrued as possession since he lives in the house.