Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: arthurus
How do you derive that from the RKBA? Explain simply or with nuances how “the right to keep and bear arms” allows for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms to felons?

So all the gang-bangers in Chicago that have violent felony rap sheets a mile long should be allowed to legally carry weapons once they're released from jail?

On what planet?!

15 posted on 05/11/2016 5:23:30 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: usconservative
So all the gang-bangers in Chicago that have violent felony rap sheets a mile long should be allowed to legally carry weapons once they're released from jail?

If they've served their time, as mandated by the courts, along with any probation/parole they get. Once that is complete, they should have all rights restored. Now, let's talk about why these violent offenders are released time and time again. If they can't be trusted with a firearm once released, why then, are they being released? That is the real issue.

21 posted on 05/11/2016 5:47:55 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (I got nothin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: usconservative

Absolutely. Please demonstrate or explain how barring them legally from having weapons keeps them from having weapons. Using those weapons to commit crimes is already illegal and punishable by severe sentences. How does barring possession affect anything at all other than to negate the RKBA? Should felons be forever denied a driver’s license because they might use a car in the commission of a crime? Should they be denied food because it strengthens them and makes it easier for them to commit crimes? The crimes are already constitutionally illegal and punishable! Denying felons the right to possess firearms is ultimately denying you and me the right to possess firearms. If you allow one exception to the RKBA that is NOT in the Constitution then you allow all exceptions ultimately. If you think it is necessary to make it illegal for felons to possess firearms then the Constitution provides the means to do that constitutionally. It is called the Amendment process. If you think well that is too slow or it is impractical so we just have to amend the Constitution on the fly as some judge sees fit then that argument extends to the entire Constitution and the Constitution to you is actually meaningless or means whatever you think it ought to mean which is is the same thing.


22 posted on 05/11/2016 5:50:17 AM PDT by arthurus (Het is waar. Tutti i liberali soli o feccia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: usconservative

How has making it illegal for felons to be armed affected the violence in Chicago? How would actual observance of the Constitution increase the carnage?


24 posted on 05/11/2016 5:53:54 AM PDT by arthurus (Het is waar. Tutti i liberali soli o feccia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: usconservative
The real question is, “why were they released from jail?”

My own view is that once you are out on the streets, you are entitled to defend yourself, that is, provided you have completed your sentence. That is to say, if you are out on parole, be careful and avoid dangerous situations.

Now, I won't try to defend this position. There are other reasonable positions including why, or why not, ex-cons should be able to carry a weapon.

This is mine.

34 posted on 05/11/2016 7:08:47 AM PDT by chesley (The right to protest is not the right to disrupt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson