FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/31/2014 2:54:44 PM PDT by neverdem
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
PS. Gang enforcers and child rapists are great examples of people who should never be let out.
Like a lot of silly statements, your little bumper sticker slogan is meaningless.
Having a 100% either total release, or no release, is silly.
I wonder if you have closely known a lot of violent felons in your private life, they tend to have issues, including temper, and impulse issues, it is how they get convicted of felony attempts to kill and maim, and while we have to take risks to avoid holding them forever, we can try to minimize those risks, by keeping them away from conditions we think can make the risk of releasing them early, less risky, whether it is guns, freedom of association, and other things.
This means moslem men can`t have guns.
Charges that stick and the level of convictions, may interfere with your plan of ironclad, mandatory sentences.
Violent felons are one thing, the topic of this thread is that gun rights can now be taken away for NON-felony offenses, like even getting into a yelling argument.
You should read the thread before you post, at least read the post that I was responding to, it included violent felons.
Post 9 described either in, or out of prison, no in between.
This would then make everyone a violator, and therefore prohibited from firearms.
Infringed —
Is that someone wearing a leather jacket with slitted decorative tassels on the sleeves?
Sounds kind of gay.
Possession of arms being necessary and vital for the Federal Government to exercise it's sovereign authority over it's citizens,the right of the Federal Government shall along with it's designated agents and authorized government subsidiaries ability to have sole monopoly of arms shall not be infringed.
Otherwise, note that modern federal gun regulations for civilians seem to have originated from the time of Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
And since most of us were born into the unconstitutionally big federal government chaos created by FDR, I think that we tend to mistakenly think that all federal laws are constitutional, as opposed to being suspicious of constitutionally indefensible federal laws made by corrupt federal lawmakers.
Again, ignoring the 2nd Amendment for the reason previously stated, what constitutional clause(s) are reasonably construed as a delegation of power to Congress to regulate firearms on property not owned by the federal government in contrast to the federal properties indicated in Clauses 7 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I and the 5th Amendment? I cannot find any. Corrections welcome.
Note that delegated constitutional powers are extremely important, particularly where our 2nd Amendment protections are concerned. This is because the Supreme Court has historically clarified that the 10th Amendment is reasonably construed as indicating that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government via the Constitution are prohibited.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited (emphasis added). None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.” —United States v. Butler, 1936..
Do we let them have knives? Baseball bats? Automobiles? Cans of gasoline?
One of the greatest mass-murders in the history of this country was committed with a can of gasoline and a match.
Yep. The nine political hacks in black muumuus are weighing in again. Screwing over everyone they can in the process. As usual.
Oh, well if a a mass killer used gasoline, and a man can be stabbed with a kitchen knife, that just changes everything.
Nice post but it proceeds from an erroneous assumption: that the Constitution matters worth a hill of beans to the kakistocracy.
Do you have an alternate version of that that makes sense?
I was mocking your lame argument to remove guns from consideration of early release and probation for violent felons.
Exactly right. A belt can do great harm. So they should ban possession of belts. Same goes for hammers and bottles. Of course the Constitution makes no statement regarding our right to bear belts, hammers and bottles; hence the focus on removing our stated rights, namely arms. It's all about making the Constitution irrelevant.
If a convicted felon can’t be trusted with a gun, then they can’t be trusted with a knife or any other weapon, and shouldn’t be walking around free.
Gee, you just repeated the post I was responding to, post 9, thanks for starting all over again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.