pontificator
Active Member
It's not about what makes sense to YOU, it's about what the Constitution means.
This stuff has been adjudicated time and time again.
You have a gross misunderstanding of how the Constitution works.
Amy Coney Barrett
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
It's not about what makes sense to YOU, it's about what the Constitution means.
This stuff has been adjudicated time and time again.
You have a gross misunderstanding of how the Constitution works.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Enlighten me with your Constitutional expertise. How can something be free to do - but punishable if done?
Doesn't that make ALL behavior unrestricted?
pontificator
Active Member
It's really rather simple and has been explained, but ...
The government cannot stop words from passing from your lips. You say something for which there is a legal remedy, government is involved.
The government CAN prevent one from legally owning a firearm, despite the phrase "shall not be infringed..."
It's really that simple.
pontificator
Active Member
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Kind of renders the word "restricted" meaningless, then, doesn't it?
So the government does not forbid anything, just punishes you afterward if you do it.
Hence, I am absolutely free to do ANYTHING - like, oh, plant a bullet in your skull - and that freedom is not restricted - just that I will face consequences AFTERWARD.
So according to you, "restricted" ONLY means the ability to KEEP something from happening, legal or otherwise - although it fits absolutely no dictionary definition known to the English language.
GOT it.
Still working with the double-think that says "shall not be infringed" can also mean "CAN be infringed".
Actually, minus the obvious sarcasm, you are correct. All restrictive measures regarding speech are after the fact, there is no preventative ability.
When they stated "The government CAN prevent one from legally owning a firearm, despite the phrase "shall not be infringed..."" I think they meant that the government DOES prevent some from owning firearms, despite the phrase "shall not be infringed..." And therein lies the problem, when a person has satisfied their debt to society shouldn't they have the right to protect themselves, their families, or their property? Hell, it is getting to the point that one only needs to be accused of being a threat to have their right stripped from them (red flag laws).
Amy Coney Barrett Holds Press Conference In Handmaid's Tale Costume Just To Mess With Liberals
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Shortlisted for Trump's Supreme Court appointment, Judge Amy Coney Barrett held a press conference today where she wore a Handmaid's Tale costume just to freak the Left out.
babylonbee.com
Democrats, Media Immediately Attack Amy Coney Barrett, Move To Delegitimize Her Nomination
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who has lied in the past about his service in the U.S. Military, immediately moved to delegitimize Barrett’s nomination.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who has lied in the past about his service in the U.S. Military, immediately moved to delegitimize Barrett’s nomination.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Hence my original comments on this thread, before got sidetracked - I'll not be making that mistake again (at least, not here).
I don't know how I feel about the issue - we DO actually make people pay long after they've "paid their debt" because I assume, somewhere in the law the presumption is that people who've committed some crimes are likely to do it again. And that's probably not psychology or anything, it's just statistics. Do felons ever have their record expunged? So they carry the burden of guilt their entire lives - and employers are right to be cautious. We keep an eye on pedophiles - because experience has shown they NEVER just "get over it".
On the other hand - we've made a promise to our citizens - it's not right to make it, and then take it away.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
These people saying that Americans need a say in who gets picked for the SCOTUS do not seem to realize that we already made that pick when we elected Donald Trump as President.
He has had 2 picks and we want him to make the third.
It's just too bad he cannot get rid of the crazy picks that Obama made, but we let you guys get away with that, so you have to acknowledge that we are picking now.
He has had 2 picks and we want him to make the third.
It's just too bad he cannot get rid of the crazy picks that Obama made, but we let you guys get away with that, so you have to acknowledge that we are picking now.
That would be the FCA of 1968 and SORNA of 2006 (there might be more). The FCA banned felons from possessing firearms and SORNA made sex offenders registration mandatory. Neither of which do I see as being constitutional on the basis of what one would consider just (considering that we are supposed to have inalienable rights and that there is a presumption of innocence). Both of these laws presume that "once a felon always a felon" even after the imposed penalties have been satisfied. Given that presumption our criminal laws should make those type offenders ineligible for return to society.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Like I said - some of these issues I haven't made up my mind on, and some I'm leaning toward current law.
I do think felons should be able to VOTE. That's a right I don't think should ever be disallowed.
I'm unconvinced however, regarding violent offenders - which I believe most fall under felonies. And what is persuading me is not law or principle but just - statistics. It's no small comfort I think, to a family who suffers from a felon using a gun to commit a crime AFTER they've "done their time" (because they can still be acquired illegally) just as these cities having no bail and the perps go off and commit another crime.
I think if you've committed a crime like that - part of your punishment is to carry it forever, because chances are good - your victims will, too.
Maybe you've "paid your debt" but you're not 'forgiven'.
Ditto pedophiles - maybe society only required so many years, but the victims of your crime have to deal with it for the rest of their lives. Only fair that the criminal does too.
BTW - see, this is the kind of CIVIL disagreement people CAN have on issues. Unlike others on here for whom it MUST become a fight.
Voting is a State right issue, the Fed has only stated that the state cannot use sex, race, or age (over 18) to bar it.
As to felons and their 2nd Amendment rights I feel that if they can be set free they should regain the right so as to be able to protect themselves, their families and property, to me that is a basic human right. If their crime is so heinous then they should never breathe another breath of free air.
Fighting can have a time and place, over the years I've gotten to the point where I return what I get.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Maybe you should be managing our penal system. Sadly, too many violent persons serve very light sentences.
This page put it the MOST simply -
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/
It's just too many that go straight back to crime including violent crime.
Perhaps they do present a continued danger to society, but we just don't want to keep them locked up that long.
I don't know if it's money or space or weeping hearts - but the numbers say they will do it again.
Here's where I do tend to agree with state's leniency - YOUNG men go back to crime - older men just give up.
IF you make sentences progressively longer and tougher you end up incarcerating men who have - by statistics - reached a point where
they just don't want to anymore.
Fighting can have a time and place, over the years I've gotten to the point where I return what I get.
That's fine. Known you far too long to try and belittle you. Grownups can disagree without getting nasty.
The penal system is a mess. Social justice types have made imprisonment almost a vacation instead of the punishment it needs to be, not to mention light to no sentence to begin with. If it was mine to do with I would build a facility up in the area of ANWR. Murderers, rapists, child molesters would go straight there for life sentences or they could request ol' sparky, lethal injection, firing squad, a 20 foot drop with 10 feet of piano wire secured to a post and around their neck or anything equally permanent. Other violent criminals would face the above on subsequent convictions.
BOP
Well-Known Member
Maybe we can contract out the imprisonment of those types to Russia.