Comments on: Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

By: Bloviating Zeppelin

Bloviating Zeppelin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:19:46 +0000

Overarching questions as have been asked here:

1. Convicted felon?
2. On parole? Conditions of parole?
3. On probation? Searchable probation? Conditions of probation?

If ANYTHING is violable, then VIOLATE them.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:09:16 +0000

The beauty of the court decision is that we can now shoot back.

Robocop, I didn’t need the SCOTUS to tell me that… I live in Texas, the HOMEOWNER is King of the Castle!!

By: Robocop

Robocop — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:04:11 +0000

I have no problem either way. Convicted Felons are going to acquire weapons regardless. The beauty of the court decision is that we can now shoot back.

By: BobF

BobF — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:57:19 +0000

Any military person convicted in a Courts Martial is a convicted felon. A young GI going AWOL because of a Dear John letter who gets Courts Martialed instead of non-judicial punishment carries a felony conviction with him the rest of their lives. I don’t believe this individual is a threat to society and shouldn’t forfeit his constitutional rights

When a person commits and is convicted of crimes, they have to pay the fine and that fine is a loss of rights. Prison is a loss of the right to live among free people, just like the loss of the right to own firearms. They’ve forfeited their rights by committing crimes against society and the constitution.

Like every crime, I think the circumstances involved should be considered with revoking constitutional rights of convicted criminals. A simple clear set of “rules” can be legislated by congress on what constitutes the loss of the right to own firearms. To me, it’s not rocket science but to politicians it’s mile high stacks of paper to figure out.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:50:11 +0000

Katie, there’s a lotta judges that are in their *LEFT* mind, that’s what scares me…

By: Katie

Katie — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:45:10 +0000

I do believe that this issue was once ruled upon. The state has the right to limit the freedoms of certain individuals. Convicted felons are in this category. The state has the right to take away their right to vote, have a firearm, even drive a car. This is the “reward” for criminal behavior and the courts have already ruled upon it.

I’m not too worried. No judge in his or her right mind would give guns to a con.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:25:18 +0000

So, should we worry about “felons” being allowed to defend themselves. Or should we worry about violent goblins being allowed to mingle with the rest of us?

Damn good point, but I have seen, and personally know some folks that committed felony offenses, but they weren’t *violent* felonies, they were, quite literally, youthful indiscretions, and they are now pillars of the community…

Maybe there’s not a grey area, maybe there is, but there is NO WAY IN HELL a violent felon should EVER be able to legally own a gun, not in my opinion anyway..

By: JR

JR — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:27:40 +0000

You are looking at this the wrong way Fred.

If an individual can not be trusted with a firearm, why trust that individual to be a part of free society? Instead of arguing about a violent felons right to defend himself with a firearm, we should be demanding that society has a right to be free from violent felons.

All free citizens have a right to defend themselves. This right is not given by government. Just as .gov can only take a citizens life for the most abhorrent crimes, it should have similar restrictions on when to take away an individuals right to self defense. Goblins who commit crimes that would preclude them from the right to self defense need to be locked away from society forever.

If all free citizens were allowed the right to keep and bear arms, then there would be a demand from society to isolate those who could not be trusted with that right. That demand would be answered and there would be far less violent goblins on the streets and our violent crime rate would significantly diminish.

So, should we worry about “felons” being allowed to defend themselves. Or should we worry about violent goblins being allowed to mingle with the rest of us?