Liberal Forum

Oh look, all of a sudden I get to be the liberal. I can do that"Paid their debt to society" is not interchangeable with slate wiped clean. If their slate was wiped clean then in the event they committed another violent crime, or any crime for that matter, their criminal record would not come into play. If they were suspected of a crime and sought by the police when the police are closing in on them the police would not be advising each other suspect has been shown to have a propensity to violence and they would not pursue this person with that mindset. Given your stance on this I suppose that felons should also be able to vote? The punishment imposed by the state has ended, prison sentence, parole, probation. Yet, you desire to punish the person throughout the remainder of his life. So, simple question If a man has done a decade in jail for robbing someone with a weapon and he gets out of prison then he should then be able to legally obtain a weapon? No. As a free person any person possesses the right to obtain a weapon. Like how you throw "legally" into the equation. A free person living in a free society does not require the permission (legally) of the state. You get to have a weapon until you prove that such weapons do not belong in your hands. Also consider recidivism rates. That's why the guy is in prison or on paper. If the state releases him from subjugation than he is no longer considered a risk. If he uses the weapon in an aggressive manner again, well, he either pays with his life (from the person he assaulted) or he spends more time in prison. His choice. I never said he was dangerous. I said he wasnt an American citizen. The 2nd amendment does not apply to non-citizens. You did not answer the question. The implications of your statement lead me to believe that you considered him dangerous. You want an answer? Yes. If the Bill of Rights don't apply to foreigners, can you explain when they are accused of a crime they are required their day in court under the Bill of Rights? Again, you are avoiding the question. Absolutely not. I expect a logical answer from you. You want an answer? Every person possesses the right of self-defense. This includes the cartels who are being attacked by government. Yes. And a free person possesses the right of self-defense by any and all means accessible and possible. You gonna tell me the Iraqi people; the Libyan people; the Afghani people had freedom and liberty before The Mighty US of A helped overthrow those dictators? The invaded Kuwaitis? By our actions we did support freedom and liberty. Ah yes, replace those dictators with people who put in place a constitution where all legislation is based upon Islamic Law. But you know, they get to vote for their subjugation and bondage. Cause voting is what's important. Change the dictator, but make it worse. Wonderful system. Well theres a question Im not prepared to answer. Theres a whole host of issues on that one. Privacy, the ethereal nature of phycology, fantasy vs. real intent, where do you draw the line, who draws the line, is it possible to get better, meds, psychosis, funding and then how does one legislate all this? For now Id go back to background checks. If you are proven to be a whackjob under todays definitions you dont get to buy a weapon. As it stands now a proven whackjob can go to a gun show and purchase a weapon. You do understand that with my background check compromise comes no record keeping; go/no go, right? When it comes to freedom and liberty, you take the good with the bad. You compromise once. You compromise again. You compromise again. Then you get the realization that you can't compromise anymore, not because you're gonna hold your ground, but because you already gave them everything. Since you're arguing the 2nd Amendment, what part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing you?