Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: The armed progressive and why (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'll clarify for you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    Your claim was that no convicted criminal "pays you or me".

    And for your argument to be valid, then there is no victim, hence "no repayment to society".  And that's the disconnect between our government and it's people today.

    The State claims victim-hood and prosecutes thousands for crimes where thee are no victims.  The State cannot be a victim when a law, policy or statute is violated.  

    This is the first steps in Authoritarian controls, today, indictments will state, The US vs.________(fill in the blank) or New York vs. _______(fill in the blank).

    Whereas, we once prosecuted violators in the name of the people, now its in the name of the State or Federal Government.  Making them the victim, not the people and hence your flawed argument that no convict can "repay you or I".  They are now bound to the State, not the people.  Big difference.

    As for this:

    There are no "inalienable rights" in the Constitution. All such rights are qualified, in the text of the Constitution, as being in effect unless removed by due process of law. Look it up, if you have forgotten.

    First it's not "inalienable", it's unalienable.

    Secondly, the constitution grants nothing but is meant to insure our unalienable rights are not infringed upon by the "body politic".  This is another flaw in your argument.  

    And this:

    The law today is somewhat more complex than only the words in the Constitution. If you want to have a discussion in which the only law we have is the exact language of the Constitution and any law not contained in the Constitution is invalid, then we won't have a discussion.

    Of course we aren't having a discussion.  The whole point of the Constitution is to limit and direct our government on how it must act.  And any laws must conform to said document, that IS the problem.  Our government does not follow the rules we gave it to follow.

    This is the crux of our disagreement here:

    Once Constitutional rights have been abridged by a court of law, it is the prerogative of the state to determine the extent to which they are restored. You only enjoy Constitutional rights to the extent that you abide by the rule of law. Once you commit serious offenses to the body politic, your rights to continue abusing the public trust are conditional.

    I have no duty or obligation to the "body politic" or "public trust".  It is my government that has the obligations to me.  And you ignored my actual point and then belittled and obfuscated it.

    When a convicted felon or violator has repaid his debt to society and is released from public custody, how can the public continue to vilify and prosecute him? Constitutionally, either they've paid that debt or they haven't, and it's clear in your view, any lawbreaker can never repay any transgressions.  

    The fact that felons cannot own guns is separate from the actual crime, whatever it may have been.  Where is the constitution in this?  Where's the due process by a jury of my peers?  I am not aware of any trials that are held that strip convicted felons of those unalienable rights.  They are just taken away upon conviction, clearly unconstitutional.

    And I did state in my original post that I don't think is sane to allow violent felons access to arms.  

    As for this:

    to convicted serial rapists and armed robbers and home invaders is, by definition, an "activist."

    Yes you are an activist, as your emotional argument reveals and might I say say, an activist against said Constitution.  How about petitioning and changing the Constitution to met your "common sense" standards?

    When there are trials specifically held for those convicted felons that strip them of their unalienable rights, then we are on the path of actual Constitutional law. Let a jury decide the constitutionality of those laws.  Let's have an honest public debate on the subject, not emotional branding and labeling to obfuscate these issues.

    But again, unalienable rights cannot be infringed by policy, edict or statute...unless the Constitution itself is changed.  Maybe this is why there aren't any such trials, it's just done.

    •  Right (0+ / 0-)

      Your claim was that no convicted criminal "pays you or me".

      So you tell me, how does a convicted criminal "pay you"?

      The rest of your previous post is confused and not worth fisking. Just consider this: The Constitution says you have a "unalienable" right to life. The court can take that away. Same with liberty. Same with pursuit of happiness.

      Once those rights are removed, their restoration is at the discretion of the court.

      That's the Constitution. If you don't like it, too bad. You're living in this country, so those are the rules.

      As for types of felons, like I said, it's not a simple calculus. Let's say that Bernie Madoff gets paroled. Do you think he should be able to own a firearm?

      Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

      by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:41:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By relinquishing their freedom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher

        and being held for a period of time or as in many cases today, fined and probation.

        The court can take that away. Same with liberty. Same with pursuit of happiness.

        That's the problem here, the Court is not taking anyone's right to bear arms away, the Congress did through the 1968 Gun Control Act.

        As for types of felons, like I said, it's not a simple calculus. Let's say that Bernie Madoff gets paroled. Do you think he should be able to own a firearm?

        Again, the Constitution is pretty clear here. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

        How much more clear can this be? It doesn't say "Upon the approval/consent/conditions set forth of or by Congress, the President or the Supreme Court".

        "That's the Constitution. If you don't like it, too bad. You're living in this country, so those are the rules."

        At least we can agree on this point.  

        But our Founding Fathers gave us the tools to change said document, how about you do that?  Because we all know you'd fail at the endeavor.  So, as all good authoritarians and their doublespeak, you ignore that actual constitutional avenue and make laws/policies and statutes that attempt a "run around" of said document.

        Hey if it was brought to a vote or referendum, let's see how many of "We The People" would actually support your definitions and controls?  

        I'm game, if you are!

      •  I missed a point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher

        So if I'm put to death for whatever crime, how do I petition any Court for restoration of the loss of my life?

        Even the highest crime, as defined by our Founding Fathers, i.e, that of treason, had no specific punishment attached.  In fact, it's the only transgression defined in our Constitution and left to the privy of the Congress.

        Article III Section 3 - Treason

        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

        The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

        Funny thing here, it's clear "Corruption of Blood" is even mentioned.  Seems those forfeiture drug laws would be unconstitutional.

        But again, how about our government follow the directions they were given, as per said Constitution?

        Too much for you to swallow?  

        •  No problem (0+ / 0-)

          So if I'm put to death for whatever crime, how do I petition any Court for restoration of the loss of my life?

          You're a smarty, so act like it.

          If the court sentences you to death, say, for Murder One, your "right to life" has been removed by the court. Legal, and Constitutional.

          Before you are executed, you can appeal, etc. That is your "petition" that you reference above.

          Please don't waste my time further with fol-de-rol.

          Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

          by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:09:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So sorry to bother you with such trifles (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            You said:

            Once those rights are removed, their restoration is at the discretion of the court.

            If that's not what you meant, then I'll stop splitting hairs with you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site