right to defend or resposibility to be a victom?

C

cb guy

Inactive
does a nonviolent felon have the right to defend himself and his family under the 2nd ammendment or does the constitution no longer apply to him "shall not be infringed" should all felons be barred from owning firearm or just violent ones if they should aii be barred then does the constitution apply to them at all? if it doesent then why should they pay taxes or otherwise support the goverment finaccly or physicaly in any way such as in adraft?

[This message has been edited by cb guy (edited November 02, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by cb guy (edited November 02, 2000).]
 
Felons can't legally posess firearms, their only hope is to have a throwdown weapon available to use for self defense and then say they wrestled it form the intruder and that still probably wouldn't work, although it's better then being a victim.
 
Actually, a felon can use a firearm to protect him or herself. BUT, they can't own the gun used. I'd read on the net, about six or so months ago, about a felon working in a bar. The bar was either held up or being attacked and the bar tender, a felon, grabbed the gun under the bar that the keeper kept for such reasons. He ended up shooting and killing the BG. It was ruled justifiable but then the D.A. tried to go after the felon for having a gun. The courts ruled (or was it a jury) that the felon, since the gun wasn't his, was within his right to use a gun for self defense.

Now, my personal opinion. If someone who goes to jail cannot be trusted with his or her FULL rights as an American, then they shouldn't be out of jail. PERIOD! This shows that 1) the prison system does not rehabilitate criminals and 2) if the criminal cannot be rehabilitated then they shouldn't be allowed to join back into American society. Some people do make stupid mistakes. They do their time and come out to become productive and safe Americans. These people should not be penalized for life due to one mistake. We all make mistakes and many of them would be considered criminal.. that is if we knew EVERY law on the books for EVERY State and fed. Then there are those who choose not to obey unconstitutional laws. Most of the worse unconstitutional laws are made into felonies.. go figure. You don't obey the law but obey the Constitution, then it's a felony and you lose your Constitutional Rights... hmmm, get the picture?

And the last point I wish to make is this. Why must one give up their basic instinct of self survival? Ex-criminals, hoping to get out of the gang banger ways or criminal ways usually have made some pretty gung-ho "friends" that wish to make the person go back to the old ways... in any manner possible. Including death threats (sure, they can call 911.. but we know how that will turn out). Ex-cons (felons) make up for a large amount of homicides, not creating them but being them (the statistics).

So, in summary.. if a felon can't be trusted with his or her full Rights should either be in jail for life or in the great beyond (depending on the crime). For those who have been rehabilitated then they should be afforded their full Rights.

USP45usp
 
I dunno about other states but FL has an appeals process for ex-cons to get their RKBA restored. Your "non-violent felon" might have some luck there, but a guy who mowed down a busload of handicapped nuns with babies in their laps shoudl save his breath.
 
I agree w/ usp45 if they're OK to be released they should get all rights back including the right to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top