Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Convicted felons civil right to vote after incarceration restoration.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1543652" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>First off, good post.</p><p></p><p>As to the bold text above, seems to me this goes into the discussion of what is the definition of a "crime" and how does a crime where a victim whose life, liberty or property was violated differ from a crime that is only a violation of legal statute with no physical victim as defined in the first sense? In this second sense the State is the victim as one (the criminal) has violated its decrees, thus challenged its authority.</p><p></p><p>If one is consistent that guns should be withheld from the hands of criminals in the 2nd sense, one would have to stand squarely against the treasonous and traitorous actions of the men and women who helped to found this country in the first place as clearly their actions were criminal.</p><p></p><p>Here's a thought, if one kills with a knife and is convicted of a lesser crime, say manslaughter and receives parole or prison release, why are knives not prohibited from this person if the action is to prevent future crime by removing the means and the temptation?</p><p></p><p>As a closing point, in the sense of the State and its "lawmakers", if crime is defined in the first sense, all so-called "lawmakers" are by definition, criminals!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1543652, member: 2189"] First off, good post. As to the bold text above, seems to me this goes into the discussion of what is the definition of a "crime" and how does a crime where a victim whose life, liberty or property was violated differ from a crime that is only a violation of legal statute with no physical victim as defined in the first sense? In this second sense the State is the victim as one (the criminal) has violated its decrees, thus challenged its authority. If one is consistent that guns should be withheld from the hands of criminals in the 2nd sense, one would have to stand squarely against the treasonous and traitorous actions of the men and women who helped to found this country in the first place as clearly their actions were criminal. Here's a thought, if one kills with a knife and is convicted of a lesser crime, say manslaughter and receives parole or prison release, why are knives not prohibited from this person if the action is to prevent future crime by removing the means and the temptation? As a closing point, in the sense of the State and its "lawmakers", if crime is defined in the first sense, all so-called "lawmakers" are by definition, criminals! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Convicted felons civil right to vote after incarceration restoration.
Top