anmut
Regular Member
Submitted for your debate a thought I had the other day:
Disregarding violent offenders that have been convicted of a felony, should non-violent felonious offenders have their rights taken away even after penitence has been served?
Example:
Should a man convicted of tax evasion/drug possession/multiple OWI's be denied an "inalienable right" after he has served his time in prison and/or paid retribution?
I would suggest that, no, a man should not be denied access to his right to bear arms unless his conviction was directly related to the abuse of that right. I believe that this practice of denying the right to vote and to bear arms post felony conviction and post penitence is completely unconstitutional.
Thoughts? And stay on topic for once...
Disregarding violent offenders that have been convicted of a felony, should non-violent felonious offenders have their rights taken away even after penitence has been served?
Example:
Should a man convicted of tax evasion/drug possession/multiple OWI's be denied an "inalienable right" after he has served his time in prison and/or paid retribution?
I would suggest that, no, a man should not be denied access to his right to bear arms unless his conviction was directly related to the abuse of that right. I believe that this practice of denying the right to vote and to bear arms post felony conviction and post penitence is completely unconstitutional.
Thoughts? And stay on topic for once...