Those who argue in favor of stripping a citizen of their rights after they have served their term, keep forgetting one thing. It was an act of gun control that started this whole discussion. It has not always been the accepted norm to keep punishing a person for a crime after they have served their sentence, that came along in 1968. The Gun Control Act Of 1968 is when the government began stripping away these particular rights from citizens. Prior to 1968 there were a few local statues that did this, but nothing on the national level(think NYC's and Chicago's strict gun laws compared to those of the rest of the country, today), yet because of a series of national tragedies(most notably Bobby Kennedy's and Dr. Martin Luther King's assassinations) this law was passed to "make people safer". Even in '68 they knew not to let a crisis go to waste. Well, look at this way, when some gun grabber tells you how wrong you are for opposing "common sense" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, you can smile and say "Nope, I support the Gun Control Act of 1968". Of course that does open the door to more restrictions, but hey just close your eyes and keep repeating to yourself how pro 2nd you are, it won't make it any truer but it will help with the sting to your conscience.
The "act of gun control" is designed to punish only those who abide by the law, not the criminal - and that is the difference. Such legislation would create a new class of criminals among those who dared not to comply with such unconstitutional fiats.
To those who argue recidivism, is recidivism a new phenomenon? Has it only existed in the last 60 years? Surely, it didn't exist at the time of the Founders, or they would have written in special provisions to strip the liberties away from someone found guilty of such heinous crimes. Oh wait, it did and they didn't. While we make like to think that we are faced with new and greater dilemmas and problems than those that have come before us , the simple fact is we aren't. They are the same ones present during the forming of this country(hell, throughout all of human history), relabeled with some new shiny variations, but morally and ethically they are the same. The Founders didn't see any need to curtail the liberties of the citizenry because of them and neither do I.
Recidivism of violent criminals wasn't much of a problem until the 20th century. Prior to that, crimes of violence were handled swiftly - either by someone slightly better at dispensing violence, or by the limbs of the "hanging tree". "Justice" was not always the domain of the courts, and "appeals" were a rarity. I'm not saying that it was right, but just that history tells us it was what it was. If one chooses to use a weapon to commit a crime against another human being, we have to assume that person is fully prepared to use that weapon.
As to "paying a debt" to society, that argument was used long before us and as a concept has helped to shape our legal system. One cannot simply remove it from the argument and act like it is now just a distraction. It is true that nothing can repay the losses to a victim of crime, but that has always been known. Still something had to be offered and it has long been accepted that an offender's time, life and freedom were what would be used. Of course, it was realized these things were a pale repayment, but since no true coin of repayment exists they must suffice. It is a system that has been used long before the founding of our great country and should not be lightly cast aside as a relic of an unenlightened time. If we do cast "paying your debt" to society aside, how long before someone else suggests we do the same with that contemporary idea of "all men are created equal"?
Pax...
