why in the 1800 was a convicted felony on release, returned his firearm, yet today restricted from prevented from owning a firearm after fully paying his dues to society, as well as his right to vote restricted but his obligation to pay taxes isn't.
2007-08-21 13:43:47 · 7 answers · asked by flannelpajamas1 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Having a alcoholic brother sitting in a state prison, I have wondered why their rights are violated. What is wrong with them having the right to vote? They can't screw-up things any worse then the voters have done now.
If a person is convicted of a violent crime, then they should not be allowed to own a gun. Otherwise, I don't see a problem. If someone wants a gun, there are too many options available.
2007-08-21 15:11:03 · answer #1 · answered by jack-copeland@sbcglobal.net 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't have a problem with convicts not having guns or being able to vote yet still paying taxes. Do you know how much it costs to incarcerate someone? It is *really* expensive, I think that that partially justifies the taxes bit. And being dangerous in the first place solves the gun question and voting.
2007-08-21 13:51:32 · answer #2 · answered by sbcalif 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dangerous
2007-08-21 13:49:34 · answer #3 · answered by the Boss 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Things were more dangerous then. A man without a gun then is like a lady of today without pepper spray. Things are more "civilized" now: no Native Americans trying to kill you, no land grabbers trying to take your homestead and no cattle rustlers taking your money on the hoof. They needed the guns for protection. But today?? We need the guns for protection from THEM.
2007-08-21 13:53:06 · answer #4 · answered by Serena 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Times have changed. Government has intervened, too.
2007-08-21 13:51:17 · answer #5 · answered by Glen B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Liberals today. What can I tell you?
2007-08-21 13:54:35 · answer #6 · answered by hermit 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
thats life!
2007-08-21 13:50:23 · answer #7 · answered by teachclip 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋