to bear arms?
2007-12-06 02:27:06 · 17 answers · asked by Locutus1of1 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is not the right context for this question. The real question, the one which should be addressed, is: Why are so many crimes now felonies. More and more crimes are either being created or reclassified as felonies. As if that doesn't give HUGE life-changing consequences. A kid playing mailbox baseball at 18 gets the same moniker as a child molester or murderer. It's insane. We our turning our country into a nation of prisoners.
2007-12-06 02:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by ryan c 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you do no longer point out how the police got here to be in contact. Why did you ensure to refuse the plea good deal? have they have been given a huge gamble? As your lawyer suggested, credibility is the project, now; and prefer a on line casino, the opportunities prefer the domicile. If the situations are as you're saying, then your tale, strengthened by ability of your brother's testimony would be weighed against the police testimony. Why did you refuse the plea good deal? A misdemeanor plus high-quality & finished. you at the instant run the possibility of a 2d criminal conviction and maximum states have regulations requiring mandatory penal complex time for 3 felonies, "3 strike" regulations. while you're discovered accountable, this one would be gun-proper. serious problem would desire to a 0.33 criminal ever be charged.
2016-11-13 20:41:35 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being a 47 year Member of the National Rifle Association and a Retired Police Officer, I do not want any convicted felon to have the right to bear arms.
2007-12-06 02:35:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
That's kind of the punishment for being a felon.. the whole "losing the rights of an average citizen bit". I mean, honestly... by your same reason why should the lose their right to vote? Their crime didn't involve voter fraud most likely? Or killing someone with a ballot. They lose many of the rights of a citizen, as well they should.
2007-12-06 02:34:32 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because it's only the "lets end the war on drugs and get high" crowd that makes a distinction between "violent" and "non-violent" felonies.
A felony is a major crime. A convicted felon has already proven that he can't be trusted with certain rights.
2007-12-06 02:40:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I don't think so. but laws are made to cover a wide variety of people and there crimes.
2007-12-06 02:40:13 · answer #6 · answered by hiba 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do not want violent felons wandering the street with guns. If you want weapons, do not commit crimes. It's very simple.
2007-12-06 02:30:39 · answer #7 · answered by mustagme 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Did you hear the Omaha incident? The twerp only had misdemeanor charges and a minor drunkenness charge, and he killed 9 people with a gun.
I hope that answers your question. Just because the offenses are not violent doesn't mean that person is not prone to committing violent acts.
2007-12-06 02:31:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 6⤋
To punish them and protect society. Why should they lose their right to vote?
2007-12-06 02:35:23 · answer #9 · answered by BruceN 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because they're a felon!
2007-12-06 02:29:52 · answer #10 · answered by John W 3 · 6⤊ 4⤋