Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Technically one is still in custody while on probation or parole. That lasts until the full sentence is served. All additional punitive actions by the state become extra-legal after the full sentence is served. That is a problem. The obvious solution is not to release them, not give the government greater powers that exceed the limits of criminal sentences.Prior to our Constitution, people lost all their rights when they got a death penalty. That doesn’t mean that the Constitution forbids it.
It has long been true in many jurisdictions that felons also lost the right to vote — permanently.
Again, why the fuck shouldn’t part of the penalty for commission of a crime include post release supervision like parole or probation? And why the fuck shouldn’t it include closer restrictions on the freedom of movement by the special felons convicted of sex offenses?
There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. And frankly, I absolutely endorse it. I want to know if I need to be extra alert on behalf of my wife or any young kids when it comes to some scumbag child abused living in my town.
The death penalty is just that, a penalty for actions taken. The defendant is afforded all rights in their defense and the penalty requires a conviction. Either by a jury or pleading guilty. The government is not violating the defendant's rights by carrying out a lawful sentence.Isn’t life one of the inalienable rights alongside liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
That is actually correct. So far, so good.Technically one is still in custody while on probation or parole.
Key term is”punitive.” In cases involving sec offender registration, it has frequently been found not to be “punitive.”That lasts until the full sentence is served. All additional punitive actions by the state become extra-legal after the full sentence is served.
That is a problem.
Nope. The obvious “solution” is to realize that what you identify as a “problem” isn’t one.The obvious solution is not to release them, not give the government greater powers that exceed the limits of criminal sentences.
That depends on legislative judgment. Not all robbers will inevitably be a threat of a new robbery. But when it comes to pedophilia, there is no cure.So why aren't all felons, or at least violent felons under similar restrictions?
Those folks are just as dangerous, sometimes more so.
So you support releasing these people, then complain that they are out there? Wow.That is actually correct. So far, so good.
So, let’s put aside for now lifetime parole.
Key term is”punitive.” In cases involving sec offender registration, it has frequently been found not to be “punitive.”
Not really.
Nope. The obvious “solution” is to realize that what you identify as a “problem” isn’t one.
That depends on legislative judgment. Not all robbers will inevitably be a threat of a new robbery. But when it comes to pedophilia, there is no cure.
Nope. Not necessarily.
Firearms are a special category. Words can't kill. Unbalanced individuals who prove themselves so have no "right" to means of easy, rapid destruction of others. Citizens do have the right to protect themselves from the unbalanced.
My system of thinking is number 1, read the entire article. 2. Seek to locate biases 3. Does the article rely on sources saying what? If this happens, chances are the article is not accurate.Did he? His method doesn’t show that. One of the reasons we accept the Judiciary is because they make their rulings based on the Constitution and later precedents. This clown sought precedent outside those limited parameters. Much the reason most sensible folks reject Kennedy's gay marriage farcical opinion, and the reason it will be overturned.
So you missed the reference to the 1677 law this clown was checking? It was in the article.My system of thinking is number 1, read the entire article. 2. Seek to locate biases 3. Does the article rely on sources say? If this happens, chances are the article is not accurate.
To make it personal, others and you chat here on the forum. If one of them presented an article, citing sources, that is against you, I would follow my formula and chances are excellent I would defend you.
The video, had you watched it, was not a rehash of 2,000 mules. So the fact you refused to watch it, makes you insignificant to this thread....either realize what a pile of shit it is, or they are so gullible as to be embarrassments to themselves and their families.
Actually I saw that.So you missed the reference to the 1677 law this clown was checking? It was in the article.
Why can’t the same be said about gun possession? I don’t believe the Bill of Rights is a suicide pact. We have a right to defend ourselves from the bad actors.The death penalty is just that, a penalty for actions taken. The defendant is afforded all rights in their defense and the penalty requires a conviction. Either by a jury or pleading guilty. The government is not violating the defendant's rights by carrying out a lawful sentence.
The revocation of rights is a different matter entirely.
It only requires an amendment to revoke the rights of citizens the state deems unworthy. Good luck with that.Why can’t the same be said about gun possession? I don’t believe the Bill of Rights is a suicide pact. We have a right to defend ourselves from the bad actors.
Show you what you should already know?Show me. Im waiting.
So you are telling me that when you are convicted of a felony they can't do anything to you because it is not in the Constitution?The argument of someone who doesn't want to admit he's the one who never read the document.
Where is it? So you don't know? Don't ask me then!!!!!
On second thought, your posts are less inane when they are incoherent
Where does the government get the authority to take away constitutional rights forever?
In a ruling that seems fated to find its way before the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge in Illinois has recently found that the gun rights of a felon convicted of multiple armed robberies are protected by the Second Amendment.
The finding from U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman was issued on Nov. 2 and stems from a case involving Illinois resident Glen Price. Price, 37, allegedly brandished a gun and robbed someone on a train in September 2021. Police said he stole a cellphone and a train fare card too. When police arrested him, they found a 9 mm gun in his possession, cocaine, ammunition and a stolen credit card.
Price was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm since he already had a criminal record featuring no less than three felony convictions for armed robbery and one conviction for aggravated battery of a police officer.
Until Gettleman’s ruling on Nov. 2, Price was facing 15 years in prison for his latest offense — the mandatory minimum sentence when convicted. But Gettleman, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, relied on a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that took him in this controversial direction.
While I am glad this man won, as he should have, searching night and day for precedent is BS. The Constitution says what it says. Why do these judges look to other rulings instead of the document itself? Does the constitution say "unless a judge says different?"
Then there is this : “The government has not demonstrated why the modern ubiquity of gun violence, and the heightened lethality of today’s firearm technology compared to the Founding, justify a different result.
Thats just fucking scary. So if the government could demonstrate why all old people should die, that would be ok with him?
ITS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Not what the tyrannical govt says, or what you THINK.
Their words did not kill. Those who fell under the spell of their words killed, mostly with firearms.Words can’t kill?
Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pot would all disagree.
Their words did not kill. Those who fell under the spell of their words killed, mostly with firearms.
I actually agree with the judge. I think keeping criminals and felons from owning guns is being unfairly discrimatory toward a group of people. It is unconstitional. He should have the right to bear arms.
In a ruling that seems fated to find its way before the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge in Illinois has recently found that the gun rights of a felon convicted of multiple armed robberies are protected by the Second Amendment.
The finding from U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman was issued on Nov. 2 and stems from a case involving Illinois resident Glen Price. Price, 37, allegedly brandished a gun and robbed someone on a train in September 2021. Police said he stole a cellphone and a train fare card too. When police arrested him, they found a 9 mm gun in his possession, cocaine, ammunition and a stolen credit card.
Price was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm since he already had a criminal record featuring no less than three felony convictions for armed robbery and one conviction for aggravated battery of a police officer.
Until Gettleman’s ruling on Nov. 2, Price was facing 15 years in prison for his latest offense — the mandatory minimum sentence when convicted. But Gettleman, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, relied on a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that took him in this controversial direction.
While I am glad this man won, as he should have, searching night and day for precedent is BS. The Constitution says what it says. Why do these judges look to other rulings instead of the document itself? Does the constitution say "unless a judge says different?"
Then there is this : “The government has not demonstrated why the modern ubiquity of gun violence, and the heightened lethality of today’s firearm technology compared to the Founding, justify a different result.
Thats just fucking scary. So if the government could demonstrate why all old people should die, that would be ok with him?
ITS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Not what the tyrannical govt says, or what you THINK.
What did the post say? What are you responding to?Firearms don’t kill. People kill.
That reminds me of the case of where Alec Baldwin killed that woman by carelessly firing the pistol.Why can’t the same be said about gun possession? I don’t believe the Bill of Rights is a suicide pact. We have a right to defend ourselves from the bad actors.
