Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
wow, thanks for clearing up California's crime issue. I'll be sure and let everyone know on my floor first thing in the morning...
...we can all go home now, I bet if we had just kept him in jail for the whole four more months he skated without serving, he wouldn't have committed any more crimes.
Of course, maybe you meant we should have kept him in prison for life for possession of a sawed-off shotgun?
The irony is that you post thread after thread about firearms rights, yet call this person an "obviously dangerous felon" due to the fact that he possessed a shotgun in violation of current laws. Where does legitimate flouting of the law begin and end in your mind? Does one have an inherent (god-given, is the word I believe you used in discussion with me earlier) right to possess weapons or only those the state allows him or her to possess?
|
my two points are
1) To prevent offenders from re-offending, use LONGER sentences, especially for crimes that involve weapons, like a sawed off shotgun
2) The 2A is an inherent right, but it is not without it's limits, just like any other right. If it's abused, you punish the individual and if that individual cannot be trusted with a weapon, you don't let him out of prison.
I'll find a quote from one of the founders and post it later, but it said something to the fact that carrying arms is a right, but those that abuse the right and commit crimes with firearms will face the stocks or the gallows to ensure that they can't do it anymore.