This a venial or mortal sin or neither?

[agmoose02]

It would have been fallacious if I were making the argument that ex-cons shouldn’t be allowed guns. Your argument was that the right to bear arms is irrevocable and absolute, and therefore ex-cons should be allowed to own guns. My argument was to disprove your premise, no more, no less, and on that count, the only count I was aiming for, I was successful. Your objection is a strawman.

Now of course, you could change your argument to “The right to bear arms is absolute for everyone not in prison,” but that would require a different proof entirely (and you’d have to clearly mark that you were changing your argument, lest you commit a fallacy).

The argument I called fallacious referred to prison inmates being issued handguns. These are cons not ex-cons. It is not fallacious to say that due to the nature of incarceration certain freedoms are forfeit until the debt to society for the crime is repaid. For instance, the freedom to come and go as you please, something we take for granted, the nature of incarceration also puts an end to this freedom until the debt to society is paid. So, once again, I say yes after the incarceration and the probationary period once released I believe ex-cons should be allowed their second amendment rights.

 

[LilyM]

I would refer you again to the quote by Ben Franklin. These kinds of laws are an example of trading freedom for security. While many of these laws seem reasonable at face value, when put together they result in the steady erosion of this constitutional right. And actually no legislated law can legally contradict any part of the constitution unless it also becomes an amendment to repeal an amendment. As for the supreme court, that is essentially a coin toss depending on the conservative-liberal split. There are too many activist judges who forget that their function is to interpret the laws, not legislate from the bench. Making laws is the perogative of congress and the states.

As for my previous post, I was responding to whether or not it was a sin. Since the law itsself is in violation of the law I believe the answer is no. If I were asked as to what I believed the best course of action is, I would say get rid of the gun unless the person wants to make a serious challenge to the law. I agree with other poster that the cops won’t care that it is technically unconstitutional. It should be clear though that these are two separate issues, whether it is a sin and what is the most practical course of action.

Again, it is not for you, unless you’re a Supreme Court judge, to determine what laws are reasonable or which may violate the Constitution - even if you’re a Constitutional Lawyer you may have an opinion which may or may not be a correct one. Heck, even if you ARE a judge you may have an opinion which is in the minority and you need to abide by the majority decision.

And by refusing to hear a case aren’t the Court basically making a decision anyway - that existing laws should stand, at least in the instances presented to them? They have every right to refuse to hear cases that have no merit or are outside their jurisdiction or such.

Particular courts or judges are too activist? Well, that’s for the selection process, the appeals process (perhaps appeal to a future Supreme Court which is composed more in your favour?), or whoever appoints and/or dismisses judges to determine. Also not your personal call.

And who appoints and oversees judges? Usually the elected officials you or your fellow citizens voted for. If you personally didn’t vote for 'em and you don’t like the results then you’re free to leave the country for one that’s more to your liking.

Of course you may determine that a particular law commands you to sin, of course, and are quite justified in disobeying such, but if it’s a mere matter of reasonableness or constitutionality, it simply ain’t your call.

 

[BlaineTog]

The argument I called fallacious referred to prison inmates being issued handguns. These are cons not ex-cons. It is not fallacious to say that due to the nature of incarceration certain freedoms are forfeit until the debt to society for the crime is repaid. For instance, the freedom to come and go as you please, something we take for granted, the nature of incarceration also puts an end to this freedom until the debt to society is paid. So, once again, I say yes after the incarceration and the probationary period once released I believe ex-cons should be allowed their second amendment rights.

Did you not read my post? At all?

You said the right was absolute. I gave a situation in which it isn’t absolute. Ergo, the right isn’t absolute. That’s a legitimate objection.

 

[agmoose02]

Did you not read my post? At all?

You said the right was absolute. I gave a situation in which it isn’t absolute. Ergo, the right isn’t absolute. That’s a legitimate objection.

Have you read the constitution? At all?

It is an amazingly simple document for running a country without a lot of legal double talk. Take the 15-20 minutes necessary to read through it. It was written to be understood by simple 18th century farmers and is quite straight forward. Amazing how many 1000’s upon 1000’s of pages lawyers are able to write over such a short document.

 

[agmoose02]

Again, it is not for you, unless you’re a Supreme Court judge, to determine what laws are reasonable or which may violate the Constitution - even if you’re a Constitutional Lawyer you may have an opinion which may or may not be a correct one. Heck, even if you ARE a judge you may have an opinion which is in the minority and you need to abide by the majority decision.

And by refusing to hear a case aren’t the Court basically making a decision anyway - that existing laws should stand, at least in the instances presented to them? They have every right to refuse to hear cases that have no merit or are outside their jurisdiction or such.

Particular courts or judges are too activist? Well, that’s for the selection process, the appeals process (perhaps appeal to a future Supreme Court which is composed more in your favour?), or whoever appoints and/or dismisses judges to determine. Also not your personal call.

And who appoints and oversees judges? Usually the elected officials you or your fellow citizens voted for. If you personally didn’t vote for 'em and you don’t like the results then you’re free to leave the country for one that’s more to your liking.

Of course you may determine that a particular law commands you to sin, of course, and are quite justified in disobeying such, but if it’s a mere matter of reasonableness or constitutionality, it simply ain’t your call.

Actually as an American citizen, I have every right to speak my mind on pertinent issues relevant to the public discourse. This would be known as a first ammendment right. I don’t have to be a constitutional lawyer or a judge simply to discuss these issues.

Yes, the courts do have every right to throw out a case that is without merit, but they would have to justify their reasons for doing this. Hard to do when constitutional principals are at stake.

Ah, appeal to a future supreme court composed more in your favor. A long time favorite tactic of those who wish to trample the freedoms of others or get judges to force changes on society that they don’t want. Thank you for explaining how this tactic can be used for good.

Actually, I am rather happy with the supreme court make up in place today. I hope they will decide quickly on the DC handgun case that is currently before them. As for judicial oversight, since federal judges are appointed for life, there is little oversight after the confirmation process by elected officials. Many were appointed before I was of voting age. And I actually do live outside the country (over 4 years), but not for this reason.

Finally, as citizens, we do have a right to speak out against and when opportunity arises to challenge unjust laws. Just because a group of people makes laws, doesnt make everything they do legal. If it did, the world would be much more messed up than it is today.

 

[BlaineTog]

Have you read the constitution? At all?

What about “The right to bear arms is not absolute” is confusing?