Now what?

[Vienna_Hokie]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... cmp=hplnws

I doubt even Obama would say he should be in the US. But what now? He is an obvious threat to the safety of the population in the US but our laws and the complete lack of cooperation by the Mexican gov on immigration issues leaves the options kinda limited. Here are the obvious options:

1. Deport him again. Anyone remember the definition of insanity?
2. Put him in US prison again and let the US taxpayers pay for him for a while again so we can start this all over again in a few years.

Most likely he will be released on bond with an order to appear for a deportation hearing in six months because we all know how well that works.

Part of the problem with our entire immigration issue is that the Mexican government has no interest in helping solve the issue. To them it a plus plus scenario. Their pathetic economy doesn't have to support 10mil+ unskilled people or incarcerate the percentage of them that are violent criminals AND many that are in the US illegally are sending money back to their families in Mexico, providing an influx into their economy at the expense of ours.

So, what do we do with this piece of trash?

[VisorBoy]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... cmp=hplnws

I doubt even Obama would say he should be in the US. But what now? He is an obvious threat to the safety of the population in the US but our laws and the complete lack of cooperation by the Mexican gov on immigration issues leaves the options kinda limited. Here are the obvious options:

1. Deport him again. Anyone remember the definition of insanity?
2. Put him in US prison again and let the US taxpayers pay for him for a while again so we can start this all over again in a few years.

Most likely he will be released on bond with an order to appear for a deportation hearing in six months because we all know how well that works.

Part of the problem with our entire immigration issue is that the Mexican government has no interest in helping solve the issue. To them it a plus plus scenario. Their pathetic economy doesn't have to support 10mil+ unskilled people or incarcerate the percentage of them that are violent criminals AND many that are in the US illegally are sending money back to their families in Mexico, providing an influx into their economy at the expense of ours.

So, what do we do with this piece of trash?

He's served his time, so we can only put him in prison for illegal entry. Apparently, he's been charged with felony re-entry, so I assume he will be tried, and if convicted will be sent to prison. Otherwise, he'll be deported to Mexico.

[HokieFanDC]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... cmp=hplnws

I doubt even Obama would say he should be in the US. But what now? He is an obvious threat to the safety of the population in the US but our laws and the complete lack of cooperation by the Mexican gov on immigration issues leaves the options kinda limited. Here are the obvious options:

1. Deport him again. Anyone remember the definition of insanity?
2. Put him in US prison again and let the US taxpayers pay for him for a while again so we can start this all over again in a few years.

Most likely he will be released on bond with an order to appear for a deportation hearing in six months because we all know how well that works.

Part of the problem with our entire immigration issue is that the Mexican government has no interest in helping solve the issue. To them it a plus plus scenario. Their pathetic economy doesn't have to support 10mil+ unskilled people or incarcerate the percentage of them that are violent criminals AND many that are in the US illegally are sending money back to their families in Mexico, providing an influx into their economy at the expense of ours.

So, what do we do with this piece of trash?

Send him to Rura Penthe.

[Major Kong]

Send him to Rura Penthe.

The Spice Mines of Kessel

[Vienna_Hokie]

He's served his time, so we can only put him in prison for illegal entry. Apparently, he's been charged with felony re-entry, so I assume he will be tried, and if convicted will be sent to prison. Otherwise, he'll be deported to Mexico.

So all reason and common sense is put aside and we just continue the same old failed approach?

This time we'll tell him we're serious about it and don't come back? Maybe we can get a sternly written letter from the prosecutor who is "aggressively prosecuting" criminals after they've been arrested for the same crime 24 times.

Is that what should be communicated to his next victim? "He's served his time"

[HokieFanDC]

Send him to Rura Penthe.

The Spice Mines of Kessel

That works also. Would be even better if he were a wookiee.

[VisorBoy]

He's served his time, so we can only put him in prison for illegal entry. Apparently, he's been charged with felony re-entry, so I assume he will be tried, and if convicted will be sent to prison. Otherwise, he'll be deported to Mexico.

So all reason and common sense is put aside and we just continue the same old failed approach?

This time we'll tell him we're serious about it and don't come back? Maybe we can get a sternly written letter from the prosecutor who is "aggressively prosecuting" criminals after they've been arrested for the same crime 24 times.

Is that what should be communicated to his next victim? "He's served his time"

You are assuming many things:
1. That he will be found not guilty of felony re-entry.
2. That he will cross the border successfully again.
3. That he will commit a crime once here.

That is a lot of "what ifs". In a free society such as ours, the state is (and might I add, should be) limited in its power over people after they've served a punishment for a crime. Should he be acquitted, we can add this person to a border watch list so that border security can focus on him. But other than that, what power does the government have over a person who is not found guilty of any crime?

[Vienna_Hokie]

He's served his time, so we can only put him in prison for illegal entry. Apparently, he's been charged with felony re-entry, so I assume he will be tried, and if convicted will be sent to prison. Otherwise, he'll be deported to Mexico.

So all reason and common sense is put aside and we just continue the same old failed approach?

This time we'll tell him we're serious about it and don't come back? Maybe we can get a sternly written letter from the prosecutor who is "aggressively prosecuting" criminals after they've been arrested for the same crime 24 times.

Is that what should be communicated to his next victim? "He's served his time"

You are assuming many things:
1. That he will be found not guilty of felony re-entry.
2. That he will cross the border successfully again.
3. That he will commit a crime once here.

That is a lot of "what ifs". In a free society such as ours, the state is (and might I add, should be) limited in its power over people after they've served a punishment for a crime. Should he be acquitted, we can add this person to a border watch list so that border security can focus on him. But other than that, what power does the government have over a person who is not found guilty of any crime?

1. Doesn't matter if he's convicted or not, only delay's the story if he is.
2. What makes you think he won't? I'd say the chances are better that he will than he won't given the ease at which people cross the border every day. There was obviously incentive for him to come back this time, why would that change?
3. I'm sure his time in prison reformed him and he won't be doing any more drive by shootings. Can we move him into a house in your neighborhood?

He has been found guilty of a crime and spent time in prison. Now he has broken another law, actually now three because if we assume he was a model citizen before he did the drive by, he entered the country illegally, so he has now committed three crimes. What has been proven is that he has no desire to live within the law, so all you think we should do is cross our fingers and hope he decides to stop being a criminal?

I don't believe the same protections should be afforded to him as they are to someone who has never been arrested or convicted of a violent crime. You're OK with simply setting the counter back to zero each time he spends a little bit of time in jail and hoping it's not going to happen again?

[VisorBoy]

He's served his time, so we can only put him in prison for illegal entry. Apparently, he's been charged with felony re-entry, so I assume he will be tried, and if convicted will be sent to prison. Otherwise, he'll be deported to Mexico.

So all reason and common sense is put aside and we just continue the same old failed approach?

This time we'll tell him we're serious about it and don't come back? Maybe we can get a sternly written letter from the prosecutor who is "aggressively prosecuting" criminals after they've been arrested for the same crime 24 times.

Is that what should be communicated to his next victim? "He's served his time"

You are assuming many things:
1. That he will be found not guilty of felony re-entry.
2. That he will cross the border successfully again.
3. That he will commit a crime once here.

That is a lot of "what ifs". In a free society such as ours, the state is (and might I add, should be) limited in its power over people after they've served a punishment for a crime. Should he be acquitted, we can add this person to a border watch list so that border security can focus on him. But other than that, what power does the government have over a person who is not found guilty of any crime?

1. Doesn't matter if he's convicted or not, only delay's the story if he is.
2. What makes you think he won't? I'd say the chances are better that he will than he won't given the ease at which people cross the border every day. There was obviously incentive for him to come back this time, why would that change?
3. I'm sure his time in prison reformed him and he won't be doing any more drive by shootings. Can we move him into a house in your neighborhood?

He has been found guilty of a crime and spent time in prison. Now he has broken another law, actually now three because if we assume he was a model citizen before he did the drive by, he entered the country illegally, so he has now committed three crimes. What has been proven is that he has no desire to live within the law, so all you think we should do is cross our fingers and hope he decides to stop being a criminal?

I don't believe the same protections should be afforded to him as they are to someone who has never been arrested or convicted of a violent crime. You're OK with simply setting the counter back to zero each time he spends a little bit of time in jail and hoping it's not going to happen again?

It doesn't matter what I 'think' we should do. It only matters what power we give the government over us. I choose not to live in a society where the government has complete control over someone's life after they've committed a crime and served their sentence. That is a form of tyranny. We also can't detain someone for what they might do in the future. That is also tyrannical.

Now, the government does have reasonable power to ensure that a felon, for instance, cannot have access to firearms, and other limitations. But they do not have the right to indiscriminately lock someone up who hasn't been convicted of a crime.

[Vienna_Hokie]

It doesn't matter what I 'think' we should do. It only matters what power we give the government over us. I choose not to live in a society where the government has complete control over someone's life after they've committed a crime and served their sentence. That is a form of tyranny. We also can't detain someone for what they might do in the future. That is also tyrannical.

Now, the government does have reasonable power to ensure that a felon, for instance, cannot have access to firearms, and other limitations. But they do not have the right to indiscriminately lock someone up who hasn't been convicted of a crime.

At a theoretical level I agree with you, but you somewhat contradicted yourself. You're saying that government has the "reasonable" power to restrict someone's rights because they have been convicted a crime, even though they have served their punishment. Is it not reasonable to place other restrictions on someone who is was convicted of a violent crime and who has shown a complete disregard for the law? It seems like this not a question of can they, you've already said they can, it is a question of the definition of what is a reasonable restriction.

[VisorBoy]

It doesn't matter what I 'think' we should do. It only matters what power we give the government over us. I choose not to live in a society where the government has complete control over someone's life after they've committed a crime and served their sentence. That is a form of tyranny. We also can't detain someone for what they might do in the future. That is also tyrannical.

Now, the government does have reasonable power to ensure that a felon, for instance, cannot have access to firearms, and other limitations. But they do not have the right to indiscriminately lock someone up who hasn't been convicted of a crime.

At a theoretical level I agree with you, but you somewhat contradicted yourself. You're saying that government has the "reasonable" power to restrict someone's rights because they have been convicted a crime, even though they have served their punishment. Is it not reasonable to place other restrictions on someone who is was convicted of a violent crime and who has shown a complete disregard for the law? It seems like this not a question of can they, you've already said they can, it is a question of the definition of what is a reasonable restriction.

And the reasonable restriction is a fair trial for their alleged crimes. If convicted, they will be sentenced accordingly. If they are found not guilty, then they are free to be deported to Mexico. The only alternative (unless you suggest something different) is to send them to jail regardless. That is over and above the government's power.

[BigDave]

Send him to Rura Penthe.

The Spice Mines of Kessel

Will it take more than 12 parsecs to get there?

[Vienna_Hokie]

It doesn't matter what I 'think' we should do. It only matters what power we give the government over us. I choose not to live in a society where the government has complete control over someone's life after they've committed a crime and served their sentence. That is a form of tyranny. We also can't detain someone for what they might do in the future. That is also tyrannical.

Now, the government does have reasonable power to ensure that a felon, for instance, cannot have access to firearms, and other limitations. But they do not have the right to indiscriminately lock someone up who hasn't been convicted of a crime.

At a theoretical level I agree with you, but you somewhat contradicted yourself. You're saying that government has the "reasonable" power to restrict someone's rights because they have been convicted a crime, even though they have served their punishment. Is it not reasonable to place other restrictions on someone who is was convicted of a violent crime and who has shown a complete disregard for the law? It seems like this not a question of can they, you've already said they can, it is a question of the definition of what is a reasonable restriction.

And the reasonable restriction is a fair trial for their alleged crimes. If convicted, they will be sentenced accordingly. If they are found not guilty, then they are free to be deported to Mexico. The only alternative (unless you suggest something different) is to send them to jail regardless. That is over and above the government's power.

Then once they get out of prison why can't they own a gun? They've served their time for the crime they were convicted.

If we can restrict their constitutional rights under the 2nd amendment because of a crime they have already been punished for (and the right to vote), why can't other rights be restricted like due process? Seems like we're saying some inalienable rights are more inalienable than others.

[HokieFanDC]

Send him to Rura Penthe.

The Spice Mines of Kessel

Will it take more than 12 parsecs to get there?

It will if you don't have a millennium falcon and a pilot named solo!

[awesome guy]

It doesn't matter what I 'think' we should do. It only matters what power we give the government over us. I choose not to live in a society where the government has complete control over someone's life after they've committed a crime and served their sentence. That is a form of tyranny. We also can't detain someone for what they might do in the future. That is also tyrannical.

Now, the government does have reasonable power to ensure that a felon, for instance, cannot have access to firearms, and other limitations. But they do not have the right to indiscriminately lock someone up who hasn't been convicted of a crime.

At a theoretical level I agree with you, but you somewhat contradicted yourself. You're saying that government has the "reasonable" power to restrict someone's rights because they have been convicted a crime, even though they have served their punishment. Is it not reasonable to place other restrictions on someone who is was convicted of a violent crime and who has shown a complete disregard for the law? It seems like this not a question of can they, you've already said they can, it is a question of the definition of what is a reasonable restriction.

And the reasonable restriction is a fair trial for their alleged crimes. If convicted, they will be sentenced accordingly. If they are found not guilty, then they are free to be deported to Mexico. The only alternative (unless you suggest something different) is to send them to jail regardless. That is over and above the government's power.

Then once they get out of prison why can't they own a gun? They've served their time for the crime they were convicted.

If we can restrict their constitutional rights under the 2nd amendment because of a crime they have already been punished for (and the right to vote), why can't other rights be restricted like due process? Seems like we're saying some inalienable rights are more inalienable than others.

Agree, they should be able have weapons. In my view, they can only have their rights infringed during the time of incarceration so they can't shoot themselves out. They have an inalienable right to self defense, like everyone else.

[VisorBoy]

It doesn't matter what I 'think' we should do. It only matters what power we give the government over us. I choose not to live in a society where the government has complete control over someone's life after they've committed a crime and served their sentence. That is a form of tyranny. We also can't detain someone for what they might do in the future. That is also tyrannical.

Now, the government does have reasonable power to ensure that a felon, for instance, cannot have access to firearms, and other limitations. But they do not have the right to indiscriminately lock someone up who hasn't been convicted of a crime.

At a theoretical level I agree with you, but you somewhat contradicted yourself. You're saying that government has the "reasonable" power to restrict someone's rights because they have been convicted a crime, even though they have served their punishment. Is it not reasonable to place other restrictions on someone who is was convicted of a violent crime and who has shown a complete disregard for the law? It seems like this not a question of can they, you've already said they can, it is a question of the definition of what is a reasonable restriction.

And the reasonable restriction is a fair trial for their alleged crimes. If convicted, they will be sentenced accordingly. If they are found not guilty, then they are free to be deported to Mexico. The only alternative (unless you suggest something different) is to send them to jail regardless. That is over and above the government's power.

Then once they get out of prison why can't they own a gun? They've served their time for the crime they were convicted.

If we can restrict their constitutional rights under the 2nd amendment because of a crime they have already been punished for (and the right to vote), why can't other rights be restricted like due process? Seems like we're saying some inalienable rights are more inalienable than others.

You bring up a good point. I don't know if the 2nd amendment would be considered inalienable. For instance, the right to own certain heavy weaponry has already been rescinded from the citizenry. I would be willing to entertain allowing felons to own weapons.

The right to due process, however, has not been limited (so far as I can think) for citizens (even, and especially so, for convicted criminals). For non-citizens, there is open debate about what due process rights a person has, but I can't imagine it should be withheld to non-citizens. That is one of our fundamental tenets, after all.

In any case, what exactly are you advocating we do with this person if they are found not guilty of felony re-entry?

[Vienna_Hokie]

You bring up a good point. I don't know if the 2nd amendment would be considered inalienable. For instance, the right to own certain heavy weaponry has already been rescinded from the citizenry. I would be willing to entertain allowing felons to own weapons.

The right to due process, however, has not been limited (so far as I can think) for citizens (even, and especially so, for convicted criminals). For non-citizens, there is open debate about what due process rights a person has, but I can't imagine it should be withheld to non-citizens. That is one of our fundamental tenets, after all.

In any case, what exactly are you advocating we do with this person if they are found not guilty of felony re-entry?

The writings of the framers were very specific that none of the bill of rights were any more or less important than others. A true constructionist would view any limitations on firearms as unconstitutional, but I would disagree with the idea that because it has never been restricted, due process is somehow more untouchable than the 2nd. I also agree strongly that rights due to citizens are not due to those in the country illegally.

As for what I'd do, I don't know exactly, that was part of the purpose of the post. There are some smart, and some very opinionated people here. The current process does not work, that's pretty obvious, so what are some other ideas.

We have to change the balance for all if we want to start actually dealing with the immigration issue. Building a wall won't fix it, the Atlantic wall could stop D Day, amnesty will just make it worse because it will make the incentive even greater. Right now the reward (free education for your kids, jobs, money, etc) are a whole lot greater than the risk (get caught, get a ride to a city and released and told to come back in a few months to be deported). But for violent criminals there has to be things that can be done to change the risk/reward balance to make violent criminals that are deported decide they are better off in Mexico than trying to come back to the US.

How about radio collars that track anyone that comes within 20 miles of the boarder and are set to explode if they are tampered with? If you are deported and get caught trying to re-enter, you get one. I'd say that is an incentive.

[CFB Apologist]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... cmp=hplnws

I doubt even Obama would say he should be in the US. But what now? He is an obvious threat to the safety of the population in the US but our laws and the complete lack of cooperation by the Mexican gov on immigration issues leaves the options kinda limited. Here are the obvious options:

1. Deport him again. Anyone remember the definition of insanity?
2. Put him in US prison again and let the US taxpayers pay for him for a while again so we can start this all over again in a few years.

Most likely he will be released on bond with an order to appear for a deportation hearing in six months because we all know how well that works.

Part of the problem with our entire immigration issue is that the Mexican government has no interest in helping solve the issue. To them it a plus plus scenario. Their pathetic economy doesn't have to support 10mil+ unskilled people or incarcerate the percentage of them that are violent criminals AND many that are in the US illegally are sending money back to their families in Mexico, providing an influx into their economy at the expense of ours.

So, what do we do with this piece of trash?

Since deporting and jailing him did not work, we should just let him stay here to sell more drugs and kill more Americans.. why not? deportation is mean and racist.

[HokieFanDC]

You bring up a good point. I don't know if the 2nd amendment would be considered inalienable. For instance, the right to own certain heavy weaponry has already been rescinded from the citizenry. I would be willing to entertain allowing felons to own weapons.

The right to due process, however, has not been limited (so far as I can think) for citizens (even, and especially so, for convicted criminals). For non-citizens, there is open debate about what due process rights a person has, but I can't imagine it should be withheld to non-citizens. That is one of our fundamental tenets, after all.

In any case, what exactly are you advocating we do with this person if they are found not guilty of felony re-entry?

The writings of the framers were very specific that none of the bill of rights were any more or less important than others. A true constructionist would view any limitations on firearms as unconstitutional, but I would disagree with the idea that because it has never been restricted, due process is somehow more untouchable than the 2nd. I also agree strongly that rights due to citizens are not due to those in the country illegally.

As for what I'd do, I don't know exactly, that was part of the purpose of the post. There are some smart, and some very opinionated people here. The current process does not work, that's pretty obvious, so what are some other ideas.

We have to change the balance for all if we want to start actually dealing with the immigration issue. Building a wall won't fix it, the Atlantic wall could stop D Day, amnesty will just make it worse because it will make the incentive even greater. Right now the reward (free education for your kids, jobs, money, etc) are a whole lot greater than the risk (get caught, get a ride to a city and released and told to come back in a few months to be deported). But for violent criminals there has to be things that can be done to change the risk/reward balance to make violent criminals that are deported decide they are better off in Mexico than trying to come back to the US.

How about radio collars that track anyone that comes within 20 miles of the boarder and are set to explode if they are tampered with? If you are deported and get caught trying to re-enter, you get one. I'd say that is an incentive.

I don't think the Founding Fathers would agree with that interpretation. I definitely know that they believe that the natural rights apply to all people, everywhere. In addition, you can't determine if someone has done something illegal, without going through due process. So, I don't see that argument.
Also, the reason that 2A rights can be limited is b/c the ownership of guns has an impact on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of more than just the individual who wants a gun. Having a person go through due process, only affects that person.

[Vienna_Hokie]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would agree with that interpretation. I definitely know that they believe that the natural rights apply to all people, everywhere. In addition, you can't determine if someone has done something illegal, without going through due process. So, I don't see that argument.
Also, the reason that 2A rights can be limited is b/c the ownership of guns has an impact on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of more than just the individual who wants a gun. Having a person go through due process, only affects that person.

In this case, he had his due process....the question being discussed is if and if so, what reasonable restrictions can be placed on him after he has completed his punishment.

Is that 2A concept your opinion or legal doctrine from somewhere? I have never heard that argument and to be honest, it sounds like squat. The first federal gun control legislation was in 1929 as a reaction to gangsters slaughtering people with machine guns and being a threat to law enforcement.

[awesome guy]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would agree with that interpretation. I definitely know that they believe that the natural rights apply to all people, everywhere. In addition, you can't determine if someone has done something illegal, without going through due process. So, I don't see that argument.
Also, the reason that 2A rights can be limited is b/c the ownership of guns has an impact on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of more than just the individual who wants a gun. Having a person go through due process, only affects that person.

In this case, he had his due process....the question being discussed is if and if so, what reasonable restrictions can be placed on him after he has completed his punishment.

Is that 2A concept your opinion or legal doctrine from somewhere? I have never heard that argument and to be honest, it sounds like squat. The first federal gun control legislation was in 1929 as a reaction to gangsters slaughtering people with machine guns and being a threat to law enforcement.

Yep. People could own frigates, aka the most powerful and cannon heavy ships of their day. The privateers were even commissioned for service by the navy. You could own anything, the idea of a limit is revisionist history by gun banners.

[VisorBoy]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would agree with that interpretation. I definitely know that they believe that the natural rights apply to all people, everywhere. In addition, you can't determine if someone has done something illegal, without going through due process. So, I don't see that argument.
Also, the reason that 2A rights can be limited is b/c the ownership of guns has an impact on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of more than just the individual who wants a gun. Having a person go through due process, only affects that person.

In this case, he had his due process....the question being discussed is if and if so, what reasonable restrictions can be placed on him after he has completed his punishment.

Is that 2A concept your opinion or legal doctrine from somewhere? I have never heard that argument and to be honest, it sounds like squat. The first federal gun control legislation was in 1929 as a reaction to gangsters slaughtering people with machine guns and being a threat to law enforcement.

The founders believed that rights were granted to humanity by nature of being created by God. These rights, therefore, could not be lost.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

We therefore should grant due process to all people inside our boundaries.

[VisorBoy]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would agree with that interpretation. I definitely know that they believe that the natural rights apply to all people, everywhere. In addition, you can't determine if someone has done something illegal, without going through due process. So, I don't see that argument.
Also, the reason that 2A rights can be limited is b/c the ownership of guns has an impact on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of more than just the individual who wants a gun. Having a person go through due process, only affects that person.

In this case, he had his due process....the question being discussed is if and if so, what reasonable restrictions can be placed on him after he has completed his punishment.

Is that 2A concept your opinion or legal doctrine from somewhere? I have never heard that argument and to be honest, it sounds like squat. The first federal gun control legislation was in 1929 as a reaction to gangsters slaughtering people with machine guns and being a threat to law enforcement.

Yep. People could own frigates, aka the most powerful and cannon heavy ships of their day. The privateers were even commissioned for service by the navy. You could own anything, the idea of a limit is revisionist history by gun banners.

Yes, but a frigate wasn't capable of accidentally or even purposefully destroying an entire city. A nuclear weapon, on the other hand...

[awesome guy]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would agree with that interpretation. I definitely know that they believe that the natural rights apply to all people, everywhere. In addition, you can't determine if someone has done something illegal, without going through due process. So, I don't see that argument.
Also, the reason that 2A rights can be limited is b/c the ownership of guns has an impact on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of more than just the individual who wants a gun. Having a person go through due process, only affects that person.

In this case, he had his due process....the question being discussed is if and if so, what reasonable restrictions can be placed on him after he has completed his punishment.

Is that 2A concept your opinion or legal doctrine from somewhere? I have never heard that argument and to be honest, it sounds like squat. The first federal gun control legislation was in 1929 as a reaction to gangsters slaughtering people with machine guns and being a threat to law enforcement.

Yep. People could own frigates, aka the most powerful and cannon heavy ships of their day. The privateers were even commissioned for service by the navy. You could own anything, the idea of a limit is revisionist history by gun banners.

Yes, but a frigate wasn't capable of accidentally or even purposefully destroying an entire city. A nuclear weapon, on the other hand...

Sure, the average Joe is buying a nuke. ISIS is after one though, why aren't they deterred by your ban?

[Vienna_Hokie]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would agree with that interpretation. I definitely know that they believe that the natural rights apply to all people, everywhere. In addition, you can't determine if someone has done something illegal, without going through due process. So, I don't see that argument.
Also, the reason that 2A rights can be limited is b/c the ownership of guns has an impact on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of more than just the individual who wants a gun. Having a person go through due process, only affects that person.

In this case, he had his due process....the question being discussed is if and if so, what reasonable restrictions can be placed on him after he has completed his punishment.

Is that 2A concept your opinion or legal doctrine from somewhere? I have never heard that argument and to be honest, it sounds like squat. The first federal gun control legislation was in 1929 as a reaction to gangsters slaughtering people with machine guns and being a threat to law enforcement.

The founders believed that rights were granted to humanity by nature of being created by God. These rights, therefore, could not be lost.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

We therefore should grant due process to all people inside our boundaries.

OK...but as I said...had his due process, convicted of a crime, can take away some rights that are granted to humanity by nature of being created by God (own a gun, vote). Why can't we take away due process rights, free speech right, etc?