Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

gunderwood wrote:

WRW wrote:

gunderwood wrote:
It is a statement of fact that a felony "forfeits" certain legal rights, but that does not make it right or justice. Stating it is stating the obvious, so what. The debate is not if the statement is true or false, the debate is over if it is right or wrong. Why is it right or wrong?

I'm just trying to figure where you put the onus for the loss of right.

Trust in members of society is not an on/off proposition. Throughout our lives we establish a reputation of levels of trustworthiness (similar to levels of security clearance). Some can be trusted with the lives of passengers, others cannot. Hence the stringent CDL requierments and the loss of CDL for failure to meet those requirements. One having lost his CDL may drive the roads with a passenger, but not a bus. This is not dissimilar to what we have been discussing. One may be freed from jail and still not be considered "trustworthy". He may then attempt to reestablish himself as a person of trust within the community and, having done so, request that rights relinquished be returned... or he may continue on in the same manner that established his loss of trust.

Yes, there are different levels of trust for privileges. Rights are different...trust shouldn't enter into that equation.

Like the broken window, it's just an example (cause and effect in this instance). Now, there are means by which rights can be waived, usually by granting permission, verbally or implied. The right to determination of property can be relinquished merely by not leaving a will. Murder can, with due process of law, result in loss of the greatest right...the right to life. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with loss of right to arms for felony.

@WRW

Why do you only ever provide existing examples but don't defend them? Again and again, you say we do X and I have no problem with X, but you provide no rationale as to why X isn't the most hideous travesty of liberty ever conceived. Since you are missing the point, I'm going to have to go to an extreme example to illustrate it.

In Nazi Germany it was legal to round up the Jews and other "troublesome" people of their society, many Germans had no problem with it and willing participated in the efforts. The due process of the law for such people allowed for their being rounded up and eventually killed. Therefore, by your own logic, what the Germans did must be right.

Due process of law, legalities, etc. are just ground rules for how the government may exercise the power vested in it, nothing more. Due process and the law are suppose to be defendable on moral and ethical grounds in of themselves. Just because they were followed doesn't mean that they are not tyrannical or evil. That is exactly the problem we (most non-lawyers) have with most lawyers; they care only for what is legal, not for what is also moral and ethical. That is very different than if you look at say how the foundering lawyers practiced law. E.g. John Adams. In fact their who revolution and the proceedings leading up to it was a moral and ethical argument against the existing due process and law of King George. Legal or not, it wasn't right!

Right and wrong are not always what is legal. No society will always get it right, but we should strive to continually make progress. Unfortunately, the felony creep is just one example of how we are sliding backwards, not making progress.

The voluntary waving of Rights is a hot topic. Make an argument as to why they can be waved, not just an unfounded opinion that they can be, and I'll reply to that. Otherwise I have to argue both your and my points.

Make an argument as to why capital punishment is valid. I would probably agree with you as a matter of practicality, but only under a nearly air tight due process which is non-existent today.

Make an argument as to why say theft of a song or movie should result in the loss of the right to keep and bear arms. How about accidentally crossing from one locality/state with a firearm prohibited in another? Your call on the example, but you have to go deep and explain why it is right or wrong...of course by what standard too.