The Gun Rights of Prisoners?

[bilby]

Yes, I do think.

And were you to do likewise, you would realise that your comment was rendered valueless by the simple fact that I pointed out, and that you (now) claim to be obvious.

I was talking about consulting with the other writings of the founders, since they go into much more detail about their thought process.

No, you were not. You said: "Well, considering that both guns and prisoners were easily around during the creation of the Second Amendment, this would have been instead a much more appropriate question to the framers themselves". No mention of consulting writings there; You may have been thinking about that (only you can ever know), but what you were talking about was "... this would have been instead a much more appropriate question to the framers themselves".

If you are unable to communicate what you actually mean, then that's entirely on you - you have no right to complain when others interpret your words as meaning what the words themselves say, and not what you later claim you actually intended.

You cannot contribute anything of value to any discussion if you are not able to say what you mean. And others will interpret later corrections as attempting to weasel out of your errors; so unless you are happy with that interpretation, you have a vested interest in learning to contribute posts that convey clearly and accurately what you intended them to convey - or not to contribute at all.

 

[sharon45]

I was talking about consulting with the other writings of the founders, since they go into much more detail about their thought process.

No, you were not. You said: "Well, considering that both guns and prisoners were easily around during the creation of the Second Amendment, this would have been instead a much more appropriate question to the framers themselves". No mention of consulting writings there;

Right, instead I was merely suggesting that we conduct a seance.

You cannot contribute anything of value to any discussion if you are not able to say what you mean.

I did write what I meant, so it's really on your own head that you didn't understand.

 

[bilby]

No, you were not. You said: "Well, considering that both guns and prisoners were easily around during the creation of the Second Amendment, this would have been instead a much more appropriate question to the framers themselves". No mention of consulting writings there;

Right, instead I was merely suggesting that we conduct a seance.

You cannot contribute anything of value to any discussion if you are not able to say what you mean.

I did write what I meant, so it's really on your own head that you didn't understand.

It's really not; If you don't care whether you are understood, then you would achieve the same results by not posting at all, saving both yourself and everyone else valuable time.

If you care enough to post, you need to also care enough to make yourself understood.

Clearly you did NOT write what you meant. You may imagine that you did; but if so, you are demonstrably wrong. Nobody else knows what you are thinking unless you tell them. Even though the things you are thinking seem really obvious to you.

 

[fast]

Disagree--there was little use of prison that far back. It was too expensive.

Expense had nothing to do with it - Until the 19th Century, imprisonment was simply not something to which a convict could be sentenced; Rather, it was what happened to convicts while they waited for their sentence (typically corporal punishment, shaming, forced labour, deportation/transportation and/or execution) to be carried out.

The concept of imprisonment as a punishment in its own right to which a criminal might be sentenced was developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and driven by opposition to capital punishment (particularly by Utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham, who was a strong opponent of the American Revolution, and the author of An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress, which was sharply critical of the Declaration of Independence).

Bentham' critique of the authors of the Declaration of Independence didn't pull many punches; The opening paragraph reads:

IN examining this singular Declaration, I have hitherto confined myself to what are given as facts, and alleged against his Majesty and his Parliament, in support of the charge of tyranny and usurpation. Of the preamble I have taken little or no notice. The truth is, little or none does it deserve. The opinions of the modern Americans on Government, like those of their good ancestors on witchcraft, would be too ridiculous to deserve any notice, if like them too, contemptible and extravagant as they be, they had not led to the most serious evils.

(The full text can be found here).

It seems highly unlikely that the framers of the Second Amendment were any more fond of Bentham's views on imprisonment as punishment, than they were of his opinion of 'modern Americans' such as themselves; and it is far from certain that they would have anticipated its adoption, and subsequent embrace, by their new nation.

I learnt me something. Thank you. I didn't know that.

I guess being a product of our times with very little reading of history makes me very myopic on issues and makes me subject to being prone to confuse what I'm exposed to as normalcy.

 

[LordKiran]

So you agree that it is ok if some rights are limited. Good.

Due process of law. Do you understand what that means?

Do you understand what it means to serve your time and thus have paid your dept to society? Probably not, but the idea is that you can't be punished for past transgressions if you serve your time. Kind of fundamental to our justice system.

- - - Updated - - -

About the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolutist interpretation of it has a certain problem: the gun rights of prisoners.

According to that interpretation, prisoners have a right to have fully-functional guns with them, including fully-functional ammo, just like anyone else.

Yet the gun lobby refuses to address that issue.

Why might that be?

Because they're not that stupid.

Let's explore this, why would it be stupid?

 

[Trausti]

Due process of law. Do you understand what that means?

Do you understand what it means to serve your time and thus have paid your dept to society? Probably not, but the idea is that you can't be punished for past transgressions if you serve your time. Kind of fundamental to our justice system.

I generally feel that Scarlet Letters should mostly be avoided; but the OP concerns prisoners not ex-cons. Two separate issues.

 

[LordKiran]

Do you understand what it means to serve your time and thus have paid your dept to society? Probably not, but the idea is that you can't be punished for past transgressions if you serve your time. Kind of fundamental to our justice system.

I generally feel that Scarlet Letters should mostly be avoided; but the OP concerns prisoners not ex-cons. Two separate issues.

Oh. Well that's just dumb.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Due process of law. Do you understand what that means?

Do you understand what it means to serve your time and thus have paid your dept to society? Probably not, but the idea is that you can't be punished for past transgressions if you serve your time. Kind of fundamental to our justice system.

- - - Updated - - -

About the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolutist interpretation of it has a certain problem: the gun rights of prisoners.

According to that interpretation, prisoners have a right to have fully-functional guns with them, including fully-functional ammo, just like anyone else.

Yet the gun lobby refuses to address that issue.

Why might that be?

Because they're not that stupid.

Let's explore this, why would it be stupid?

Rhetorical question or are you admitting to being more stupid than they are?

 

[LordKiran]

Do you understand what it means to serve your time and thus have paid your dept to society? Probably not, but the idea is that you can't be punished for past transgressions if you serve your time. Kind of fundamental to our justice system.

- - - Updated - - -

About the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolutist interpretation of it has a certain problem: the gun rights of prisoners.

According to that interpretation, prisoners have a right to have fully-functional guns with them, including fully-functional ammo, just like anyone else.

Yet the gun lobby refuses to address that issue.

Why might that be?

Because they're not that stupid.

Let's explore this, why would it be stupid?

Rhetorical question or are you admitting to being more stupid than they are?

No, I was just under the false assumption that we were discussing people who had served their time and were out of prison.

 

[Trausti]

I generally feel that Scarlet Letters should mostly be avoided; but the OP concerns prisoners not ex-cons. Two separate issues.

Oh. Well that's just dumb.

Wut? You think people should carry the badge of the prior crime with them for the rest of their lives? M'kay.

 

[LordKiran]

Oh. Well that's just dumb.

Wut? You think people should carry the badge of the prior crime with them for the rest of their lives? M'kay.

That is not what I said at all.