Moby, I believe that is a reasonable position to hold. To answer your question, I do not think that prison rehabilitates nor do I think that is an appropriate goal for a prison.

I realize that as soon as a convict become and ex-convict and is back on the streets he can obtain any weapon he so desires from the black market. Since that is the case (and will ALWAYS be the case) perhaps we should do a better job of keeping the public safe by keeping truly violent people seperated. If you can't trust an ex-con with a gun, why can you trust him with a hammer, knife, sword, 1-ton truck, rope, candlestick, poison, etc? If he is still a violent individual he will still be violent with whatever tools he can find, be it gun or otherwise.

The converse of an ex-con going back to a life of a crime is an ex-con being rehabilitated in prison and living life on the straight and narrow. Does that law-abiding ex-con not deserve the human right to self-defense? Certainly a person with former ties to 'stupid people, stupid places, stupid activites' has a higher risk of being assaulted.

Thanks SoB, I'd said the same thing less well and hadn't hit "submit" yet.

That is spot on. Like I alluded to, most of the homeless/ mentally ill/ addicted folks I dealt with had a blade on them some place, most of them were felons of one flavor or another and self defense knives are just as illegal as a gun in the hands of a felon. Obviously restricting their right to self defense tools doesn't work as I knew very few who would go any place unarmed. So how about we get honest and allow felons weapons? If and when they get caught for another crime, weapon possession is just another charge that can be tacked on, but it in NO way impairs their ability to have weapons on the street.

A better way, might be to take our troops out of Afganistan and drop our violent felons we can't trust with weapons there. Maybe Somalia. Cut them loose, deny them re-entry into the States of course . . . but "go your own way buddy" good luck. I don't know if that is the right answer, but clearly

I had to vote 'Yes' on this one, because <I><B>the Second Amendment does not give rights it restrains government</b></i>. I have heard it said that the Bill of Rights should have been called the 'Bill of Restrictions' because it (theoretically) restricts government from infringing on numerous G-d given, fundamental, individual, civil and human rights.

I have also heard it said that they should have put a period after "Congress shall make no law" and left it at that. But many people consider me to be insanely libertarian. Others drop the 'ly libertarian' part.

Thank you, you made my day.

1. The title of this thread is misleading at best and wrong at worst. The MN S. Ct. hasn't decided this case yet, so there is a possibility it'll change. (I doubt it, but you never know.)
2. Is there a link to the article, or preferably the opinion of the appeals court? (I'm feeling too lazy to dig.)
3. What do the MN statutes say about conviction and loss of gun/hunting rights? (The laws can be changed, especially since MN doesn't have a "right to bear arms" in its state constitution...)
4. I'd say being convicted of a drive by shooting (regardless of age) isn't socially acceptable behavior so I'm not really too concerned about his loss of gun/hunting rights. I'd rather see a process set up by the legislature that would allow those who have "lost" various rights due to a conviction have them reinstated after they've served their time and reestablished themselves in society.
5. The "right to bear arms" has never been and never will be an absolute. The states are always going to be able to put some limits on gun possession even if the 2nd Amdt. does get incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court.