Reply #50: Your argument is Constitution refuting and self-refuting [View All]

[TPaine7]

The argument that rights can be lost is asinine. That reduces them to privileges.

Imprisoned felons lose many rights, at least temporarily. People who have to "spread their butt cheeks" and use the bathroom in the open and have their mail searched don't have a right to privacy. People who live in a cell don't have a right to travel freely to the state of their choice. And people with life sentences without the possibility of parole lose those rights permanently. There's nothing asinine about it.

The constitution made no mention that these rights could be lost, since I do not think it was an oversight, I must side with full redemption of all rights after jail and parole.

On the contrary, the Constitution is quite explicit that rights can be lost--inalienable rights like life and liberty, no less:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

You can be deprived of rights, even of life, but not without due process of law.

I happen to agree with you that people should not be deprived of their gun rights based on most nonviolent crimes. The only non-violent crimes I would favor depriving someone of gun rights for (off the top of my head) would be treason, statutory rape, and conspiracy regarding violent crime.