What do you think about changing some rights to privileges; earned through federal, or state service?

Sir, true and true but seeing as things have evolved from then, I think as a country we need to adapt to new ways. This is becoming and "entitled" nation. Just because our Founding Fathers fought for what we have today, doesn't mean we shouldn't have to sacrifice or make an effort in some kind of way to show we deserve what they accomplished. I think some revisions could really help make a difference.

I am just making conversation sir, but what about running for say political office positions?

I do second that though on the right to vote I strongly second that!

SSgt (Join to see) - can you expand on your question? Not sure I understand?

In my opinion, I believe if you are to be a leader of government then one should understand what sacrifice is to their country, serving in a military position is what i would require if I could change it to run for any federal political position. If you truly want to do whats best for our country I think one would be able to serve in the military and earn that right to be a true leader in a political position. So in short I am asking if you have any thoughts on how political leaders should be chosen and what they would be willing to do to become a political leader?

What do you think about removing the civil rights of convicted Felons? They lose certain rights upon conviction. Do you think that maybe revising some rights into privileges could help change for the better by that scenario? Thus providing them the chance to do public service and become a hard working law abiding citizen; would they be less likely to commit such crimes?

SSgt (Join to see) - They don't lose their Rights. They lose "Protections" of said Rights, and we generally take it too far.

If we're going to have a concept called "Debt to Society" and attempt to "Rehabilitate" criminals in addition to Punish them, why shouldn't they be Re-enfranchised once that Debt is paid or their Rehabilitation is complete?

But Punishment is not a Crime Deterrent in and of itself.

Protection of right is the same thing as losing said right...If you read anything into law at all, you will see that convicted felons lose their "Right to vote, Right to bare arms." Those are rights, they are not allowed to own fire arms, nor cast a vote. How is that not losing their rights?


They can be "re-franchised." A convicted felon can register to vote, after incarceration ,probation, or parole are completed then they can reapply for their right to vote. If they are caught with a fire arm they are arrested and the fire arm is taken. Even with that Felony convictions can be expunged so the individual can still if they become law abiding citizens then no reason they shouldn't be able to(learn from your mistakes). However they usually are habitual offenders and choose to make decisions that jeopardize those rights. I for one do not like the idea of a habitual Felony offender having fire arms, makes them unpredictable or more predictable to harm the law abiding citizen who works hard and obeys laws and does the right thing.

You are correct punishment is not a deterrent of crime, it is a reason to not make that bad decision again or any like it. Thus it is the persons choice to jeopardize their rights and privileges.
Punishment is a consequence of poor choice, if a person is a habitual offender in any scenario what happens? Bad choices produce bad consequences.

SSgt (Join to see) - The government can already take any Right. They do it everyday. It's the Protections that matter. When we speak of the Rights themselves, they are in the abstract. When we speak of the Protections, it is about how the law affects them.

Although a felon loses the Protection of the Second Amendment, they do not lose the Right to Self-Defense (Life). We as a society have merely stated that the Government's "Restriction on Invested Power" has been lifted in that specific case. They may in fact "infringe the Right to Bear Arms" (through Due Process).

Making the assertion that felons are normally "habitual offenders" invokes a "Chicken & Egg" argument. When you remove specific legal Protections, and treat someone as a second class citizen, they have less opportunity than other citizens (through their own fault). The removal of opportunity exacerbates the Recidivism rate.

But this is BOTH inside and outside your original argument. You want to create multiple classes of Citizen. That is counter to "all men created equal."