Do you agree with "no guns, no voting for felons" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree with "no guns, no voting for felons"


Pages : [1] 2 3

wjv
08-21-2012, 10:57
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?

Pro: Many felons are repeat criminals so this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you?

simotek
08-21-2012, 10:59
I agree with it.

686Owner
08-21-2012, 11:02
I have mixed feelings. I understand both sides.

Eurodriver
08-21-2012, 11:02
What was the felony?

Random
08-21-2012, 11:05
I disagree. Either they have paid for their crimes or they have not. If they have been deemed safe enough to be returned to society return them fully. If not, kill them or keep them in jail.

stravis
08-21-2012, 11:06
I agree with it for violent crimes.

Let me also add that I also think that anyone who is accepting government handouts should not be allowed to vote while on the dole.

hamster
08-21-2012, 11:08
I suppose it would depend on the nature of the crime. For non-violent "felons" I could support restoration of firearms and voting rights if they prove to have turned their lives around.

dabigguns357
08-21-2012, 11:08
I agree with it for violent crimes.

Let me also add that I also think that anyone who is accepting government handouts should not be allowed to vote while on the dole.


I to agree,

hamster
08-21-2012, 11:08
I agree with it for violent crimes.

Let me also add that I also think that anyone who is accepting government handouts should not be allowed to vote while on the dole.

On a related note. I think people who don't own property should not be able to vote on property tax issues. Just my opinion.

JohnBT
08-21-2012, 11:09
"Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you? "
_______________

They need to do more than simply serve their time at society's expense.

They need to pay back the victims, and society, for all costs and expenses. Until the victims are made whole, there is a still a debt to society. The victims are part of society, right?

John

ray9898
08-21-2012, 11:13
I agree with it 100%. They can petition to have their rights restored once they show society can trust them again.

SGT278ACR
08-21-2012, 11:13
I agree with it. It's just one of the consequences of having committed a crime (felony). Some consequences are life long. If you're a convicted felon who has done his/her time... good for you. Sorry, but you still can't carry guns or vote. You made your own bed, you have to lay in it.

frank4570
08-21-2012, 11:24
I agree with it.
I would probably feel different if the badguys tended to stay in jail more.

frank4570
08-21-2012, 11:25
I agree with it for violent crimes.

Let me also add that I also think that anyone who is accepting government handouts should not be allowed to vote while on the dole.

I absolutely agree. There is a real predictable problem with giving people free stuff, and giving them the ability to vote for more free stuff.

holesinpaper
08-21-2012, 11:28
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?

Pro: Many felons are repeat criminals so this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you?

Con: it's un-Constitutional.

Pro: it's Constitutional.

If they are on behind bars or on probation/parole, then they are a free citizen and retain their inalienable natural Rights.

el_jewapo
08-21-2012, 11:28
I don't agree with it. If someone has paid their debt to society and we trust them to walk among us, they should have the same rights we have. If they can't be trusted with a gun, why do we trust them at all? Strong supporters of the second amendment should know better than anybody that it's stupid. How can you claim with a straight face that guns don't kill people, they're inanimate objects, etc, etc... and turn around and say this person can't be trusted with a gun? If he can't be trusted with a gun, lock his ass back up because there are thousands of other ways for him to kill people.

I've got a friend that got into some trouble when he was 18 years old and got a felony. He's a completely different person now in his early 30's. I really hate it for him that he's tainted by his actions when he was a kid. He's smarter, more honest and responsible than 95% of other people I know, and yet he doesn't have the right to vote or defend his family.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 11:30
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?

Pro: Many felons are repeat criminals so this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you?


Guns for every free man and woman that's not in prison/jail.

If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote. Felon or not.

el_jewapo
08-21-2012, 11:31
Guns for every free man and woman that's not in prison/jail.

If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote. Felon or not.

That's it.

Blast
08-21-2012, 11:40
It is a prudent policy.
However, felons can apply for reinstatement of voting and gun ownership. Some states are easier than others.
Here's an example from Virgina.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_convicted_Felon_restore_their_gun_rights_in_Virginia

holesinpaper
08-21-2012, 11:44
It is a prudent policy.
However, felons can apply for reinstatement of voting and gun ownership. Some states are easier than others.
Here's an example from Virgina.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_convicted_Felon_restore_their_gun_rights_in_Virginia

Some states have no such path. The Federal government has a path on paper, but the process is unfunded so there is no path other than Presidential pardon (so there is no path).

Inalienable.... Right.

glock_19guy1983
08-21-2012, 11:44
Im all for returning 2A and voting rights for non violent, non repeat felons. IMO all violent felons and repeat should just be executed post haste.

el_jewapo
08-21-2012, 11:47
Im all for returning 2A and voting rights for non violent, non repeat felons. IMO all violent felons and repeat should just be executed post haste.

"All violent felons" is a broad brush to paint with. Varying circumstances and degrees of violence and all. But for the most part, I'd agree.

Peace Warrior
08-21-2012, 11:48
Just sentences for violent criminals would end the quandary as the dead can't vote. Oh wait...

glock_19guy1983
08-21-2012, 11:50
"All violent felons" is a broad brush to paint with. Varying circumstances and degrees of violence and all. But for the most part, I'd agree.

yeah it is. guess i should have specified rapists, muggers, murderers, and attempted murderers. Probably a few others that need killing as well.

Peace Warrior
08-21-2012, 11:58
yeah it is. guess i should have specified rapists, muggers, murderers, and attempted murderers. Probably a few others that need killing as well.
But you are not including "legitimate rapes/rapists" right?

Bushflyr
08-21-2012, 11:58
Not like it makes any difference. They don't vote anyway and have no problem getting guns. :upeyes:

The problem arises from the difference between the stated and actual goals of the prison system. Everyone likes to talk about "rehabilitation" (the stated goal) but in reality it boils down to punishment.

If a felon were truly rehabilitated prior to release then sure, restore all rights. But the fact is they do the crime, get their punishment, and get tossed back into the pool. More educated about how to not get caught. So no. No reason to make it easy.

glock_19guy1983
08-21-2012, 12:13
But you are not including "legitimate rapes/rapists" right?

What do you mean? I mean FORCIBLE Rape where its not consensual. 18 year old Johnny sleeping with more than willing 15 year old Suzy is not rape in my opinion. Wrong but not rape.

Trent
08-21-2012, 12:17
The GCA that removed the felon's right to own firearms especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling is clearly unconstitutional. I believe the idea that while people currently serving their sentence on parole or probation "out in the public" being properly prohibited was used to extend unjustly to those who had served their sentence. It's a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a matter for the political opinion of the day unless changed as a constitutional amendment.

As far as voting rights, voting is not a guaranteed constitutional right. Yep, I said it. Only being unfairly discriminated against while voting, or eligible to vote, is constitutionally guaranteed. Note that the amendments haven't been changed, but the idea of how they are implemented are, much like every other amendment. While some may argue that "the right to vote is clearly implied" I'd have to say, you must be an attorney to make such an asinine statement (I had one say that very thing, and that was my good humored response as he is a close friend and would take it as intended...a joke.). Implications by their nature are never clear. In the 20th century, not long ago for you younger folks, men and women in many states were unable to vote unless they owned land regardless of gender. In 1920 if I recall correctly, it was deemed that landless men could vote nationwide, and some states allowed women to vote, too; then a year later landless women were allowed to vote nationwide. Later, "voting tests" were required, but it was deemed unfairly discriminatory (note: not illegal by mere existence of barring a vote, but unfairly discriminatory as to the nature of the bar.) as it was shown to exclude black voters inordinately due to high rates of illiteracy in that community.

To sum up, my answer would be follow the laws as written in context or change them appropriately as provided within the law, or people in authority will do as they please by convincing others and simply changing the definitions of words at whim like the Cheshire Cat in Wonderland to sway the masses for the fad of the day.

Mushinto
08-21-2012, 12:18
After a few years of release, felons should be able to petition for restoration of all rights. It should be very easy to tell if they are on a new path, or not. Most states do this.

I agree that voting and RTKBA should be ties together. If someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they should not be trusted to vote.

Blast
08-21-2012, 12:20
Some states have no such path. The Federal government has a path on paper, but the process is unfunded so there is no path other than Presidential pardon (so there is no path).

Inalienable.... Right.
Those who violate the rights of others lose their own. As it should be. And those violators must prove they deserve restoration of their rights. I'm all for it if they show true rehabilitation.
The revolving doors of prison show that many do not learn and therefore do not deserve their rights. In fact, as has been alluded, some felons should be in the ground or up the chimney instead of in prison at tax payer's expense.




Maybe we should give Charlie a gun when he gets out.:upeyes:
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/10826274-large.jpg

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 12:41
Those who violate the rights of others lose their own. As it should be. And those violators must prove they deserve restoration of their rights. I'm all for it if they show true rehabilitation.
The revolving doors of prison show that many do not learn and therefore do not deserve their rights. In fact, as has been alluded, some felons should be in the ground or up the chimney instead of in prison at tax payer's expense.




Maybe we should give Charlie a gun when he gets out.:upeyes:
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/10826274-large.jpg


I'd trust charlie with a gun much more than I'd trust the gov't deciding on WHO gets the guns. :upeyes:

You want to challenge me on that? Just look throughout history, start with the fast & furious scandal.

Trent
08-21-2012, 12:55
If the state believed he was law-abiding enough to allow out without probation or parole, he should have all of his rights restored if his time had been fully completed.

Picking someone like that really didn't help hide the irrational decision making process of most people. Allowing a person like that out would demonstrate that those making the decisions to withhold or grant rights are not to be trusted with personal and public safety, and some rights should be inviolate as a human right regardless of what others may think due to irrational, reflexive responses because of personal fears instead of the long-term, public good.

RenegadeGlocker
08-21-2012, 13:01
Shall Not Be Infringed.

Don't want dangerous criminals having guns? Don't let them out of prison, or do what we do in Texas, kill them.

Glock_9mm
08-21-2012, 13:03
I would be in favor of certain Felons earning there rights back over an extended period of time. This would allow them time to prove to that they are no longer a danger to society. How long, should maybe be determined by the length of their sentence.
Scott

Jack_Pine
08-21-2012, 13:04
I think it should be on a case by case basis. If you did your time and have been a productive member of society for a period of time, you should be able to obtain those rights. Maybe even the type of crime may have some bearing.

I know a guy that was trying to make some cash and was the middle man in a medium drug deal. Got nailed, did 2 years and work release. That was 25 years ago. Now he has is own business, family man and good guy. I think he should be able to get those rights back.

Just my .02.

Blast
08-21-2012, 13:21
I'd trust charlie with a gun much more than I'd trust the gov't deciding on WHO gets the guns. :upeyes:

You want to challenge me on that? Just look throughout history, start with the fast & furious scandal.
I suppose you would favor issuing guns to all felons leaving prison. :upeyes:

Picking a scandal does not put the gov. on the path to some weird imaginary conspiracy to herd people into FEMA camps and assassinate the paranoids who whine about gov. conspiracies.:rofl:

The current administration will be gone sooner or later.
If the gov. scares you so much, you have two options... ballot box and immigration. :dunno:

ronin.45
08-21-2012, 13:23
I agree with it for violent crimes.

Let me also add that I also think that anyone who is accepting government handouts should not be allowed to vote while on the dole.

Agreed

RenegadeGlocker
08-21-2012, 13:25
I suppose you would favor issuing guns to all felons leaving prison. :upeyes:


No free lunch. They should have to buy their own, just like the rest of us.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 13:49
I suppose you would favor issuing guns to all felons leaving prison. :upeyes:

Picking a scandal does not put the gov. on the path to some weird imaginary conspiracy to herd people into FEMA camps and assassinate the paranoids who whine about gov. conspiracies.:rofl:

The current administration will be gone sooner or later.
If the gov. scares you so much, you have two options... ballot box and immigration. :dunno:

Sounds like you can't have an intelligent civil discussion. So you make accusations that are not even close to correct.

If you pay attention to my stance/posts you never hear of me speaking conspiracy theories, and usually denouncing most of them.

I'm going by principles and the constitution. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand? :dunno:Just because I value the constitution and hold our politicians to it, means I should leave the country? The ballot box is a cop-out, since we know voting in the system we have doesn't work.

Keep on with your silly ramblings, you sounds just about as looney as the conspiracy theorists on here though.

No free lunch. They should have to buy their own, just like the rest of us.

Exactly! It's too bad when he disagrees with a view, instead of investigating his own, he likes to try to take things out of context.

He's not really worth posting with, and this will be my last post to him, he's a waste of keystrokes on my keyboard.

jbglock
08-21-2012, 13:51
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?

Pro: Many felons are repeat criminals so this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you?

I agree with it.

For those of you that don't how happy are you when a child molester is released and moves in next door? How about a murderer? You treat him like all the other neighbors? Invite the child molester to a birthday party with your child if he has one also?

Let's not be silly. Some debts to society can NEVER be paid back.

WarCry
08-21-2012, 14:18
If states don't have a path for restoration of rights, I think that should be required for all states. That doesn't mean all petitions should be approved, but the chance to make your case should be available.

That said, for everyone saying "no guns, no votes" needs to be history when you walk out of prison (actually, I'd go a step further; if you're on probation, that's still a part of your incarceration, just a far less restrictive version...so I'd say you would have to meet those terms to be considered to have "paid your debt"), what about sex offenders?

They get prison, MAYBE (not often). They get probation/parole, and when that's done, they're done and clear, right? Felony or not, if you're convicted of anything related or considered a sexual offense - urinating in public qualifies in some jurisdictions - you are sentenced for LIFE.

I think this is a problem. I think a 19 year old with a 17 year old should NOT be treated the same way as a 40 year old and a 5 year old. But in the eyes of the law as it relates to sex offender registration, they are equal cases. THAT is wrong.

So, I think the guns and votes are fine to be excluded - you commit the crime, you do the time, all of it - but there needs to be a path of redemption, if you will, for those rights. And I think that same redemptive path should be available for sex offenders.







And as a caveat, before anyone decides to make any cracks, I live within two blocks of a school and have 4 firearms in the house, all legally!

WarCry
08-21-2012, 14:20
For those of you that don't how happy are you when a child molester is released and moves in next door? How about a murderer? You treat him like all the other neighbors? Invite the child molester to a birthday party with your child if he has one also?

I don't know of any convicted-murderer-registration sites, do you?

Sex offenders - regardless of the nature of the crime - are treated more harshly than a murderer once a prison sentence has ended.

TBO
08-21-2012, 14:21
<&ndash;&ndash;&ndash;&ndash;not a felon (or potential felon)

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2.

youngdocglock
08-21-2012, 14:22
Oh hell yes i agree

I have made this post on my phone. If I spell like a two year old. Blame Android. Not me :)

TBO
08-21-2012, 14:24
what about sex offenders?

They get prison, MAYBE (not often). They get probation/parole, and when that's done, they're done and clear, right? Felony or not, if you're convicted of anything related or considered a sexual offense - urinating in public qualifies in some jurisdictions - you are sentenced for LIFE.

I think this is a problem. I think a 19 year old with a 17 year old should NOT be treated the same way as a 40 year old and a 5 year old. But in the eyes of the law as it relates to sex offender registration, they are equal cases. THAT is wrong.

Wrong on so many levels.
Missing a unicorn.



Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2.

janice6
08-21-2012, 14:32
I have only one data point:

My SIL and his brother are convicted felons. He claims to his kids that he has a document that is a "Pardon". In the last few years he bought three rifles. He has already taken one to a neighbor's house to intimidate him (G'Son witness). No one listens to the kids.

"If" he really has his rights restored, his behavior hasn't changed. I don't know how or where you would draw the line. (really)



(He and his brother's threats are the reason my family carries guns)

jbglock
08-21-2012, 14:33
I don't know of any convicted-murderer-registration sites, do you?

Sex offenders - regardless of the nature of the crime - are treated more harshly than a murderer once a prison sentence has ended.

I can name each of my neighbors. No muderer registration sites. Easy enough for you to know if you pay attention to the news and don't live in an anonymous type large population area where everyone is pretty much isolated from the majority.

Mrs.Cicero
08-21-2012, 14:33
I don't know of any convicted-murderer-registration sites, do you?

Sex offenders - regardless of the nature of the crime - are treated more harshly than a murderer once a prison sentence has ended.

That would be because murderers are considered rehabilitable. Rehabilitatable. Something. They can actually live the rest of their lives without murdering anyone else.

Sex offenders, particularly the child predators, are not.


My opinion is that felons already vote for the Democrats, and the ones that are going to commit another crime with a gun are going to get a gun regardless of the law. The ones that have straightened out, been released and completed their parole, should have the same Constitutional right to arm themselves as any law-abiding citizen. If you don't like this, then sentence the ones that you don't trust with a gun to lifelong parole. Perhaps that would nullify the Constitutional rights argument.

FWIW, no one receiving gov't money should have the vote while receiving that money. Non-property owners should not have a vote on property taxes. And anyone currently serving in the military should get to vote twice.


Mrs.Cicero

Bren
08-21-2012, 14:39
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?

Pro: Many felons are repeat criminals so this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you?

I agree with you - if the system thinks they can be on the street without supervision, they should have the same rights as everybody else on the street. otherwise, change the sentences to keep them in prison or on supervision for as long as they can't be trusted.

However, if we are going to keep disabilities for felons - anybody who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted with a vote.

Go one way or another, but NOT the democrat version, where they can never have to right to own guns restored, but the right to vote should come back automatically, as soon as they walk out of prison. And yes, that is the actual Democrat polic they have been legislating and puching across the country - auto voting restoration/never allow gun restoration.

Bren
08-21-2012, 14:42
Maybe we should give Charlie a gun when he gets out.:upeyes:

Wouldn't bother me at all. Best I recall, he was only convicted of murders that were actually committed by other people. He is mainly famous because the victims were celebrities and Vincent Bugliosi wrote a self-serving book about him.

hamster
08-21-2012, 14:47
My question would be: If someone is so dangerous they can't be trusted with a gun or a vote, why are they allowed out to roam the streets?

jbglock
08-21-2012, 14:49
Wouldn't bother me at all. Best I recall, he was only convicted of murders that were actually committed by other people. He is mainly famous because the victims were celebrities and Vincent Bugliosi wrote a self-serving book about him.

He was convicted of conspiracy in the murders of those people. The murderers were acting under his direction. Either way you look at it he is a murderer under the law. He should be. He'll never be rehabilitated. Even if he was he deserves not to have his rights restored.

For those that think a murderer or child molester should have his rights restored I suggest you get off the fence and act. Build them a safe place to stay when they get out. Let them stay in your home with you and your children. It's not like they are going to follow the same behavior the rest of their lives.

TBO
08-21-2012, 14:56
My question would be: If someone is so dangerous they can't be trusted with a gun or a vote, why are they allowed out to roam the streets?

Strawman.

Whether they can be trusted or not is a mute issue.
If they've served their required time they have to be released, period.
Some here, when it suites them, support the government locking someone away without due process.

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

hamster
08-21-2012, 15:36
Strawman.

Whether they can be trusted or not is a mute issue.
If they've served their required time they have to be released, period.
Some here, when it suites them, support the government locking someone away without due process.

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Your Strawman argument is a red herring TBO. :tongueout::rofl:

My point is, all of this is a moot point when compared to the idea of releasing someone who is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm.

People on this thread of course immediately jumped to the extreme of charlie manson or some child molesters. I think the majority of people would agree that people like that should not be released...but if somehow there were they should not be granted the full rights of other citizens.

On the other hand, I'm sure there is a class of non-violent ex fellons who could potentially be trusted with a vote and/or a firearm.

TBO
08-21-2012, 15:47
Your Strawman argument is a red herring TBO. :tongueout::rofl:

My point is, all of this is a moot point when compared to the idea of releasing someone who is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm.

People on this thread of course immediately jumped to the extreme of charlie manson or some child molesters. I think the majority of people would agree that people like that should not be released...but if somehow there were they should not be granted the full rights of other citizens.

On the other hand, I'm sure there is a class of non-violent ex fellons who could potentially be trusted with a vote and/or a firearm.

Are you saying you would support the government continuing to imprison a person who served their full sentence, based on an assessment of them being "untrustworthy"?

Better build a crapload more jails!

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Diesel McBadass
08-21-2012, 15:49
"paid their debt to society" cause our justice system is actually good at punishing criminals lol

they usually get off way too light screw em dont want them making gun owners look bad or voting for obama anyway

gigab1te
08-21-2012, 15:53
I don't believe that a felony conviction (which sometimes, but often not, includes jail or prison time) equals paying one's debt to society. At least in AZ, the vast majority of first-time felons don't serve any more jail than the day or two it takes them to bond out after they are first arrested (assuming they are even arrested in the first place and not just summonsed to court).

We have a thread on GT somewhere about the father who encountered the man who molested his daughter. If the molester had served 5 - 15 years (a typical sentence in AZ for a child molest) would anyone say that person has paid his debt? I don't think the victim's family or many others in the community would agree. What about the congressman (Duke Cunningham) who sold his honor and his votes to the highest bidder? How can he claim to have settled such an enormous debt to so many constituants with 8 years in a country club prison?

With all of that said, I believe that some first-time, non-violent felons, who go many, many years of living a law abiding and exemplary life, should be able to go to a judge and have the right to petition for their gun rights back.

jakebrake
08-21-2012, 16:02
I agree with it.

yup. don't do the crime, you keep your rights.

Misty02
08-21-2012, 16:03
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?

Pro: Many felons are repeat criminals so this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you?

No, I don’t agree. I also don’t agree with the length of sentence served by many criminals (too short!).

As respect the “Pro:” current laws don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it is just another charge to add once arrested.

If carrying weapons makes them too dangerous, then they shouldn’t be allowed back into society.


.

JW1178
08-21-2012, 16:09
Well, for violent crimes, no. Once someone has proven they are capable of a violent crime on a felony level, I don't think they can ever be truely trusted. However, I do believe that once someone has completed all their time, and have maintained a clean record over a period of time, their rights should be restored.

Right now, once you are a felon, there is no motivation to become clean. You're a criminal forever, so might as well be a criminal. However, perhaps many people would change their ways if they knew by staying straight, they could live a straight life. When being proven clean, what I mean is that no mistermeanors and even no excessive traffic fines. Perhaps a mental evaluation to determine where you stand with the law, of course those things can be faked.

I know of several people who made some mistakes when they were younger and it follows them through their lives and it's a bit unfair. One guy, when he was 18 he got a possession of cocain charge, he's 50 now and has been a productive member of society and raised his family and hasn't been in trouble with the law before that or after that, but he can't buy a gun now because of it. I mean, who in their 50's or even 40's or 30's can say they are the same as when they were 18? I hope not anyone.

Misty02
08-21-2012, 16:13
He and others like him [violent felons] should never be allowed to step foot outside a prison.

Those who violate the rights of others lose their own. As it should be. And those violators must prove they deserve restoration of their rights. I'm all for it if they show true rehabilitation.
The revolving doors of prison show that many do not learn and therefore do not deserve their rights. In fact, as has been alluded, some felons should be in the ground or up the chimney instead of in prison at tax payer's expense.




Maybe we should give Charlie a gun when he gets out.:upeyes:
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/10826274-large.jpg

certifiedfunds
08-21-2012, 16:15
Disagree. No prohibited classes.

certifiedfunds
08-21-2012, 16:17
Maybe we should give Charlie a gun when he gets out.:upeyes:
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/10826274-large.jpg

Charlie won't be getting out, but if he did, you wouldn't have to give him a gun. He'll get one if he wants one. So, your law accomplished nothing, like all gun laws.

Misty02
08-21-2012, 16:17
I agree with it.

For those of you that don't how happy are you when a child molester is released and moves in next door? How about a murderer? You treat him like all the other neighbors? Invite the child molester to a birthday party with your child if he has one also?

Let's not be silly. Some debts to society can NEVER be paid back.

None of those should ever be allowed to step foot outside a prison either.

.

Misty02
08-21-2012, 16:29
Are you saying you would support the government continuing to imprison a person who served their full sentence, based on an assessment of them being "untrustworthy"?

Better build a crapload more jails!

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Child molesters and most murderers should have a life sentence. A life sentence should not be an XX number of years but for however long the convicted lives. When prisons start getting too full, then make use of the death sentence to eliminate prisoners in order of how heinous the crime committed was.

.

MasterShake
08-21-2012, 16:31
I have mixed feelings. I understand both sides.

+1 here. :wavey:

BEER
08-21-2012, 16:41
I disagree. Either they have paid for their crimes or they have not. If they have been deemed safe enough to be returned to society return them fully. If not, kill them or keep them in jail.

my thoughts exactly.

jbglock
08-21-2012, 16:58
Strawman.

Whether they can be trusted or not is a mute issue.
If they've served their required time they have to be released, period.
Some here, when it suites them, support the government locking someone away without due process.

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2
It is the sentencing that is the real problem.

Your Strawman argument is a red herring TBO. :tongueout::rofl:

My point is, all of this is a moot point when compared to the idea of releasing someone who is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm.

People on this thread of course immediately jumped to the extreme of charlie manson or some child molesters. I think the majority of people would agree that people like that should not be released...but if somehow there were they should not be granted the full rights of other citizens.

On the other hand, I'm sure there is a class of non-violent ex fellons who could potentially be trusted with a vote and/or a firearm.

Sure. The guy that steals from a retirement fund so now your parents have to keep working until the day they die. The guy that starts a home health care business and rips social security for millions adding just one more to the stack of high health care costs for all of us. A felon is a felon. If you disagree then you are saying a particular crime shouldn't be a felony. White collar and non violent do damage to our society.

Well, for violent crimes, no. Once someone has proven they are capable of a violent crime on a felony level, I don't think they can ever be truely trusted. However, I do believe that once someone has completed all their time, and have maintained a clean record over a period of time, their rights should be restored.

Right now, once you are a felon, there is no motivation to become clean. You're a criminal forever, so might as well be a criminal. However, perhaps many people would change their ways if they knew by staying straight, they could live a straight life. When being proven clean, what I mean is that no mistermeanors and even no excessive traffic fines. Perhaps a mental evaluation to determine where you stand with the law, of course those things can be faked.

I know of several people who made some mistakes when they were younger and it follows them through their lives and it's a bit unfair. One guy, when he was 18 he got a possession of cocain charge, he's 50 now and has been a productive member of society and raised his family and hasn't been in trouble with the law before that or after that, but he can't buy a gun now because of it. I mean, who in their 50's or even 40's or 30's can say they are the same as when they were 18? I hope not anyone.

There is a motivation actually. It is the motivation to stay out of prison.

Charlie won't be getting out, but if he did, you wouldn't have to give him a gun. He'll get one if he wants one. So, your law accomplished nothing, like all gun laws.

You know what? I think you are right. Lets do away will all laws then since anyone can do anything they like if they want to break the law. When someone murders your loved one there will be no law because you have proven that laws accomplish nothing.

None of those should ever be allowed to step foot outside a prison either.

.
Agree. Not without intensive parole in place. Just doesn't happen though because people want law enforcement but other things are a priority other than spending money towards it.

certifiedfunds
08-21-2012, 17:02
It is the sentencing that is the real problem.



Sure. The guy that steals from a retirement fund so now your parents have to keep working until the day they die. The guy that starts a home health care business and rips social security for millions adding just one more to the stack of high health care costs for all of us. A felon is a felon. If you disagree then you are saying a particular crime shouldn't be a felony. White collar and non violent do damage to our society.



There is a motivation actually. It is the motivation to stay out of prison.



You know what? I think you are right. Lets do away will all laws then since anyone can do anything they like if they want to break the law. When someone murders your loved one there will be no law because you have proven that laws accomplish nothing.


Agree. Not without intensive parole in place. Just doesn't happen though because people want law enforcement but other things are a priority other than spending money towards it.

That's quite a lot of fail for just one post. I'm surprised you didn't break the internet.

holesinpaper
08-21-2012, 17:05
Are you saying you would support the government continuing to imprison a person who served their full sentence, based on an assessment of them being "untrustworthy"?

Better build a crapload more jails!

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

They already do that. Sex offenders are incarcerated AFTER serving their full sentence, because they are not trustworthy.

RWBlue
08-21-2012, 17:18
The older I get the more I think you should have to have more qualifications to vote.

Felons, I am sorry but you don't get to vote any more. Then again, I don't think some felonies should be felonies.

Having a gun, well,...I think there should be time between time served and getting a gun. But if you steel a car when you are 18, and keep you nose clean, getting a gun when you are 50 shouldn't be an issue.

But if we kicked the age of voting up to say 31 and or added owning property.....

jbglock
08-21-2012, 17:20
That's quite a lot of fail for just one post. I'm surprised you didn't break the internet.

Anything in particular or are you just going to write something stupid without explaining? I understand that the children run loose here so don't think you are going to bother me by writing something childish like that.

certifiedfunds
08-21-2012, 17:25
Anything in particular or are you just going to write something stupid without explaining? I understand that the children run loose here so don't think you are going to bother me by writing something childish like that.

Like I said, so much fail in one post.

How about this: Pick one of your salient points from above and we'll discuss that one.

TBO
08-21-2012, 17:25
They already do that. Sex offenders are incarcerated AFTER serving their full sentence, because they are not trustworthy.

That is a commitment (commitment hearing).

Sent from the toe my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

jbglock
08-21-2012, 17:44
Like I said, so much fail in one post.

How about this: Pick one of your salient points from above and we'll discuss that one.

Why don't you pick one or pick all? I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks on an internet forum. I've always found people that do that kind of sad really. Fair warning, my view of things might be different than yours. I'm an active leo and deal with some of the issues I see here daily. The only reason you'll see me really active for the time being is I'm at home recovering from an injury. I find things like your posting about actors being vampires or werewolves silly and will not waste time with them. So if you have a point make it. If not just waste more of your time trying to drive your post count up and I'll just ignore you.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 17:52
yup. don't do the crime, you keep your rights.


Yeah, because no one is ever wrongfully convicted. :upeyes:

TBO
08-21-2012, 17:56
Yeah, because no one is ever wrongfully convicted. :upeyes:

Hand wringing.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 18:04
Anything in particular or are you just going to write something stupid without explaining? I understand that the children run loose here so don't think you are going to bother me by writing something childish like that.


Let's start with, laws that prohibit someone from being DIRECTLY victimized are legitimate laws.

So murder, rape, theft, all legitimate laws.

Gun laws, are not..... Guns do not seek to cause crime, the owner does. If the owner has done his time, then he/she is a free man/woman.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I highlighted the part you seem to be failing to comprehend. I blame your horrible reading comprehension on the public education system though, it's what happens when you get gov't involved in education. :wavey:

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 18:05
Hand wringing.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2.

Cop out.

Misty02
08-21-2012, 18:08
Agree. Not without intensive parole in place. Just doesn't happen though because people want law enforcement but other things are a priority other than spending money towards it.

I’m sorry; there is no amount of intensive parole for those cases where I’m concerned. I was being extremely generous when I said in those cases they should never set a foot outside prison; my true desire for those would be a lot harsher. The number of prison we have so far should be sufficient, just start applying the death penalty on cases that merit it.

.

faawrenchbndr
08-21-2012, 18:10
There should be a lot less convicts.
No guns, no voting for convicts.

captcurly
08-21-2012, 18:11
I agree with it.

bonehead098
08-21-2012, 18:16
Looked at on a case by case basis, paid for by the applicant should be considered.
I have a friend who made some mistakes when he was young, did his time, & corrected his ways. He's been working the same job for a dozen years, married to the same woman for ten & no problems since. Conviction didn't involve violence. Should his case be considered? Absolutely! I trust my back to him.

Misty02
08-21-2012, 18:21
Why don't you pick one or pick all? I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks on an internet forum. I've always found people that do that kind of sad really. Fair warning, my view of things might be different than yours. I'm an active leo and deal with some of the issues I see here daily. The only reason you'll see me really active for the time being is I'm at home recovering from an injury. I find things like your posting about actors being vampires or werewolves silly and will not waste time with them. So if you have a point make it. If not just waste more of your time trying to drive your post count up and I'll just ignore you.

First, I hope you recover quickly from your injury. Second, being a LEO, you more than most should be frustrated with the number of criminals that basically get the equivalent of a slap on the wrist or are released after serving a ridiculous short amount of time. You are out there taking risks to bring them in only so they go through the revolving door and back on the street to prey on innocent people again.

If they can’t be trusted with a firearm when they’re released (which they’ll get anyway if they want) then they should not be out at all.

All human beings, felon or not, have the right to defend their lives with the best tools available. Even people in jail are not denied that right, what they are denied are the common tools. Those without that right should be behind bars, in a mental institution or dead.

.

Caver 60
08-21-2012, 18:22
If you want to pass a law against truly violent felons (and I'm not going to define violent) owning guns that's fine. But don't enforce that law on me. What do I mean by that?

Example, lets say they parole Charles Manson tomorrow. Lets agree he's bad enough that he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun again, ever.

As far as I am concerned he should be allowed to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. No background checks, etc. But when he gets caught with that gun (even if it's just walking down the street or in his home) throw the book at him. Put him under the jail and pave it over.

jbglock
08-21-2012, 19:03
Let's start with, laws that prohibit someone from being DIRECTLY victimized are legitimate laws.

So murder, rape, theft, all legitimate laws.

Gun laws, are not..... Guns do not seek to cause crime, the owner does. If the owner has done his time, then he/she is a free man/woman.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I highlighted the part you seem to be failing to comprehend. I blame your horrible reading comprehension on the public education system though, it's what happens when you get gov't involved in education. :wavey:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in my mind was a protection also against the power of the federal government. I firmly believe that the current regulation of fully automatic weapons is an infringement of our constitutional rights. I also don't believe in concealed carry laws. I think if a person can legally own a firearm he/she should legally be able to carry it concealed. I do believe certain limits are necessary because of things our founders could never have comprehended.

With that said I don't think felons should be allowed to own firearms. If they are pardoned at some point or can legally get their record expunged that is a different story.

As far as your insult goes it just won't work on me. I'm an adult and give insults on the internet all the credence they deserve. Lots of children have big mouths on the internet to make up for shortcomings in the real world. If it makes you feel better in some way then insult away. :)

I’m sorry; there is no amount of intensive parole for those cases where I’m concerned. I was being extremely generous when I said in those cases they should never set a foot outside prison; my true desire for those would be a lot harsher. The number of prison we have so far should be sufficient, just start applying the death penalty on cases that merit it.

.

I am not quick to think that because I've never seen any real supervision in place when it comes to parole or probation except for special cases we single out as the worst of the worst. These officers are so overworked I'm shocked it isn't the national scandal it should be. I also don't believe in the death penalty having had a friend executed in this state.

First, I hope you recover quickly from your injury. Second, being a LEO, you more than most should be frustrated with the number of criminals that basically get the equivalent of a slap on the wrist or are released after serving a ridiculous short amount of time. You are out there taking risks to bring them in only so they go through the revolving door and back on the street to prey on innocent people again.

If they can’t be trusted with a firearm when they’re released (which they’ll get anyway if they want) then they should not be out at all.

All human beings, felon or not, have the right to defend their lives with the best tools available. Even people in jail are not denied that right, what they are denied are the common tools. Those without that right should be behind bars, in a mental institution or dead.

.

1. Thanks. I hope to be back by Friday.
2. Honestly the revolving door justice used to bother me but it doesn't anymore. Not much I'm can do about it and it's never going to change in this country from what I can see. It has caused me to be a little more careful in what I charge. I cut no breaks and make sure I charge every possible thing I can. Everything gets plead down in the end anyway.
3. I agree but the public just doesn't want to stomach the costs of long term imprisonment.
4. I feel when a citizen has crossed certain lines his rights are forfeited. For life? Depends really.
5. Mental institution? Now that really makes me laugh. No one gets the help they need. It's a shame how many people end up in jails and prisons that could have been helped. Once again no one wants to pay for these things.

el_jewapo
08-21-2012, 19:06
As far as I am concerned he should be allowed to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. No background checks, etc. But when he gets caught with that gun (even if it's just walking down the street or in his home) throw the book at him. Put him under the jail and pave it over.

He should be able to buy it, but not be in possession of it? That's stupid.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 19:18
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in my mind was a protection also against the power of the federal government. I firmly believe that the current regulation of fully automatic weapons is an infringement of our constitutional rights. I also don't believe in concealed carry laws. I think if a person can legally own a firearm he/she should legally be able to carry it concealed. I do believe certain limits are necessary because of things our founders could never have comprehended.

With that said I don't think felons should be allowed to own firearms. If they are pardoned at some point or can legally get their record expunged that is a different story.

As far as your insult goes it just won't work on me. I'm an adult and give insults on the internet all the credence they deserve. Lots of children have big mouths on the internet to make up for shortcomings in the real world. If it makes you feel better in some way then insult away. :)



The founding fathers fought off a world super power, and maintained a country that still stood up to them for decades to come..... You're saying the founding fathers couldn't comprehend?!

You don't think felons should be allowed to own guns? Great! I don't think you should be allowed to voice your opinion. Guess what? You're protected by the first amendment, just like felons should still be protected under the 2nd amendment. If you are out of jail, all constitutional rights apply to you. If you can not be trusted with a firearm, you shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.

It was not intended to be an insult. It's the truth. You do not understand what shall not be infringed means obviously.


Read it, think about it, and ask yourself again.

jtull7
08-21-2012, 19:49
holesinpaper, I hate to tell you that there is no such thing as "inalienable natural rights." The only rights anyone has are set out out in the US Constitution and in one's own state's Constitution. Period.

mac66
08-21-2012, 19:55
Guns for every free man and woman that's not in prison/jail.

If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote. Felon or not.

What kind of taxes? Property taxes, sales tax, water tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, liquor tax, hotel tax, city, state or federal income tax? Be specific and then explain what that has to do with the topic.

jbglock
08-21-2012, 20:03
The founding fathers fought off a world super power, and maintained a country that still stood up to them for decades to come..... You're saying the founding fathers couldn't comprehend?!

You don't think felons should be allowed to own guns? Great! I don't think you should be allowed to voice your opinion. Guess what? You're protected by the first amendment, just like felons should still be protected under the 2nd amendment. If you are out of jail, all constitutional rights apply to you. If you can not be trusted with a firearm, you shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.

It was not intended to be an insult. It's the truth. You do not understand what shall not be infringed means obviously.


Read it, think about it, and ask yourself again.

1. The founding fathers couldn't comprehend the types of weapons that would be available in the future or that the federal government would twist their original intents to such a degree. At the point we are at do you really think we should follow their original intent of individual state militias and citizens armed with anything available that they can afford. Some parts of the world do operate this way. The racial cleansing, slaughter of opposition, religion based militias, and drug warlords armed as well as the national military in various hot spots around the globe should tell you what would happen.
2. Now my question for you. Any felon upon release should have 2nd amendment rights? You really think we will ever get to the point where felons even come close to paying their debt to society? Do you think we should wait until we reach that point where we are sure that felons released are safe to own guns and the ones that aren't remain in prison? Surely you don't think we are there now so what is the point until we are?
3. If you think I don't understand that is fine. When you go on some rant about public education though you come off as insulting without really addressing any point.

Caver 60
08-21-2012, 20:04
He should be able to buy it, but not be in possession of it? That's stupid.

Really?

Why should I pay the penalty for a violent criminals stupidity? I'm old enough to remember the days when anybody could walk into a gun store and buy a gun (even through the mail) no questions asked. I've bought many many that way. No background check, no nothing. Pay your money, walk out the door with your choice of firearm, and a cash register receipt.

Just goes to show how brainwashed this modern society has became, when one has to prove their Constitutional right to own or carry a firearm.

GLOCK17DB9
08-21-2012, 20:04
Absolutely! :tongueout:

stevelyn
08-21-2012, 20:08
No guns for violent felons.

I don't see how taking away the rights of white collar criminals like Martha Stuart or someone caught with a little too much weed does anything to enhance public safety.


The founding fathers couldn't comprehend the types of weapons that would be available in the future or that the federal government would twist their original intents to such a degree. At the point we are at do you really think we should follow their original intent of individual state militias and citizens armed with anything available that they can afford.


The founders weren't concerned with the types of weapons people had. Private citizens owned warships at the time with all the advanced weaponry their technology could crank out. :upeyes:

They believed in the people and freedom.

Mrs.Cicero
08-21-2012, 20:09
holesinpaper, I hate to tell you that there is no such thing as "inalienable natural rights." The only rights anyone has are set out out in the US Constitution and in one's own state's Constitution. Period.

Usually I agree with you, but not on this one. My rights are from God. The Government only exists by the grace of God in order to protect those rights. It may succeed at that task, or it may fail. It may even betray its purpose and violate my rights. But it cannot give rights to me, nor take rights from me, as the gov't did not create them and cannot destroy them. I was born with them and I'll die with them, and nothing printed on any sheet of paper will change that. The most the gov't can do is attempt to prevent me from exercising my rights by killing me.

Yes, I read the Constitution through the lens of the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Mrs.Cicero

hamster
08-21-2012, 20:13
Sure. The guy that steals from a retirement fund so now your parents have to keep working until the day they die. The guy that starts a home health care business and rips social security for millions adding just one more to the stack of high health care costs for all of us. A felon is a felon. If you disagree then you are saying a particular crime shouldn't be a felony. White collar and non violent do damage to our society.


You know as well as I do that there are plenty of non-violent people who harmed nobody in prison as "felons" who certainly weren't a harm to society. Sure it is easy to say it shouldn't be a felony, but how realistic is that?

Saying a "felon is a felon" is just plain unrealistic BS. Tell it to the amish man arrested for giving away unpasteurized milk:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/?page=all

Or the honorably retired ohio cop who accidentally had hollow-point ammunition in his legally carried weapon in NJ who was hit with a felony charge for every single round in his magazine.


Unfortunately the world isn't black and white and YES some "felons" are less bad than others. If the world were black and white we wouldn't need juries would we?

CBennett
08-21-2012, 20:16
depends on the crime imo. Of course i dont think violent fellons even when they did their time should be able to legally have a gun....but the non violent guy that didnt use or even have a weapkn on him but still did something consideded a felony...i dont have a problem with that.(meaning them having or owning guns or hunting or what ever)

and no i dont think the founding fathers would want violent street gang members to own/have weapons. I think there are mNy modern things going on they never thought about and could never have guessed would happen..i think much of it is common sense to a VAST MAJORITY of people. Aka they would not have said..yes lets give violent street gangs all the weapons they want after all no one shall infringe their rights afterall...imo if you can really say tat with a straight face you need help...

Caver 60
08-21-2012, 20:33
Usually I agree with you, but not on this one. My rights are from God. The Government only exists by the grace of God in order to protect those rights. It may succeed at that task, or it may fail. It may even betray its purpose and violate my rights. But it cannot give rights to me, nor take rights from me, as the gov't did not create them and cannot destroy them. I was born with them and I'll die with them, and nothing printed on any sheet of paper will change that. The most the gov't can do is attempt to prevent me from exercising my rights by killing me.

Yes, I read the Constitution through the lens of the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Mrs.Cicero

Thank you Mrs Cicero. Good post.

holesinpaper
08-21-2012, 20:37
holesinpaper, I hate to tell you that there is no such thing as "inalienable natural rights." The only rights anyone has are set out out in the US Constitution and in one's own state's Constitution. Period.

Umm, fail civics class?

holesinpaper
08-21-2012, 20:39
2. Now my question for you. Any felon upon release should have 2nd amendment rights?

Worked ok prior to the GCA of 1968.

ICARRY2
08-21-2012, 20:52
Some should, some should not.

Depends upon the type of crime, how long ago the crime was committed, other crimes that were committed and if the person has made an effort to be on the straight and narrow.

professorpinki
08-21-2012, 20:52
I agree with the principles behind it. Although people may have "paid their debt to society" by doing nothing but sitting in time out and dealing with the BS that accompanies being locked down in a secure facility, they still haven't proven their ability to think rationally, productively, and/or attentively enough to vote or exercise other assumed rights.

AK_Stick
08-21-2012, 20:57
I don't think you've "paid" your due simply because you've served your prison sentance, especially since so many crimes get off with such little time, due to prison over crowding and under staffing.


So yes, I agree. If you're a felon, you loose your rights, as we deem fit.

holesinpaper
08-21-2012, 21:02
African Americans are disproportionally incarcerated compared to other races.

The WOD has resulted in a staggering increase in felony convictions of African Americans.

The WOD started shortly after the GCA of 1968.

Gun control has its roots in racism. It's important to remember that imho -- and that with the strike of a pen (Lautenberg) Inalienable rights can be retroactively stripped from free Americans. You might be next, so better start defending the Rights of "undesirable Felons."

Snaps
08-21-2012, 21:28
personally i feel if you're a free man (aka not in prison) you should have all the rights afforded you by the constitution. If you're in jail it's one thing, if you're released you should have every right of every other man.

Mrs.Cicero
08-21-2012, 21:28
Response in red. Because it's late and I'm getting punchy...

Mrs.Cicero

1. The founding fathers couldn't comprehend the types of weapons that would be available in the future

That's an "arrogantly modern" view. The Founders wrote the 2A just after seeing how much rifles improved firepower over muskets. It's unlikely that they thought all improvements in firearms would stop at that point.

or that the federal government would twist their original intents to such a degree. At the point we are at do you really think we should follow their original intent of individual state militias and citizens armed with anything available that they can afford.

The intent was self-defense, an individual right. I have no qualms about armed citizens. The National Guard is currently being mis-used, but the original concept is sound. Is there a particular firearm that you object to?

Some parts of the world do operate this way. The racial cleansing, slaughter of opposition, religion based militias, and drug warlords armed as well as the national military in various hot spots around the globe should tell you what would happen.

And this is something we should all be concerned about when Zero finishes redistributing the wealth and I cannot afford to even reload ammo anymore. Maybe I can use the cash off my EBT to pay for that...

There are already laws in place here regarding murder. Laws restricting firearms will only result in the use of knives (see China) and bombs (see everywhere else). Anyone intent on murder will not give a rat's ass about the legality of any particular firearm. Additionally, while we are certainly on the slippery slope, we do not currently live in a culture that will tolerate the proliferation of genocide within said culture (excepting unborn children, of course). And genocide (whether racially based or politically motivated), is always aided by the removal of citizens' access to the most modern firearms. Notably, the vast majority of genocidal actions were not religiously motivated -- based on the record of the 20th century, atheism is much better at motivating mass killing.


2. Now my question for you. Any felon upon release should have 2nd amendment rights?
They have the right, it is question of whether we allow them to exercise it.

You really think we will ever get to the point where felons even come close to paying their debt to society?

Hell NO.

Do you think we should wait until we reach that point where we are sure that felons released are safe to own guns and the ones that aren't remain in prison?

No. This is another exercise in futility. Guns are available to felons illegally. Any felon that wants one can get one. What is the point in making possession illegal, and therefore violating his/her rights, when the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime is already criminalized? If it is just to tack on another charge in an effort to increase the sentence, then make the mandatory sentence for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime longer by law. Now you have achieved the same end without establishing a precedent for violating 2A rights.


Surely you don't think we are there now so what is the point until we are?

The point is that nothing would change if we stopped violating felons rights to possess firearms. Nothing would change. There would be no increase in criminal activity. Blood would not run any deeper in the streets than it does currently. Because all the felons that want to use a firearm in the commission of a crime already do so. The only ones prevented from possessing a firearm... are the ones that have gone all law-abiding in a probably temporary and futile attempt to go straight. Why should we be taking an unnecessary step down the slippery slope of allowing the government to violate the basic human right to self-defense when we can achieve the same end without doing so?

Caver 60
08-21-2012, 21:29
African Americans are disproportionally incarcerated compared to other races.

The WOD has resulted in a staggering increase in felony convictions of African Americans.

The WOD started shortly after the GCA of 1968.

Gun control has its roots in racism. It's important to remember that imho -- and that with the strike of a pen (Lautenberg) Inalienable rights can be retroactively stripped from free Americans. You might be next, so better start defending the Rights of "undesirable Felons."

Another great post. Especially the part about racism. Thank you.

el_jewapo
08-21-2012, 21:50
Really?

Why should I pay the penalty for a violent criminals stupidity? I'm old enough to remember the days when anybody could walk into a gun store and buy a gun (even through the mail) no questions asked. I've bought many many that way. No background check, no nothing. Pay your money, walk out the door with your choice of firearm, and a cash register receipt.

Just goes to show how brainwashed this modern society has became, when one has to prove their Constitutional right to own or carry a firearm.

Point taken.

el_jewapo
08-21-2012, 22:00
Strong supporters of the second amendment should know better than anybody that it's stupid. How can you claim with a straight face that guns don't kill people, they're inanimate objects, etc, etc... and turn around and say this person can't be trusted with a gun? If he can't be trusted with a gun, lock his ass back up because there are thousands of other ways for him to kill people.

I just want to highlight this post I made earlier in the thread. It baffles me that people claim to support the second amendment and yet don't trust so and so to own a gun. When liberals say that guns make people do crazy things, these same people scream that people will kill whether they have guns or not. Which is it people? You really can't take that stance and then condone anyone not having the right to have a gun. It's a direct contradiction to the arguments you use against anti-gunners.

Someone that we deem fit to walk among us in society has access to cars, knives, clubs, and, yes, guns. Simple as that. If they want to kill, they will kill. If I don't trust someone with a gun, I don't trust them in society period.

ETA: The point I'm trying to make is that people in this thread are using the same logic anti-gunners use when they say you and I shouldn't have guns. You need to step back and examine your ideals, because you don't really believe what you're saying when you argue against anti's.

cysoto
08-21-2012, 22:03
Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!

Once a criminal, always a criminal.

Snaps
08-21-2012, 22:04
Really?

Why should I pay the penalty for a violent criminals stupidity? I'm old enough to remember the days when anybody could walk into a gun store and buy a gun (even through the mail) no questions asked. I've bought many many that way. No background check, no nothing. Pay your money, walk out the door with your choice of firearm, and a cash register receipt.

Just goes to show how brainwashed this modern society has became, when one has to prove their Constitutional right to own or carry a firearm.

For years I thought my dad was kidding when he'd tell me about that, or the shotgun he ordered from the Sears catalog.

racerford
08-21-2012, 22:29
Lautenberg should be the first thing to go. It is ex post facto law and should have already been ruled unconstitutional. Heck they aren't even felony crimes.

Maybe not restored upon release, but maybe after all punishment is over. So original sentence 6 years, after 2 years paroled, restored after exit of parole. Maybe after the first one, maybe the second one, # strikes and you are out. Maybe log guns and not handguns. Allow them a shotgun to defend themselves at home.

I think allowing felons to vote is actually more dangerous to society than allowing them own guns. They shouldn't be able to hold office.

I don't know about not be able to vote if you don't pay taxes. I get they vote themselves more of my money and that is not right. Maybe we should get to generally direct where our income taxes go. So I select on my tax form that 40% goes to Defense, 30% goes to courts, 20% national parks and forest, 10% to social spending, 0% to education department. Other people get to do the same. That way the people that pay more taxes get more say in how it it is spent that the ones that don't pay income taxes. Not perfect but it would make those departments more accountable on how they spend their money.

Some of the responders seem to have a little Jonathon Swift going on in their head, re: A Modest Proposal.

el_jewapo
08-21-2012, 22:38
Lautenberg should be the first thing to go. It is ex post facto law and should have already been ruled unconstitutional. Heck they aren't even felony crimes.

Yeah the domestic violence thing is extremely bad.

How about one last F.U when you meet your ex significant other to pick up the last of your stuff? She (or he) slams their head into the wall and calls the cops, there go your gun rights.

Of course, people here will say that's an absurd scenario and if you're innocent, you're fine. It doesn't always work out that way.

LawScholar
08-21-2012, 22:41
I support the removal of rights for violent felonies, but do not for nonviolent felonies.

Snaps
08-21-2012, 22:42
Yeah the domestic violence thing is extremely bad.

How about one last F.U when you meet your ex significant other to pick up the last of your stuff? She (or he) slams their head into the wall and calls the cops, there go your gun rights.

Of course, people here will say that's an absurd scenario and if you're innocent, you're fine. It doesn't always work out that way.

Gets worse than gun rights, those you can get back. I konw one guy who was a state trooper, they have a sort of zero tolerance thing written into their bilaws. Friend got divorced, his ex called and reported him for domestic violence. Judge threw it out and he still lost his job. Doesn't matter if it's proven or not you're still F'd in the A

holesinpaper
08-21-2012, 23:47
WRONG!!!!!!!!!

Once a criminal, always a criminal.

Yeah, that defies logic.

Once you have had sex, you're always having sex (OMG I wish!)

Once having exceeded the speed limit, you are always exceeding the speed limit.

Once having had an abortion you're always having abortions.

I think what you mean is "Once having been convicted of a crime, you will forever be a person who was once convicted of a crime."

That is NOT actually true, but I think that's what you meant.

Rebuttal: People change. Sometimes for the better.

Rebuttal II: It's an Inalienable Right explicitly protected by the COTUS.

AK_Stick
08-21-2012, 23:56
[/B]Rebuttal II: It's an Inalienable Right explicitly protected by the COTUS.


Does it say anywhere in there, that you can't lose those rights due to voluntary acts against the law?


Punishments have long been viewed as constitutional

Snaps
08-22-2012, 00:01
Does it say anywhere in there, that you can't lose those rights due to voluntary acts against the law?


Punishments have long been viewed as constitutional

does it say anywhere in there that you can own magazines that carry over 4 rounds? no, it doesnt.

That's not meant for reading between the lines or thinking what if.... it's a clear cut definition of rights.

My $.02

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 00:15
Cop out.
I see what you did there...

WarCry
08-22-2012, 00:18
Rebuttal II: It's an Inalienable Right explicitly protected by the COTUS.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

New York Times Reporter Jailed for Keeping Source Secret (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/politics/06cnd-leak.html?pagewanted=all)
A federal judge today ordered Judith Miller of The New York Times to be jailed immediately


This is where SO MANY of the pro-gun arguments fail. NONE of the other Bill of Rights amendments are absolute with no exceptions. The 2nd isn't magically going to be the ONLY one that has absolute power with no exceptions/exclusions.

AK_Stick
08-22-2012, 00:19
does it say anywhere in there that you can own magazines that carry over 4 rounds? no, it doesnt.

That's not meant for reading between the lines or thinking what if.... it's a clear cut definition of rights.

My $.02


You're right, it is a clear cut definition of rights.


And when you willingly break the laws of society, you lose some of those rights. Its a time and constitutionally tested theory.


That you think its wrong, or that that was your best analogy, pretty much illustrates how poor of an argument you really have here.

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 00:20
...All human beings, felon or not, have the right to defend their lives with the best tools available. ...Those without that right should be behind bars, in a mental institution or dead.

.
This^

:woohoo:

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 00:21
Does it say anywhere in there, that you can't lose those rights due to voluntary acts against the law?


Punishments have long been viewed as constitutional

Do you know what Inalienable means?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/chain-email-10-jefferson-quotations)

AK_Stick
08-22-2012, 00:29
Using a fake TJ quote, does little to sway the argument that restriction of felons rights has been a long, time honored, and constitutionally upheld practice is wrong.


And considering the repeat offense rate for convicted felons, I see no reason to change the system we have that works perfectly well as it is.

Don't want to lose your gun rights? Don't be a felon. Its a fairly easy system. And its not like we don't let the scumbags apply for reinstatement of their rights anyways.

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 00:31
delete

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 00:36
Using a fake TJ quote

That was cited in my post. Can you read? Know what a hyperlink is? (hint, it's the blue writing)

http://www.monticello.org

For almost 90 years, Monticello has been maintained and kept open to the public by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., which owns over 2,500 acres of Jefferson's 5,000-acre plantation. As a private, nonprofit 501(c)3 corporation, the Foundation receives no ongoing federal, state, or local funding in support of its dual mission of preservation and education.http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/chain-email-10-jefferson-quotations

6. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." This is from Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Constitution.I admit to assuming that the official Jefferson non-profit, located at Monticello, gives out accurate information.

If you're suspicious of that organization, here it is at Yale (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp).

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 00:39
Do you know what Inalienable means?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/chain-email-10-jefferson-quotations)
First, I know the word the united States' Constitution uses, which is UNalienable.

One patriot I know has taken this in a modern vein; namely, the rights are free from any liens by the united nations. Get it? unalienable... ( I digress, it's a "you had to be there" kind of funny...)

Anyway, the rights of the people are un-a-lien-able, which means our government has no authority to place liens (e.g., encumbrances) on these rights.

On the other hand, if you are a corporation, which a lot of people have been making themselves unknowingly, then you broaden the scope of the government's authority over you as a/your corporation.

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 00:44
Don't want to lose your gun rights? Don't be a felon.

Lots of people have lost their 2A rights with zero felony convictions.

Welcome to the New America. Land of the slippery slope, where our Rights are being eroded and infringed upon at a frighting rate.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/join/

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 00:47
First, I know the word the united States' Constitution uses, which is UNalienable.

One patriot I know has taken this in a modern vein; namely, the rights are free from any liens by the united nations. Get it? unalienable... ( I digress, it's a "you had to be there" kind of funny...)

Anyway, the rights of the people are un-a-lien-able, which means our government has no authority to place liens (e.g., encumbrances) on these rights.

On the other hand, if you are a corporation, which a lot of people have been making themselves unknowingly, then you broaden the scope of the government's authority over you as a/your corporation.

Ya know, UNalienable and INalienable (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm) mean the same thing. And early drafts of the COTUS used the word Inalienable.

This guy (http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/) makes a argument that they mean slightly different things. But the fact remains that in period historical documents (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm) they were used interchangeably.

Snaps
08-22-2012, 00:50
hey, if you think you can pick and choose who the rights granted you in the constitution of the United States applies for, I guess there's no point in arguing. Next they'll strip rights from somebody else, then somebody else... finally it'll be you.

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 00:52
Ya know, UNalienable and INalienable (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm) mean the same thing. And early drafts of the COTUS used the word Inalienable.

This guy (http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/) makes a argument that they mean slightly different things. But the fact remains that in period historical documents they were used interchangeably.
"...The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." ..." (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm)

Yes, it is a hugely relevant legal issue.

Am I being technical? Yes, however, I'm not being technical in the sense that it is laborious, but more in the sense of specifics.

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 00:57
hey, if you think you can pick and choose who the rights granted you in the constitution of the United States applies for, I guess there's no point in arguing. Next they'll strip rights from somebody else, then somebody else... finally it'll be you.
Good point. Germany's downfall into extremes of socialism/fascism are relatively modern examples of what happens when no one speaks out until it's too late.

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 01:02
"...The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." ..." (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm)

Yes, it is a hugely relevant legal issue.

Am I being technical? Yes, however, I'm not being technical in the sense that it is laborious, but more in the sense of specifics.

You might have technical semantics on your side, but I have colloquial usage on my side.

Even those who study natural rights theory use them interchangeably -- in a highly technical, scholastic, arena.

Louisville Glocker
08-22-2012, 01:03
Here's my two cents: if a judge, as part of the punishment for a crime, sentences the convicted person to lose their voting rights, then that is the only way they should be removed. Same goes for access to firearms.

I would expect many judges to include firearm prohibition when sentencing violent criminals, if that was an option open to them. Non-violent criminals, probably not so much. I doubt many judges would remove voting rights.

But when criminals re-enter society, they are expected to behave like the rest of us. That includes working, paying taxes, not breaking laws, etc. If they're expected to pay taxes, then they should have the right to representation. So let 'em vote!

And yes, a lot of laws on the books are irrational, imperfect, and not uniformly enforced. Drug laws provide plentiful examples. A drunk could kill someone while driving and plea bargain down to a misdemeanor, thus retaining all rights, whereas a pot smoker could get a felony for possession and lose voting rights for life. That is downright goofy, and deprives the person of their liberty. And I'm not even touching the topic of racism, which is alive and well in the US legal system.

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 01:06
... But when criminals re-enter society, they are expected to behave like the rest of us. That includes working, paying taxes, not breaking laws, etc. If they're expected to pay taxes, then they should have the right to representation. So let 'em vote! ...
Paying taxes is a right?

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 01:09
If you want to pass a law against truly violent felons (and I'm not going to define violent) owning guns that's fine. But don't enforce that law on me. What do I mean by that?

Example, lets say they parole Charles Manson tomorrow. Lets agree he's bad enough that he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun again, ever.

As far as I am concerned he should be allowed to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. No background checks, etc. But when he gets caught with that gun (even if it's just walking down the street or in his home) throw the book at him. Put him under the jail and pave it over.
While I agree with your sentiment, your exaggeration of the point opens you up to a lot of challenges, and rightfully so I might add.

There are clearly visible lines on our interstate highway that keeps things running smoothly for the most part. Once outside these lines, generally speaking, there are strong metal or concrete safeguards to help keep things running in the right direction; albeit not so smoothly if you get my point.

Essentially, the same thing you are proposing for guns would be equivalent to first removing, and then choosing to never paint new lines on our interstate system. After all, I have a right to drive anywhere I want as long as I'm going in the same direction as traffic. Your idea, if applied on this wise, would have the local Cop shops and or State Highway Patrols ticketing (i.e., PUNISHING) people AFTER they created accidents due to no lines be painted in the first place.

Louisville Glocker
08-22-2012, 01:15
WRONG!!!!!!!!!

Once a criminal, always a criminal.

Totally disagree....believe it or not, some people change.

Change isn't easy, but it can be done. I've seen drug addicts and alcoholics who are clean and sober for twenty or thirty years. Their lives bear no resemblance to their prior lives.

Louisville Glocker
08-22-2012, 01:17
Paying taxes is a right?

I never said that. I said they're expected to behave like the rest of us, including paying taxes.

If you expect them to pay taxes, they should be allowed to get representation. I'm sure you've heard of taxation without representation. The founders of our country didn't find that so hot.

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 01:26
I never said that. I said they're expected to behave like the rest of us, including paying taxes.

If you expect them to pay taxes, they should be allowed to get representation. I'm sure you've heard of taxation without representation. The founders of our country didn't find that so hot.
Actually, the Founders of our country realize that taxes on an individual's income was not legal. In fact, IIRC ( it's been 5 years since I've last checked), our country's tax code(s) also indicates that only under certain and limited circumstances is income allowed to be taxed.

For example, if the felon you speak of owns oil wells in a foreign country, then the profits he/she makes on those oil wells are most certainly taxable; however, if the same felon trades 40 hours of his/her time each week dropping potato slices into hot grease for a paycheck that grosses $400US, well, this income is not legally taxable according to our tax codes with the following caveat understood. NOTE: If the felon personally agrees to becoming or being a corporation, then the tax codes, if IIRC, do actually mention that said felon's income is taxable under certain circumstances.


Just my $0.02, ymmv


..

Peace Warrior
08-22-2012, 01:33
Totally disagree....believe it or not, some people change.

Change isn't easy, but it can be done. I've seen drug addicts and alcoholics who are clean and sober for twenty or thirty years. Their lives bear no resemblance to their prior lives.
Have to agree 110%!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen some of the most despicable, insidious human beings on this planet become law abiding and absolutely precious people through humbling themselves to the Word of the Most High G-d. Complete change is possible through Jesus Christ, and I am an example of it.

(Bad example? Possibly, but I'm not who I was, that much is for sure!)

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 01:43
I know that a lot or felons get out well before the end of their sentences because our prisons are so over crowded. For that reason I've never want rights restoral to be automatic. I think they should be able to go before a board that would look at factors like crime commited, previous crimes, what you've done after release, etc. Rapists, child molesters, murders, etc would have a VERY hard time getting rights back in I were on that board.

I also think welfare recipients shouldn't be able to vote.

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 02:42
I know that a lot or felons get out well before the end of their sentences because our prisons are so over crowded. For that reason I've never want rights restoral to be automatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole Early release does not mean 'out of the system' as in the sentence is fulfilled.

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 02:51
That doesn't change my opinion in the rest of my post.

...........I'd never want rights restoral to be automatic. I think they should be able to go before a board that would look at factors like crime commited, previous crimes, what you've done after release, etc. Rapists, child molesters, murders, etc would have a VERY hard time getting rights back in I were on that board.

I also think welfare recipients shouldn't be able to vote.

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 03:00
That doesn't change my opinion in the rest of my post.

We've worked really hard switching states to "shall issue" CCW permits. "May issue" is simply to prone to abuse for political or biased reasons.

You think it's bad trying to get a CCW in CA, imagine how abuse riddled a 'may issue' path to Rights restoration would be. How hard would a black man in Alabama have to work to get his Rights restored by a 'fair and impartial' panel.

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 03:07
Not arguing that, but my opinion stands.

Random
08-22-2012, 03:26
On a related note. I think people who don't own property should not be able to vote on property tax issues. Just my opinion.

I think that those of us that don't have children shouldn't have to slow down in school zones.

Okay, I'm just screwing with you there. I would like to ask this though. Do you think that single people or childless couples should pay taxes for child related services? Schools, school buses, lunch programs etc. Should they be able to vote on child issues?

Haven't had a President that's been on welfare in their adult life. They have no horse IN that race. Should they really have any influence on welfare policy? Holy Smokes!! You just said that everyone here shouldn't be able to vote on welfare topics because they aren't on it!!

(totally picking on you. it's sooo boring in iraq right now i had to type SOMETHING)

jbglock
08-22-2012, 03:38
And yes, a lot of laws on the books are irrational, imperfect, and not uniformly enforced. Drug laws provide plentiful examples. A drunk could kill someone while driving and plea bargain down to a misdemeanor, thus retaining all rights, whereas a pot smoker could get a felony for possession and lose voting rights for life. That is downright goofy, and deprives the person of their liberty. And I'm not even touching the topic of racism, which is alive and well in the US legal system.

Just wanted to address this part of your post. Yes many laws are exactly what you think. You are exaggerating slightly though. A drunk could kill someone and plea down to a misdemeanor but only if allowed by the DA and only if the case was weak to begin with. Drug charges are more likely to get plead down just because they are more common and less controversial usually. Murderers also usually plea down to involuntary manslaughter and in my state with credit for time served are back in town within about 18 months. In my state a pot smoker is NOT going to get a felony for possession. Over 1/2 ounce to under 1 ounce is an aggravated misdemeanor. Only at 1 ounce is it felony possession. Also if they clearly have it packaged for sale it is possession with the intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance. Dealers deserve a felony.

Odd is habitual felony DUI (3 misdemeanor DUI convictions in a 10 year period) will have you serve more time in state prison than even murder even if you take the standard plea and it is dropped back to a misdemeanor.

On topic, I guess the one thing that all can agree on is their are people that are felons that probably shouldn't be and their are people that are felons that are serving basically no time for crimes that are so serious that most will agree they should never have their rights restored. Does anyone really trust the same justice system that is so obviously broken down to decide who should and shouldn't have these rights?

For those that think anyone that is released and completed their parole should have full rights I see no point in discussing it as I will never agree with that.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 05:55
In my state a pot smoker is NOT going to get a felony for possession. Over 1/2 ounce to under 1 ounce is an aggravated misdemeanor. Only at 1 ounce is it felony possession. Also if they clearly have it packaged for sale it is possession with the intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance. Dealers deserve a felony.



Why do pot dealers deserve a felony?


For those that think anyone that is released and completed their parole should have full rights I see no point in discussing it as I will never agree with that.

I realize that having a amalgamation of ineffective laws to enforce is what allows you to eat, so this makes perfect sense.

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 06:33
What kind of taxes? Property taxes, sales tax, water tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, liquor tax, hotel tax, city, state or federal income tax? Be specific and then explain what that has to do with the topic.


It has to do with this topic, because the subject line reads "no voting for felons".

You can read can't you?


Since federal tax is unconstitutional, property tax payers. State sales tax may be constitutional, but at the rates they usually are, are not of significance to the average consumer.

If I keep going, the thread will get derailed from here, and I'll get blamed for it. Do some research on your own, read some austrian school of economics books if you truly find this interesting.

CBennett
08-22-2012, 06:43
Worked ok prior to the GCA of 1968.

yup, and right till the time street gangs as we know them today like the Bloods and Crips(as i recall from my class they started out around 1969) started coming into existence. And stuff like that stuff the founding fathers could never have probably imagined is why I say NO to guns for any felon that used a gun or violence...if you did something non violent like the example of selling unpasteurized milk or what ever that was earlier on...ok no problem...but I dont want these clowns that robbed,assaulted,shot,murdered,threatened with violence or what ever having a gun legally EVER maybe you do, I dont.

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 07:38
yup, and right till the time street gangs as we know them today like the Bloods and Crips(as i recall from my class they started out around 1969) started coming into existence. And stuff like that stuff the founding fathers could never have probably imagined is why I say NO to guns for any felon that used a gun or violence...if you did something non violent like the example of selling unpasteurized milk or what ever that was earlier on...ok no problem...but I dont want these clowns that robbed,assaulted,shot,murdered,threatened with violence or what ever having a gun legally EVER maybe you do, I dont.


Makes you wonder if these things are a bi-product due to such insane laws we have to begin with.

Yea, the founding fathers never envisioned bloods or crips, they were too busy worrying about indians to the left of them scraping their scalps off their skulls, or british to the right shooting at them. That was much better compared to bloods and crips huh? :upeyes: Logic, how does it work?

CBennett
08-22-2012, 07:49
Makes you wonder if these things are a bi-product due to such insane laws we have to begin with.

Yea, the founding fathers never envisioned bloods or crips, they were too busy worrying about indians to the left of them scraping their scalps off their skulls, or british to the right shooting at them. That was much better compared to bloods and crips huh? :upeyes: Logic, how does it work?

i cant even reply too much :rofl:going on with that logic

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 07:59
i cant even reply too much :rofl:going on with that logic


Called out, and you have nothing intelligent to state, so you give me this.

Typical GNG reply.

GG, now go home and lick your wounds.

jbglock
08-22-2012, 08:49
Why do pot dealers deserve a felony?

I realize that having a amalgamation of ineffective laws to enforce is what allows you to eat, so this makes perfect sense.

1. I see it as the greater harm to the community. The reason some crimes are felonies and some are misdemeanors by the way.
2. Well if you are a US citizen they are your ineffective laws also. I'm sure posting 16 thousand plus times in an internet forum makes you think you are doing something about it but it isn't. How about getting a badge and doing something about it? It's easy to criticize. A lot of good does get done despite our imperfect system.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 09:15
1. I see it as the greater harm to the community. The reason some crimes are felonies and some are misdemeanors by the way.
2. Well if you are a US citizen they are your ineffective laws also. I'm sure posting 16 thousand plus times in an internet forum makes you think you are doing something about it but it isn't. How about getting a badge and doing something about it? It's easy to criticize. A lot of good does get done despite our imperfect system.

Are you talking about state or federal narcotics laws? BTW which causes more societal harm? Alcohol or marijuana?

We can't all be public employees. Someone has to pay the bills. But like I said, when one earns their living enforcing archaic laws, I would expect one to have the same perspective on those laws as you do. Frightening though they may be.

guanoman
08-22-2012, 10:14
Guns for every free man and woman that's not in prison/jail.

If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote. Felon or not.

How about folks on welfare. Should they be banned from voting, seeing that they would more than likely vote for the crook, I mean, politician promising them an increase in their welfare checks?

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 10:41
How about folks on welfare. Should they be banned from voting, seeing that they would more than likely vote for the crook, I mean, politician promising them an increase in their welfare checks?

Yes..

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:03
How about folks on welfare. Should they be banned from voting, seeing that they would more than likely vote for the crook, I mean, politician promising them an increase in their welfare checks?


Something tells me, folks on welfare don't pay a substantial amount in taxes.



Yes "If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote" is subjective to what defines "taxes". Again, refer to the line above this one I wrote though.

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:07
Are you talking about state or federal narcotics laws? BTW which causes more societal harm? Alcohol or marijuana?

We can't all be public employees. Someone has to pay the bills. But like I said, when one earns their living enforcing archaic laws, I would expect one to have the same perspective on those laws as you do. Frightening though they may be.


Marijuana by a long shot is much more dangerous.
They can even put it in a "tobacco cigarette" thus creating a "Marijuana cigarette" :crying: I think we should rename Marijuana cigarettes to "assault cigarettes". Then the majority would understand how dangerous these really are!


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Rdlx5_Ll3fc/TZzRP_Ap4BI/AAAAAAAAEb4/Vot93ND2rko/s1600/reefer-madness-poster+WARNING.jpg

Brucev
08-22-2012, 11:08
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?

Pro: Many felons are repeat criminals so this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Con: If someone does their time, then they have paid their debt to society so ALL of their rights should be restored.

What say you?

Agree? Absolutely and without qualification. No exceptions regardless of who they know/don't know, etc.

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 11:08
I agree with it. It's just one of the consequences of having committed a crime (felony). Some consequences are life long. If you're a convicted felon who has done his/her time... good for you. Sorry, but you still can't carry guns or vote. You made your own bed, you have to lay in it.

Which is exactly why most convicted felons return to crime, No one will hire them or give them a chance! Society is pretty much forcing them into a life of crime instead of giving them a chance at redemption! Anyone convicted of a Violent Felony or Repeated felonys should lose all their rights for life! Non Violent felons who mess up once in their life should not!

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:09
Agree? Absolutely and without qualification. No exceptions regardless of who they know/don't know, etc.

OP, looks like you're wrong. :rofl:

Rule of thumb: If Brucev agrees with you, you're probably wrong.

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 11:12
Yes..

Something tells me, folks on welfare don't pay a substantial amount in taxes.
Yes "If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote" is subjective to what defines "taxes". Again, refer to the line above this one I wrote though.

You guys are amazing, Its not okay for someone to trample on your gun rights, But its okay for you to trample on other peoples voting rights?

TBO
08-22-2012, 11:12
Lots of info in this thread, lots of it not accurate.

State laws very.
In my state of MN, ONLY targeted (selected) Felony convictions bar the possession of firearms, and there is a process for Restoration of Civil Rights.

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:16
You guys are amazing, Its not okay for someone to trample on your gun rights, But its okay for you to trample on other peoples voting rights?


You are amazing.


Voting is NOT a right.

Get that through your head.

We are supposed to be a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 11:21
You are amazing.


Voting is NOT a right.

Get that through your head.

We are supposed to be a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

Voting is a right, but it is also a privilege. Not everyone in the United States may vote. As a general matter, only those who have reached a certain age, are mentally competent, and are American citizens, are allowed to vote."

Just like owning a gun is a right and a priviledge and can be taken away for the same reasons that voting can!

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:26
Voting is a right, but it is also a privilege. Not everyone in the United States may vote. As a general matter, only those who have reached a certain age, are mentally competent, and are American citizens, are allowed to vote."

Just like owning a gun is a right and a priviledge and can be taken away for the same reasons that voting can!


You're sorely mistaken. Even though most liberal and neo-conservative politicians would agree with you.


Voting is not a right whatsoever. Our founding fathers never intended for it to be, and the constitution never states voting as a right (leave out the BS amendments later ratified). When you let the majority vote who don't pay taxes, you've opened a big loophole for those who work hard and pay a substantial amount in taxes to be bullied.

Do two things for me after you pull out a dictionary.

1. Look up what "Taxation without representation" means.

2. Look up what "Shall not be infringed" means.


Thanks! :wavey:

WarCry
08-22-2012, 11:33
State laws very.
In my state of MN, ONLY targeted (selected) Felony convictions bar the possession of firearms, and there is a process for Restoration of Civil Rights.


That's all well and good at the state level....however:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

That makes it prohibited at the FEDERAL level. This was reinforced and clarified in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. State laws do vary, but the federal law still applies.

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 11:42
................ (leave out the BS amendments later ratified)...............

If you don't think amendments are a valid part of our constitution then where does that leave the amendment so favored by most members of GT?

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:52
If you don't think amendments are a valid part of our constitution then where does that leave the amendment so favored by most members of GT?


Sorry, I meant the amendments ratified after the 10th amendment, IE the bill of rights. I worded it wrong.

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 11:52
If you don't think amendments are a valid part of our constitution then where does that leave the amendment so favored by most members of GT?

exactly

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 11:54
Sorry, I meant the amendments ratified after the 10th amendment, IE the bill of rights. I worded it wrong.

So basically what your saying is all the amendments added on are all BS and should be cast away?

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:54
exactly


You can ratify anything in the COTUS. Look at Obamacare with the SCOTUS finding it "constitutional".


Again, the original bill of rights. I messed up the wording, now it's cleared up.

We could also ratify an amendment in there that "spreads the wealth" If it's in the constitution as a ratified amendment, would you support it? It's in the constitution! All or nothing right?!?!!?! :upeyes:

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:55
So basically what your saying is all the amendments added on are all BS and should be cast away?


Not all, just most.

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 11:55
You're sorely mistaken. Even though most liberal and neo-conservative politicians would agree with you.


Voting is not a right whatsoever. Our founding fathers never intended for it to be, and the constitution never states voting as a right (leave out the BS amendments later ratified). When you let the majority vote who don't pay taxes, you've opened a big loophole for those who work hard and pay a substantial amount in taxes to be bullied.

Do two things for me after you pull out a dictionary.

1. Look up what "Taxation without representation" means.

2. Look up what "Shall not be infringed" means.


Thanks! :wavey:

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (for example, slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

Just like you THINK you have a right to own a firearm or speak your mind! You don't and they can be taken away! So in essence their a right until you make them a priviledge!

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 11:56
That's all well and good at the state level....however:



That makes it prohibited at the FEDERAL level. This was reinforced and clarified in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. State laws do vary, but the federal law still applies.

Federal law recognizes State law in regards to restoration of Rights for convictions in State Courts.

But we're having a discussion on a national board, about law in a broad national context. So yes some states AUTOMATICALLY restore all Rights at the end of a sentence, and others will NEVER restore Rights.

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 11:57
he Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (for example, slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.


Doesn't say it prohibits prejudice against those who don't pay taxes.

You can be any race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and pay taxes. So that should be non issue right?

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 12:03
You can ratify anything in the COTUS. Look at Obamacare with the SCOTUS finding it "constitutional".


Again, the original bill of rights. I messed up the wording, now it's cleared up.

We could also ratify an amendment in there that "spreads the wealth" If it's in the constitution as a ratified amendment, would you support it? It's in the constitution! All or nothing right?!?!!?! :upeyes:

Agree or not its the way it is! Should we ban automobiles because when the constituition was written they had horses, and the founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew we had gas guzzling cars that pollute the air? See how you sound man

Armchair Commando
08-22-2012, 12:04
Doesn't say it prohibits prejudice against those who don't pay taxes.

You can be any race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and pay taxes. So that should be non issue right?

I got a great idea, How about anyone who doesn't make exactly 49,326.97 per year not be allowed to vote!

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 12:11
Agree or not its the way it is! Should we ban automobiles because when the constituition was written they had horses, and the founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew we had gas guzzling cars that pollute the air? See how you sound man


You're not making any sense. The founding fathers are rolling over in their grave seeing us make amendments that created the very thing they fought. Taxation without representation!

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 12:12
I got a great idea, How about anyone who doesn't make exactly 49,326.97 per year not be allowed to vote!


I got an even better idea!

How about those who pay taxes, actually be adequately represented into where those dollars are spent!

You wouldn't let Joe Blow on the street make financial decisions of a fortune 500 company, and give him just as much pull as the board members would you? :upeyes:

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 13:14
exactly

Ratification of the Constitution was contingent upon the inclusion of the bill of rights.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 13:16
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (for example, slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

Just like you THINK you have a right to own a firearm or speak your mind! You don't and they can be taken away! So in essence their a right until you make them a priviledge!

Ummm no. The law may take away my ability to legally exercise that right, but it doesn't take the right away.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 13:19
I got a great idea, How about anyone who doesn't make exactly 49,326.97 per year not be allowed to vote!

Guy making $49000 with a family of 4 is effectively a net taker, not a net payer. He pays A negligible amount of income taxes, if any.

dherloc
08-22-2012, 14:13
I agree with it for violent crimes.

Let me also add that I also think that anyone who is accepting government handouts should not be allowed to vote while on the dole.

Does the government dole include tax breaks?

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 14:20
Does the government dole include tax breaks?

No. Taking less of someone's money is not the dole. Taking money from one person and giving it to another IS.

Lady Glock
08-22-2012, 14:22
I know of a felon, 5 times convicted, up for parole hearings again. The Parole administrator told me "it's time to decide if we are going to foot the bill for him forever or if we are going to parole him and watch him through his parole officer." He was sentenced to 85 years by a jury, and has served 21 years. He wants to be released to Lubbock Texas to marry his "fiance" (how does a man get a fiance when he has been in prison the last 21 years?). He claims he will NOT be back to prison if they release him...yeah...he told me he would kill next time to avoid being put back in. He's 53 years old...should he be allowed to own a gun?

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 14:26
Guy making $49000 with a family of 4 is effectively a net taker, not a net payer. He pays A negligible amount of income taxes, if any.

Still way better than that family being on the dole.

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 14:28
I know of a felon, 5 times convicted, up for parole hearings again. The Parole administrator told me "it's time to decide if we are going to foot the bill for him forever or if we are going to parole him and watch him through his parole officer." He was sentenced to 85 years by a jury, and has served 21 years. He wants to be released to Lubbock Texas to marry his "fiance" (how does a man get a fiance when he has been in prison the last 21 years?). He claims he will NOT be back to prison if they release him...yeah...he told me he would kill next time to avoid being put back in. He's 53 years old...should he be allowed to own a gun?

Not no, but HELL NO!

Misty02
08-22-2012, 14:36
I know of a felon, 5 times convicted, up for parole hearings again. The Parole administrator told me "it's time to decide if we are going to foot the bill for him forever or if we are going to parole him and watch him through his parole officer." He was sentenced to 85 years by a jury, and has served 21 years. He wants to be released to Lubbock Texas to marry his "fiance" (how does a man get a fiance when he has been in prison the last 21 years?). He claims he will NOT be back to prison if they release him...yeah...he told me he would kill next time to avoid being put back in. He's 53 years old...should he be allowed to own a gun?

Gun ownership in that case should not be relevant. He should not be released until he completes the 85 years he was sentence for. Depending on the nature of the crimes committed he may even be a candidate for the death penalty.

It is not his gun ownership status that is the issue, it’s his release.
.

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 14:46
I know of a felon, 5 times convicted, up for parole hearings again. The Parole administrator told me "it's time to decide if we are going to foot the bill for him forever or if we are going to parole him and watch him through his parole officer." He was sentenced to 85 years by a jury, and has served 21 years. He wants to be released to Lubbock Texas to marry his "fiance" (how does a man get a fiance when he has been in prison the last 21 years?). He claims he will NOT be back to prison if they release him...yeah...he told me he would kill next time to avoid being put back in. He's 53 years old...should he be allowed to own a gun?


Yep.

With the way the law stands right now. Let's say you were found guilty of a felony. Say, Martha Stewart trading. You may or may not be guilty of the crime, but now the gov't is prohibiting you as well.

Does that make you feel safer? You both don't have guns!

Shall not be infringed means just that. Doesn't matter who it scares or upsets, freedom is just that.

OctoberRust
08-22-2012, 14:47
Still way better than that family being on the dole.


Still gives that family no "right" to vote.

Taxation with representation.

Lady Glock
08-22-2012, 14:58
Yep.

With the way the law stands right now. Let's say you were found guilty of a felony. Say, Martha Stewart trading. You may or may not be guilty of the crime, but now the gov't is prohibiting you as well.

Does that make you feel safer? You both don't have guns!

Shall not be infringed means just that. Doesn't matter who it scares or upsets, freedom is just that.

I have absolutely NO INTENTION of breaking any laws, so as to avoid having my RIGHTS taken away. Those who make stupid decisions that affect the lives of innocent people, need to pay for those decisions. I believe STUPID SHOULD HURT

It is my hope/prayer/wish that this felon never see the light of day outside of prison bars...and if he does, I pray for his next victim (though that could be me...he promised to kill me for testifying against him)

TheJ
08-22-2012, 14:59
If somebody can not be trusted with a firearm, then they can not be trusted with matches, gasoline, fertilizer or a motor vehicle.. and they should not be free to move about unsupervised.

Lady Glock
08-22-2012, 15:02
Gun ownership in that case should not be relevant. He should not be released until he completes the 85 years he was sentence for. Depending on the nature of the crimes committed he may even be a candidate for the death penalty.

It is not his gun ownership status that is the issue, it’s his release.
.

That's what I tried to tell the board member...it seems he is more concerned about the money needed to keep him in, than about the safety of the victim(s) (past, present and future)

Bren
08-22-2012, 15:21
Ummm no. The law may take away my ability to legally exercise that right, but it doesn't take the right away.

That probably makes you feel good on some spiritual level. The truth is, a "right" is granted by whoever has the power to take it away or preserve it. You can gather up a bag full of natural and god-given rights that the government doesn't agree with and see what those are worth.

Bren
08-22-2012, 15:24
I know of a felon, 5 times convicted, up for parole hearings again. The Parole administrator told me "it's time to decide if we are going to foot the bill for him forever or if we are going to parole him and watch him through his parole officer." He was sentenced to 85 years by a jury, and has served 21 years. He wants to be released to Lubbock Texas to marry his "fiance" (how does a man get a fiance when he has been in prison the last 21 years?). He claims he will NOT be back to prison if they release him...yeah...he told me he would kill next time to avoid being put back in. He's 53 years old...should he be allowed to own a gun?

You are not describing somebody who has completed his punishment and been released. A parolee can't posess alcohol or a bow and arrows - sometimes even a computer or a play station. (depends on state and conditions set)

That's far different from somebody who has completed his sentence - a parolee is just serving his sentence on the street, where it costs us less and theoretically increases his odds of going straight.

el_jewapo
08-22-2012, 15:24
It is my hope/prayer/wish that this felon never see the light of day outside of prison bars...and if he does, I pray for his next victim (though that could be me...he promised to kill me for testifying against him)

I hope he doesn't get out too. But if he does, not being able to legally own a gun won't hamper his plans in the slightest. If he wants a gun, he'll get one. If he wants to kill or harm someone, he doesn't need a gun for that. That's the cornerstone of the whole gun control debate. Gun control doesn't work.

I wish you the best and I really hate that you have to live in fear of a guy like this that should never make it to a position to be a threat to you.

jbglock
08-22-2012, 15:42
Are you talking about state or federal narcotics laws? BTW which causes more societal harm? Alcohol or marijuana?

We can't all be public employees. Someone has to pay the bills. But like I said, when one earns their living enforcing archaic laws, I would expect one to have the same perspective on those laws as you do. Frightening though they may be.

Your right. As a "public employee" I am simply dragging you all down. I do no good. The rapist I am got off the street last month, no good. The dealer that has been terrorizing his neighbors so much that they are afraid to talk to the police, no good. The drunks I catch before they have an accident that hurts you or you family or friend, no good. Someone like you who is an obvious expert at internet posting (I will now correct myself/your post count is 26,000) knows so much better. So lets let every felon that manages to get released early in from our overcrowded prisons that exist constantly on the brink of collapse have whatever guns they want. I thought we were talking about the real world, not this fantasy world where people actually pay their debts to society and are completely rehabilitated the second their feet hit the streets again. "What if" isn't reality on the street. When some of you who favor giving felons the same rights as the rest of us actually figure that out you'll look at this in a much different light.

dherloc
08-22-2012, 16:28
No. Taking less of someone's money is not the dole. Taking money from one person and giving it to another IS.

So my taxes can be higher so theirs can be lower?

guanoman
08-22-2012, 16:53
You're sorely mistaken. Even though most liberal and neo-conservative politicians would agree with you.


Voting is not a right whatsoever. Our founding fathers never intended for it to be, and the constitution never states voting as a right (leave out the BS amendments later ratified). When you let the majority vote who don't pay taxes, you've opened a big loophole for those who work hard and pay a substantial amount in taxes to be bullied.

Do two things for me after you pull out a dictionary.

1. Look up what "Taxation without representation" means.

2. Look up what "Shall not be infringed" means.


Thanks! :wavey:

My son, he's 12, wrote a letter to his senators a few weeks ago. Basics of it were: 'Hey, I'm 12, I can't vote. I was taught the Revolutionary War was fought because of taxation without representation. Isn't what you guys in DC are doing kinda taxation of my generation without me having a voice?' He asked for a response - we're still waiting.

I agree with you, man! If you're not paying your fair share into the system, you lose the 'right' to vote! Period! Once you start participating in the upkeep of this nation, then your "right to vote" will be reinstated! Period!

Blackshirts
08-22-2012, 16:55
If the stipulation of not being a felon is removed the first time a felon (violent or non violent offense) shoots someone with their legal handgun ALL firearms rights are going to be hurt drastically.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 17:43
Your right. As a "public employee" I am simply dragging you all down. I do no good. The rapist I am got off the street last month, no good. The dealer that has been terrorizing his neighbors so much that they are afraid to talk to the police, no good. The drunks I catch before they have an accident that hurts you or you family or friend, no good. Someone like you who is an obvious expert at internet posting (I will now correct myself/your post count is 26,000) knows so much better. So lets let every felon that manages to get released early in from our overcrowded prisons that exist constantly on the brink of collapse have whatever guns they want. I thought we were talking about the real world, not this fantasy world where people actually pay their debts to society and are completely rehabilitated the second their feet hit the streets again. "What if" isn't reality on the street. When some of you who favor giving felons the same rights as the rest of us actually figure that out you'll look at this in a much different light.

I'm sorry. You're obviously very sensitive.

BTW, felons don't have guns now? "what if" we just put felons on double secret probation? Would that help?

Don't worry about people like me. The government will keep passing silly laws that will ensure you have plenty of people to arrest and you and your buddies can keep slapping each others backs when you take that evil weed and those evil guns off the street.

And we'll keep paying for it.

*thumbs up*

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 17:45
Still way better than that family being on the dole.

Sure is LW. But if we're drawing lines on who should and should not vote we ought to examine it closely, no?

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 17:47
That probably makes you feel good on some spiritual level. The truth is, a "right" is granted by whoever has the power to take it away or preserve it. You can gather up a bag full of natural and god-given rights that the government doesn't agree with and see what those are worth.

It does make me feel good. Also helps me to decide which laws to follow and which laws not to.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 17:49
So my taxes can be higher so theirs can be lower?

Who is they and how are your taxes higher?

bdhawk
08-22-2012, 17:52
losing gun and voting rights should be part of the punishment, for felons.

if someone commits a felony, it shows they have flawed judgement. people with flawed judgement should not be allowed to vote or own or posess firearms.

time in jail/prison does not repair flawed judgement.

Dragoon189
08-22-2012, 18:10
I agree

guanoman
08-22-2012, 18:11
losing gun and voting rights should be part of the punishment, for felons.

if someone commits a felony, it shows they have flawed judgement. people with flawed judgement should not be allowed to vote or own or posess firearms.

time in jail/prison does not repair flawed judgement.


:agree: Amen, brother!

jbglock
08-22-2012, 18:41
I'm sorry. You're obviously very sensitive.

BTW, felons don't have guns now? "what if" we just put felons on double secret probation? Would that help?

Don't worry about people like me. The government will keep passing silly laws that will ensure you have plenty of people to arrest and you and your buddies can keep slapping each others backs when you take that evil weed and those evil guns off the street.

And we'll keep paying for it.

*thumbs up*
Not being harsh or sensitive but this is something that someone that has not a clue what police work entails would write. You know you can happily think that way until you become a real victim one day. It won't be a liberal view of the world that puts someone in jail. It won't be an anti-governemnt view. You'll change eventually. Hopefully it won't be because you become one of the sheep these modern day wolves take advantage of.

el_jewapo
08-22-2012, 19:35
time in jail/prison does not repair flawed judgement.

Age does in most cases. Speaking for people that get a felony around 18 or 19.

bdhawk
08-22-2012, 19:51
Age does in most cases. Speaking for people that get a felony around 18 or 19.

if someone is 18-19 they should know right from wrong. this is determined by the court, if there is any mental compentancy issues, at all. the law has determined that 18 year old folks have the right to vote, and to own some firearms [in most locations]. so by then, they should know right from wrong.

this returns us, to punishment. no guns, no voting, should be part of punishment.

BTW, i am nothing very special in the intellegence arena. that being said, prolly about 5-6 years old, i knew not to do just about anything that would constitute a felony. you know, stuff like not killing people, not knocking off banks, stealing, etc. etc.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 20:11
Not being harsh or sensitive but this is something that someone that has not a clue what police work entails would write. You know you can happily think that way until you become a real victim one day. It won't be a liberal view of the world that puts someone in jail. It won't be an anti-governemnt view. You'll change eventually. Hopefully it won't be because you become one of the sheep these modern day wolves take advantage of.

Of course. We should let police make law, enforce law and adjudicate the law. They're the only one's with a "clue".

What makes you think I haven't been a victim?

Here's a hint: My view of the world isn't a liberal one. Frankly, it is frightening that you consider it to be one.

Loosen up the laces on your Oakley boots.

ICARRY2
08-22-2012, 20:17
If you want to be a gun owner and voter, dont commit felonies.

Everybody knows the rules.

Break them and suffer the consequences. Even after you get out of prison.

el_jewapo
08-22-2012, 20:21
if someone is 18-19 they should know right from wrong. this is determined by the court, if there is any mental compentancy issues, at all. the law has determined that 18 year old folks have the right to vote, and to own some firearms [in most locations]. so by then, they should know right from wrong.

this returns us, to punishment. no guns, no voting, should be part of punishment.

BTW, i am nothing very special in the intellegence arena. that being said, prolly about 5-6 years old, i knew not to do just about anything that would constitute a felony. you know, stuff like not killing people, not knocking off banks, stealing, etc. etc.

I didn't say 18 or 19 year olds don't know the law. Ever heard that song that says "I'm old enough to know better, but still too young to care."? I did things when I was 18 that I wouldn't dream of doing now. As did most everyone I know. Congratulations on your early enlightenment.

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 20:21
Sure is LW. But if we're drawing lines on who should and should not vote we ought to examine it closely, no?

Not really. People on welfare shouldn't be able to vote, people earning their own way should.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 20:28
If you want to be a gun owner and voter, dont commit felonies.

Everybody knows the rules.

Break them and suffer the consequences. Even after you get out of prison.

If you want to be a gun owner ______________.

Gun ownership is quite a privilege.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 20:29
Not really. People on welfare shouldn't be able to vote, people earning their own way should.

Are people who don't pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits earning their way, or being subsidized by others?

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 20:33
Are people who don't pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits earning their way, or being subsidized by others?

A person on welfare isn't usually paying taxes at all, because they're not working.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 20:37
A person on welfare isn't usually paying taxes at all, because they're not working.

Right. I'm talking about working people who don't pay income taxes or pay so little that they're being subsidized by others.

Like the $49,000/yr guy with a family of 4 as the previous poster held up as an example.

They may have a job but they're still a net drain on the system.

Should they vote?

Walk Soft
08-22-2012, 20:43
I think only violent felonys should exclude one from owning firearms.
I have a close freind that I grew up with that I always hunted with.He lived for it.I liked it but he loved it.It was always his favorite conversational subject.
About ten years ago he got hooked on prescription painkillers after a car accident.He was going through a divorce and was ordered to stay off his property so in the middle of the night while his ex wasn't home he broke in and stole some of "his" stuff back.He was caught with pills and the posessions which resulted in a felony.
He has been sober for over a decade and now has custody of his kids(his ex turned bad shortly after).He volunteers in the drug court program and mentors and sponsers others trying to get clean.It isn't unusual for him to get a call in the middle of the night and he'll get up and go pick someone up or even just talk to them for hours.
He is a genuine hard working good guy.I think he deserves the right to protect himself. What really sucks is he can't participate in the hobby we have in common so whenever I get to do it I don't tell him about it.

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 20:43
Right. I'm talking about working people who don't pay income taxes or pay so little that they're being subsidized by others.

Like the $49,000/yr guy with a family of 4 as the previous poster held up as an example.

They may have a job but they're still a net drain on the system.

Should they vote?

I've already answered your question.

certifiedfunds
08-22-2012, 20:47
I've already answered your question.

Well, I'm confused and you aren't someone I want to go round-n-round with. Have a nice evening, LW. :wavey:

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 20:49
Well, I'm confused and you aren't someone I want to go round-n-round with. Have a nice evening, LW. :wavey:

Good choice.

Have a nice evening yourself. :wavey:

jtull7
08-22-2012, 20:53
"FWIW, no one receiving gov't money should have the vote while receiving that money."

There are currently 54 million American receiving Social Security benefits. Should they not be allowed to vote?

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 20:59
"FWIW, no one receiving gov't money should have the vote while receiving that money."

There are currently 54 million American receiving Social Security benefits. Should they not be allowed to vote?

I know I'm not the one you're quoting, but I'll throw in my $.02 worth anyway. I think people collecting SS for retirement or disability, anyone collecting VA disability, things like that should definitely be allowed to vote. Prople who never work and live on welfare are the ones I think shouldn't be allowed to vote.

holesinpaper
08-22-2012, 21:03
Liberals probably think all registered members of GT should lose their right to vote.

TBO
08-22-2012, 21:05
I know I'm not the one you're quoting, but I'll throw in my $.02 worth anyway. I think people collecting SS for retirement or disability, anyone collecting VA disability, things like that should definitely be allowed to vote. Prople who never work and live on welfare are the ones I think shouldn't be allowed to vote.

:agree:

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2.

FLIPPER 348
08-22-2012, 21:08
Do you agree with the "no guns, no voting for felons" law?


What say you?


yes, hell yes

Walk Soft
08-22-2012, 21:11
I know I'm not the one you're quoting, but I'll throw in my $.02 worth anyway. I think people collecting SS for retirement or disability, anyone collecting VA disability, things like that should definitely be allowed to vote. Prople who never work and live on welfare are the ones I think shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think they should be drug tested too,especially food stamp recipients.

Lone_Wolfe
08-22-2012, 21:16
I think they should be drug tested too,especially food stamp recipients.

Completely agreed.

brisk21
08-22-2012, 21:44
I don't agree with it. If someone has paid their debt to society and we trust them to walk among us, they should have the same rights we have. If they can't be trusted with a gun, why do we trust them at all? Strong supporters of the second amendment should know better than anybody that it's stupid. How can you claim with a straight face that guns don't kill people, they're inanimate objects, etc, etc... and turn around and say this person can't be trusted with a gun? If he can't be trusted with a gun, lock his ass back up because there are thousands of other ways for him to kill people.

I've got a friend that got into some trouble when he was 18 years old and got a felony. He's a completely different person now in his early 30's. I really hate it for him that he's tainted by his actions when he was a kid. He's smarter, more honest and responsible than 95% of other people I know, and yet he doesn't have the right to vote or defend his family.


Thats it right there. You summed it up perfectly. It just scares too many people to think of felons walking out of prison and right to the gunstore. Here is what concerns me- Our society has gotton too soft on crime. We are letting out people that should NEVER see the light of day. I work in a prison, and I couldn't imagine some of those guys back on the street with a gun in their waistband. Sadly, many of them will. We may as well let them though, since they will get their hands on the guns anyway. Heck, it may reduce the burgleries since ex cons know they can just go buy a gun and don't have to steal one.

JuneyBooney
08-22-2012, 22:44
I do not agree with non violent people not being able ti have guns.

dherloc
08-22-2012, 23:19
Who is they and how are your taxes higher?

They is someone who is getting a tax break. The roads still need to be maintained, the fire department paid. Those costs are not changed by the tax breaks given. Therefore someone else has to pay because someone else is on the dole (or getting a tax break). That someone is the people paying taxes. If there were no tax breaks, then I my taxes could be lower since other people would be paying more instead of being on the dole (and I do think subsidies and breaks count as dole in this discussion).

dherloc
08-22-2012, 23:22
Are people who don't pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits earning their way, or being subsidized by others?

Curious to see the $ amount you think the average person recieves in benefits.

dherloc
08-22-2012, 23:26
I think they should be drug tested too,especially food stamp recipients.

How much money did FL save by doing this?

Lady Glock
08-23-2012, 04:25
They is someone who is getting a tax break. The roads still need to be maintained, the fire department paid. Those costs are not changed by the tax breaks given. Therefore someone else has to pay because someone else is on the dole (or getting a tax break). That someone is the people paying taxes. If there were no tax breaks, then I my taxes could be lower since other people would be paying more instead of being on the dole (and I do think subsidies and breaks count as dole in this discussion).

Getting a tax break isn't getting money from the government, it's keeping a little bit more of their own income. Big difference.

Misty02
08-23-2012, 05:23
I know that a lot or felons get out well before the end of their sentences because our prisons are so over crowded. For that reason I've never want rights restoral to be automatic. I think they should be able to go before a board that would look at factors like crime commited, previous crimes, what you've done after release, etc. Rapists, child molesters, murders, etc would have a VERY hard time getting rights back in I were on that board.

I also think welfare recipients shouldn't be able to vote.


I agree. If I were on that board: rapists, child molesters and some murderers would never be allowed out, there is where I would change things. It is not that the current laws are flawed per se (although some are) it is that they are not adhered to as they should.

Telling those kind of criminals they’re not legally allowed to own a firearm (which they can get illegally if they want anyway) doesn’t protect society in any way. They are out to prey on the innocent and that is where they pose a danger.

A felon intent on harming others will do so regardless, if they can’t purchase a firearm legally they’ll use a knife, a bomb, a car, whatever is available. If they’re reformed to the point they no longer pose a threat to others (they shouldn’t be released otherwise) then what they own is of little consequence. If they commit another crime, impose the full weight of the law, no negotiations, no sentence reduction, no pardon. Tools vary in effectiveness but it is the actual individual that poses the threat.

.

dherloc
08-23-2012, 05:23
Getting a tax break isn't getting money from the government, it's keeping a little bit more of their own income. Big difference.

Plenty of us don't get the same break. I will pay more in taxes because of that. Thats still the dole...just in another form.

Misty02
08-23-2012, 05:28
Makes you wonder if these things are a bi-product due to such insane laws we have to begin with.

Yea, the founding fathers never envisioned bloods or crips, they were too busy worrying about indians to the left of them scraping their scalps off their skulls, or british to the right shooting at them. That was much better compared to bloods and crips huh? :upeyes: Logic, how does it work?

:rofl::rofl: Ok, that made me laugh!

.

Misty02
08-23-2012, 05:45
If somebody can not be trusted with a firearm, then they can not be trusted with matches, gasoline, fertilizer or a motor vehicle.. and they should not be free to move about unsupervised.

I’m in full agreement!


.

certifiedfunds
08-23-2012, 05:50
They is someone who is getting a tax break. The roads still need to be maintained, the fire department paid. Those costs are not changed by the tax breaks given. Therefore someone else has to pay because someone else is on the dole (or getting a tax break). That someone is the people paying taxes. If there were no tax breaks, then I my taxes could be lower since other people would be paying more instead of being on the dole (and I do think subsidies and breaks count as dole in this discussion).

Who is getting tax "breaks" causing you to pay more? Be specific or give an example otherwise I just don't think you know what youre talking about.

Bren
08-23-2012, 05:52
yes, hell yes

I took you more for a "no guns for anybody, but everybody gets to vote, prisoners get absentee ballots" kind of guy. :upeyes:

Misty02
08-23-2012, 05:52
That's what I tried to tell the board member...it seems he is more concerned about the money needed to keep him in, than about the safety of the victim(s) (past, present and future)

And THAT is the part I take issue with!

It is a shame that the government can’t be trusted to efficiently handle our tax dollars in so many other areas, I sincerely doubt tax payers would object to contribute toward keeping such individuals away where they can’t harm their families or others.

THAT is not an area where you suddenly decide to save money! Anyone that places cost/money above the life of others is a fool of the worst kind.


.

Misty02
08-23-2012, 05:59
You are not describing somebody who has completed his punishment and been released. A parolee can't posess alcohol or a bow and arrows - sometimes even a computer or a play station. (depends on state and conditions set)

That's far different from somebody who has completed his sentence - a parolee is just serving his sentence on the street, where it costs us less and theoretically increases his odds of going straight.

It depends what our definition of “cost” is. Often we read articles of people that physically harm others; many seem to have a long criminal record. The overall cost of their release to society is rather high.

.

certifiedfunds
08-23-2012, 05:59
Curious to see the $ amount you think the average person recieves in benefits.

It's pretty simple math. Take total government expenditures, divide by the number of citizens of majority age + direct cash welfare payment = annual benefits.

If the amount of taxes that individual pays is > that number, they're being subsidized or "on the dole" as you say.

Its a big number. I think you'd be surprised. I suspect you are being subsidized.

certifiedfunds
08-23-2012, 06:01
Plenty of us don't get the same break. I will pay more in taxes because of that. Thats still the dole...just in another form.

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

pugman
08-23-2012, 06:01
It depends on the crime: remember tax evasion is a felony.

However, for the most part yes.

Then again, there are a lot of ideas I agree with which will never see the light of day in this country.

certifiedfunds
08-23-2012, 06:02
It depends on the crime: remember tax evasion is a felony.



It is a felony, yet patriotic and completely moral.

Misty02
08-23-2012, 06:10
Your right. As a "public employee" I am simply dragging you all down. I do no good. The rapist I am got off the street last month, no good. The dealer that has been terrorizing his neighbors so much that they are afraid to talk to the police, no good. The drunks I catch before they have an accident that hurts you or you family or friend, no good. Someone like you who is an obvious expert at internet posting (I will now correct myself/your post count is 26,000) knows so much better. So lets let every felon that manages to get released early in from our overcrowded prisons that exist constantly on the brink of collapse have whatever guns they want. I thought we were talking about the real world, not this fantasy world where people actually pay their debts to society and are completely rehabilitated the second their feet hit the streets again. "What if" isn't reality on the street. When some of you who favor giving felons the same rights as the rest of us actually figure that out you'll look at this in a much different light.

Sadly, you risked a lot temporarily taking those people off the streets. You likely saved a few victims during the time they were put away. However, someone comes behind and what you accomplished is undone, in some cases it would be days before they’re back on the streets victimizing others again.

If they were scared straight, how does their ability to legally obtain a firearm to protect themselves or their loved ones change anything? If they were not scared straight and they are still criminals that would prey on others, how does their inability to legally obtain a firearm change anything? Is someone willing to kill another who is going to face charges for murder deterred by an additional charge for illegally possessing a firearm?

.