Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Biden: ‘I’d Rather Have an Ex-Felon Have Access to a Weapon’ Than a ‘Fugitive’ | CNS

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Biden: ‘I’d Rather Have an Ex-Felon Have Access to a Weapon’ Than a ‘Fugitive’ | CNS

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bide...eapon-fugitive
    (CNSNews.com) – Vice President Joe Biden told city leaders in his pitch for new gun control laws on Tuesday that he would prefer an ex-felon over a fugitive have access to a weapon.

    “The one person I don’t want to have a weapon is a fugitive from justice,” Biden said. “I rather have an ex-felon have access to a weapon than someone fleeing the justice system.”

    Biden, speaking at the annual meeting for the National League of Cities in Washington, D.C., told attendees that he and President Barack Obama want Congress to pass a “universal background check” so that “every single gun sale must first go through a check to see if the buyer can legally have a gun.”
    Unfortunately a fugitive may not have enjoyed the due process that the felon has. The felon will be prohibited purchase, but not the fugitive. Legally armed citizens may be presumed armed fugitives when they fail their citizen compliance drill/examination.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    I always love it when Biden goes "rogue".

    During WWII, the Soviets trained dogs to run under tanks. Then they strapped satchel charges equipped with tilt rod detonators on their backs. The dogs were then turned loose on the battlefield to run under German tanks. Unfortunately, the dogs had a tendency to run under the first tank they saw, which was as often as not, a Soviet tank.

    Biden is like one of those dogs... albeit not as intelligent.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Ummmmm Biden, they are fugitives from justice because they break laws.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    That one little snippet might be the very first thing that Crazy ol' Uncle Joe has said that I agree with...I just don't like his suggested method to accomplish it because I think I would trust a rattlesnake that is rattlin' about 20x more than him.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Ummmmm Biden, they are fugitives from justice because they break laws.
    Perhaps in your jurisdiction. Jokin' Joe did not say "fugitive from justice", an arrest warrant does not require a crime only the charge by a PO'd cop with a magistrate judge's signature by telephone after the fact maybe. Fleeing a traffic stop makes one a fugitive. Failure to obey an order may make one a fugitive.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    153
    Honestly, being a libertarian, I'd have to agree with the VP on this. I'm not going to make many friends saying this, but someone who had served time and is no longer on parole or probation has paid their debt to society. They did the crime, they did the time, and I don't believe their right to the most effective means of self defense should be taken away. Perhaps stipulations like someone who is categorized as a habitual violent felony offender should be prohibited, as I personally wouldn't like them owning a firearm, but there are a lot of felonies out there that simply shouldn't prohibit someone from voting or owning a firearm. A good example I like to use is that Martha Stewart is prohibited. I know a guy personally who is a convicted felon for drug possession years ago, who ended up recovering from his addictions and becoming a hard working individual who sponsors people in NA. He would never hurt a fly and is one of the most genuinely good people I've ever met. Can't own a firearm for home defense let alone protection outside the home, and he has expressed wanting to for home defense at least. He is someone who had a personal problem, got caught committing a victimless crime, and recovered from his addictions, but cannot own a firearm because of something he did 20 years or so ago, because he possessed painkillers without a script.

    Think for yourselves people. Felon doesn't necessarily mean violent person. If you got 3 DUI's, you can't own a gun. If you made a split second mistake and got into a fight with a buddy, ended up inadvertently causing him permanent disfigurement or damage, you can't own a gun. If you like to put things into your body, regardless of whether or not you hurt other people, you can't own a firearm. If you own an AR-15 pistol and innocently put a vertical foregrip on it, *YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS*. Wake up guys. There are plenty of things out there that shouldn't constitute a felony, or even a crime for that matter.

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by shastadude17 View Post
    Honestly, being a libertarian, I'd have to agree with the VP on this. I'm not going to make many friends saying this, but someone who had served time and is no longer on parole or probation has paid their debt to society. They did the crime, they did the time, and I don't believe their right to the most effective means of self defense should be taken away. Perhaps stipulations like someone who is categorized as a habitual violent felony offender should be prohibited, as I personally wouldn't like them owning a firearm, but there are a lot of felonies out there that simply shouldn't prohibit someone from voting or owning a firearm. A good example I like to use is that Martha Stewart is prohibited. I know a guy personally who is a convicted felon for drug possession years ago, who ended up recovering from his addictions and becoming a hard working individual who sponsors people in NA. He would never hurt a fly and is one of the most genuinely good people I've ever met. Can't own a firearm for home defense let alone protection outside the home, and he has expressed wanting to for home defense at least. He is someone who had a personal problem, got caught committing a victimless crime, and recovered from his addictions, but cannot own a firearm because of something he did 20 years or so ago, because he possessed painkillers without a script.

    Think for yourselves people. Felon doesn't necessarily mean violent person. If you got 3 DUI's, you can't own a gun. If you made a split second mistake and got into a fight with a buddy, ended up inadvertently causing him permanent disfigurement or damage, you can't own a gun. If you like to put things into your body, regardless of whether or not you hurt other people, you can't own a firearm. If you own an AR-15 pistol and innocently put a vertical foregrip on it, *YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS*. Wake up guys. There are plenty of things out there that shouldn't constitute a felony, or even a crime for that matter.
    I agree, but we know all to well that Biden is not going to advocate giving felons their rights back.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  8. #8
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by shastadude17 View Post
    Honestly, being a libertarian, I'd have to agree with the VP on this. I'm not going to make many friends saying this, but someone who had served time and is no longer on parole or probation has paid their debt to society. They did the crime, they did the time, and I don't believe their right to the most effective means of self defense should be taken away. Perhaps stipulations like someone who is categorized as a habitual violent felony offender should be prohibited, as I personally wouldn't like them owning a firearm, but there are a lot of felonies out there that simply shouldn't prohibit someone from voting or owning a firearm. A good example I like to use is that Martha Stewart is prohibited. I know a guy personally who is a convicted felon for drug possession years ago, who ended up recovering from his addictions and becoming a hard working individual who sponsors people in NA. He would never hurt a fly and is one of the most genuinely good people I've ever met. Can't own a firearm for home defense let alone protection outside the home, and he has expressed wanting to for home defense at least. He is someone who had a personal problem, got caught committing a victimless crime, and recovered from his addictions, but cannot own a firearm because of something he did 20 years or so ago, because he possessed painkillers without a script.

    Think for yourselves people. Felon doesn't necessarily mean violent person. If you got 3 DUI's, you can't own a gun. If you made a split second mistake and got into a fight with a buddy, ended up inadvertently causing him permanent disfigurement or damage, you can't own a gun. If you like to put things into your body, regardless of whether or not you hurt other people, you can't own a firearm. If you own an AR-15 pistol and innocently put a vertical foregrip on it, *YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS*. Wake up guys. There are plenty of things out there that shouldn't constitute a felony, or even a crime for that matter.
    The "habitual felon" thing is a straw dog to take away rights. If the person has served their full sentence, then leave them alone. If they are a "danger" such that you feel a "need" to restrict their rights...why are they free on the streets?

    Either sentence them longer, or they are "innocent until proven guilty".
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I agree, but we know all to well that Biden is not going to advocate giving felons their rights back.
    +1

    The statists NEVER back down...if you let them have "something" in the spirit of compromise, they will just come back and ask for more, moving the line in the sand a bit further forward.

    Give them NOTHING.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    +1

    The statists NEVER back down...if you let them have "something" in the spirit of compromise, they will just come back and ask for more, moving the line in the sand a bit further forward.

    Give them NOTHING.
    They do deserve something: to be treated like the tyrants that they are.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    +1

    The statists NEVER back down...if you let them have "something" in the spirit of compromise, they will just come back and ask for more, moving the line in the sand a bit further forward.

    Give them NOTHING.
    Oh, quit being so miserly. I would quickly agree to give them...oh, say...a bayonet. Depends on the occasion, of course.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-13-2013 at 07:48 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, quit being so miserly. I would quickly agree to give them...oh, say...a bayonet. Depends on the occasion, of course.
    then you would get "tyrant juice" on your clean bayonet.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    then you would get "tyrant juice" on your clean bayonet.
    That just sounds dirty...

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by shastadude17 View Post
    Honestly, being a libertarian, I'd have to agree with the VP on this. I'm not going to make many friends saying this, but someone who had served time and is no longer on parole or probation has paid their debt to society. They did the crime, they did the time, and I don't believe their right to the most effective means of self defense should be taken away. Perhaps stipulations like someone who is categorized as a habitual violent felony offender should be prohibited, as I personally wouldn't like them owning a firearm, but there are a lot of felonies out there that simply shouldn't prohibit someone from voting or owning a firearm. A good example I like to use is that Martha Stewart is prohibited. I know a guy personally who is a convicted felon for drug possession years ago, who ended up recovering from his addictions and becoming a hard working individual who sponsors people in NA. He would never hurt a fly and is one of the most genuinely good people I've ever met. Can't own a firearm for home defense let alone protection outside the home, and he has expressed wanting to for home defense at least. He is someone who had a personal problem, got caught committing a victimless crime, and recovered from his addictions, but cannot own a firearm because of something he did 20 years or so ago, because he possessed painkillers without a script.

    Think for yourselves people. Felon doesn't necessarily mean violent person. If you got 3 DUI's, you can't own a gun. If you made a split second mistake and got into a fight with a buddy, ended up inadvertently causing him permanent disfigurement or damage, you can't own a gun. If you like to put things into your body, regardless of whether or not you hurt other people, you can't own a firearm. If you own an AR-15 pistol and innocently put a vertical foregrip on it, *YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS*. Wake up guys. There are plenty of things out there that shouldn't constitute a felony, or even a crime for that matter.
    Yes. If a person is safe enough to be allowed on the streets, he's safe enough to be "allowed" to own a gun. The one allowance necessarily leads to the other, fantasies of power on the part of legislators notwithstanding. That is to say: if a person is free, he is able to obtain a gun (or drugs, or whatever you like). Period. Any person who believes it is or should be possible to tell him, "no!" as though he were a child, has fantasies of legislative power which has never and will never exist.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    If they are a "danger" such that you feel a "need" to restrict their rights...why are they free on the streets?

    Either sentence them longer, or they are "innocent until proven guilty".
    I 100% agree.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Yes. If a person is safe enough to be allowed on the streets, he's safe enough to be "allowed" to own a gun. The one allowance necessarily leads to the other, fantasies of power on the part of legislators notwithstanding. That is to say: if a person is free, he is able to obtain a gun (or drugs, or whatever you like). Period. Any person who believes it is or should be possible to tell him, "no!" as though he were a child, has fantasies of legislative power which has never and will never exist.
    Exactly. Even if I would agree(and I don't) that ex-felons should be deprived of their right to choose how to defend themselves, it must be done seamless to the LAC. In other words, the only ones subject to any background checks or other intrusive prohibition type tactics must apply ONLY to the ex-felon. That makes the practical application of such tactics appear absurd... as it should.

    Call background checks what they are... unreasonable searches.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-14-2013 at 09:32 PM.

  17. #17
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Yes. If a person is safe enough to be allowed on the streets, he's safe enough to be "allowed" to own a gun. The one allowance necessarily leads to the other, fantasies of power on the part of legislators notwithstanding. That is to say: if a person is free, he is able to obtain a gun (or drugs, or whatever you like). Period. Any person who believes it is or should be possible to tell him, "no!" as though he were a child, has fantasies of legislative power which has never and will never exist.
    I agree completely. The problem arises, however, when our justice system allows people back on the street that have NO business being there. I work in the criminal justice field and I see this everyday. If you have committed a violent crime against someone and you've been found guilty, exhausted the appeals process and still remain guilty, then you should NOT be released from prison! Could we give them one second chance? Perhaps. I guess it would depend on the seriousness of the first violent offense. I could see giving second chances for simply physical altercations and similar criminal acts, but those that molest, rape, murder, attempt to murder, severely assault and so forth should NEVER see freedom again. This is the current problem with our crime problem and our justice system!

    There are TOO many stories of people getting out that have raped or severly assaulted people after just a couple years who go on to kill and or rape more people! This is ridiculous and uncalled for!

    Give ALL of the non-violent felons their firearms back, but not those that committed violent and egregious acts against another human being. And, keep those that did commit violent acts where they belong and we wouldn't have the crime that we do now. Our justice system is WEAK, and violent criminals know it! They will continue to commit violence until we start keeping them in prison for doing so!
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 03-15-2013 at 11:51 AM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  18. #18
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    I agree completely. The problem arises, however, when our justice system allows people back on the street that have NO business being there. I work in the criminal justice field and I see this everyday. If you have committed a violent crime against someone and you've been found guilty, exhausted the appeals process and still remain guilty, then you should NOT be released from prison! Could we give them one second chance? Perhaps. I guess it would depend on the seriousness of the first violent offense. I could see giving second chances for simply physical altercations and similar criminal acts, but those that molest, rape, murder, attempt to murder, severely assault and so forth should NEVER see freedom again. This is the current problem with our crime problem and our justice system!

    There are TOO many stories of people getting out that have raped or severly assaulted people after just a couple years who go on to kill and or rape more people! This is ridiculous and uncalled for!

    Give ALL of the non-violent felons their firearms back, but not those that committed violent and egregious acts against another human being. And, keep those that did commit violent acts where they belong and we wouldn't have the crime that we do now. Our justice system is WEAK, and violent criminals know it! They will continue to commit violence until we start keeping them in prison for doing so!
    I have to disagree. You are choosing the path of "least resistance".

    So, it is "ok" to intrude upon ordinary citizens because some are more violent, yet society does not demand that those who are the most dangerous are kept separate until they are either no longer dangerous, or until they die?

    If we allow all citizens to arm themselves as they see fit to defend themselves properly, remove the false premise that the police are there to "protect us" and then simply say that a person who commits some very violent crime be kept in prison for as long as is NECESSARY to protect society, it is unlikely that we would continue to have the problems that we do. A great many would-be violent criminals may very well, not survive to be brought to trial, and many many more would be held until the police can come secure the criminal for trial and disposal as needed.

    The problem is that we are accepting the premise that since "the criminal justice system is flawed" that we must fix other parts of society for a systemic fault in the "criminal justice system". I say, let's not try to "fix something that is not broken"...allowing people to defend themselves has worked remarkably (but not perfectly) well for thousands of years.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    The problem is that we are accepting the premise that since "the criminal justice system is flawed" that we must fix other parts of society for a systemic fault in the "criminal justice system". I say, let's not try to "fix something that is not broken"...allowing people to defend themselves has worked remarkably (but not perfectly) well for thousands of years.
    There is a fine double entendre in "Fix until broke", where one ends up fixing something that is not broken.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Exactly. Even if I would agree(and I don't) that ex-felons should be deprived of their right to choose how to defend themselves, it must be done seamless to the LAC. In other words, the only ones subject to any background checks or other intrusive prohibition type tactics must apply ONLY to the ex-felon. That makes the practical application of such tactics appear absurd... as it should.

    Call background checks what they are... unreasonable searches.
    How is the dealer going to be able to tell which customers are ex-felons with certainty?

  21. #21
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    How is the dealer going to be able to tell which customers are ex-felons with certainty?
    I think that was the point...you cannot, but also wouldn't need to be able to tell. If they are walking the streets, you can just presume that they are free. Now, if they are still wearing a prison jumpsuit, or have a straitjacket on, the seller might want to think twice, or call the cops right afterwards (if they don't want to get into a fight with them).
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I think that was the point...you cannot, but also wouldn't need to be able to tell. If they are walking the streets, you can just presume that they are free. Now, if they are still wearing a prison jumpsuit, or have a straitjacket on, the seller might want to think twice, or call the cops right afterwards (if they don't want to get into a fight with them).
    Just because they are free doesn't mean they are allowed to own firearms. Ex-felons are restricted for a reason. A habitual criminal may be just released, and from your position, can go buy a handgun, walk down the street to a 7-11 and rob it at gunpoint? Or go shoot his ex because she cheated on him with his best friend? While things like this happen, and most likely will happen as long as there are guns being sold by unscrupulous characters, at least a check at the LGS will deter something like this occurring.

    I'm sure there are a fair amount of ex-felons that go on to lead a productive, crime-free life. But to think just because the felons have served time they are entitled to be given their 2A rights back upon release is obtuse.

  23. #23
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    Just because they are free doesn't mean they are allowed to own firearms. Ex-felons are restricted for a reason. A habitual criminal may be just released, and from your position, can go buy a handgun, walk down the street to a 7-11 and rob it at gunpoint? Or go shoot his ex because she cheated on him with his best friend? While things like this happen, and most likely will happen as long as there are guns being sold by unscrupulous characters, at least a check at the LGS will deter something like this occurring.

    I'm sure there are a fair amount of ex-felons that go on to lead a productive, crime-free life. But to think just because the felons have served time they are entitled to be given their 2A rights back upon release is obtuse.
    No. If the felons were charged and sentenced properly, they will have remained in custody until they are no longer a threat to society. If we continue to insist on releasing people who still pose a threat to society, they will continue to commit crimes (some with illegal weapons, some with their bare hands) until they are caught, tried, convicted and re-incarcerated.

    Regardless of the penalties for a criminal act, there will be people who will commit crimes. To make a generalized statement that felons are "dangerous" even after prison and therefore you feel "justified" in removing the most effective means of self defense currently available to people aside from a dedicated security force is just "obtuse".

    Self defense is a NATURAL right that was included in the Bill of Rights...and any man that has "served his time" and "paid his debt to society" should be able to defend himself. Period.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    How is the dealer going to be able to tell which customers are ex-felons with certainty?
    Yes that is the point... it's absurd. Just because there is a problem controlling ex-felons not in the custody of the state is NO reason to subject the LAC to an unreasonable search.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    How is the dealer going to be able to tell which customers are ex-felons with certainty?
    I don't want to speak for georg, but I believe that's the point: he won't.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •