• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

why would not this idea apply to felons & guns? paid their debt?

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
If we let them out because they have paid their debt, many will still be dangerous.

If they are still considered a danger, then you support letting them out? That's the folly of that argument.

And its the argument that the antis put up for non-felons ... we are too dangerous to have guns ..

And "this gun it too dangerous for citizens to have, but the government can"
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
They can get their rights back,as long as it was non-violent,DV or a sex crime. In Alaska if your conviction is set aside or 10 yrs passes without issue. Federal felonys- forgetaboutit.

In theory, yes. In reality, its not so likely. There is a huge hurdle--petitioning the governor, etc. And, the legal expenses. We've had a few such folks show up here on the forum over the years. The thing I remember most from those discussions was how much of a burden the legal expenses were gonna be.

Moreover, as the Innocence Project has shown by winning the release of over 250 prisoners, there are likely a lot of innocent people convicted of felonies. And, that's before we examine people who were convicted of malum prohibitum felonies.

I'm guessing there are a lot of people who government not only refuses to recognize their right to self-defense, but actively threatens them against exercising it.


Personally, I don't see any point in denying felons the right to self-defense. The genuinely bad one's are gonna get a gun and commit crimes again anyway. The wrongly convicted, and those who learned their lesson are not. Really, all it accomplishes is to give the cops a reason to arrest a felon-in-possession. If that arrestee is committing crimes, he's actionable for those crimes. If he's not committing crimes, but merely in possession for self-defense, so what?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If they are still considered a danger, then you support letting them out?...

I said no such thing. But that's why I don't ever bother to reply to you on topic. I will simply point out any dishonesty or idiocy that you post. You may guess in which category this particular bit of crap belongs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I said no such thing. But that's why I don't ever bother to reply to you on topic. I will simply point out any dishonesty or idiocy that you post. You may guess in which category this particular bit of crap belongs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Do you understand what a QUESTION is ... I guess not ... you need to take your medication daily
 

Scvette

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
15
Location
Olympia
In theory, yes. In reality, its not so likely. There is a huge hurdle--petitioning the governor, etc. And, the legal expenses. We've had a few such folks show up here on the forum over the years. The thing I remember most from those discussions was how much of a burden the legal expenses were gonna be.

Moreover, as the Innocence Project has shown by winning the release of over 250 prisoners, there are likely a lot of innocent people convicted of felonies. And, that's before we examine people who were convicted of malum prohibitum felonies.

I'm guessing there are a lot of people who government not only refuses to recognize their right to self-defense, but actively threatens them against exercising it.


Personally, I don't see any point in denying felons the right to self-defense. The genuinely bad one's are gonna get a gun and commit crimes again anyway. The wrongly convicted, and those who learned their lesson are not. Really, all it accomplishes is to give the cops a reason to arrest a felon-in-possession. If that arrestee is committing crimes, he's actionable for those crimes. If he's not committing crimes, but merely in possession for self-defense, so what?

They do get them back,ask me how I know? I am one of them,something I did 29 yrs ago,non violent,not to anyone. My rights were restored 3 yrs after I was in trouble. If you notice on the form 4473 it's asks in question 11c if you have been,then it says see note A I believe,and it states,if you had it expunged,or set aside to answer NO on question 11c. I did have something come up recently after buying 2 stripped lower,got a call from a ATF agent,he looked into why it was denied and called me back 2 weeks later and told he has talked to both ATF and FBI lawyers and came to the conclusion there wasn't any problem,he had my whole history in front of him and saw my one and only time I did something completely stupid.
I should mention I was delayed on the purchase of those lowers,went back 5 days later and they released the lowers to me since it had been more than 3 days,sometime after they gave them to me,NICS denied them,but I already had them,the ATF agent I delt with was very professional,I asked if the shop that gave them to me was in trouble and he said no,they did everything correct.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Do you understand what a QUESTION is ... I guess not ... you need to take your medication daily

OK, you have officially put your other post (and this one) in both categories.

An honest question would be, "Do you believe that...?" not "...then you support...?" going on to assume that I do, and arguing against the strawman belief that you dishonestly attribute to me.

If you posted honestly and in an adult manner for a few months and then asked an honest question, I might answer you on topic. However, the immaturity, idiocy, and dishonesty of your posts, including your supposed "question" motivate me only to point out said immaturity, idiocy, and dishonesty of your posts.

Moving on. Take your parting shot. I won't respond.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Three percentage points is not three percent.

When one group is rejected at a rate of 7%, and another is rejected at a rate of 10%, the latter group is rejected at a rate 43% more often.

That's quite a bit more than 3%.

Excellent use of math to make a salient point. Those 3 points are a HUGE difference!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top