-
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.
-
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.
Pardon Mark Wahlberg or not? Please read article before voting
- Thread starter since9
- Start date
Yeah, kinda like that cop that's in prison for his corruption and now asks to be released 'cause he found Jesus.
http://cnmnewz.com/ex-police-chief-...orrupt-wants-out-of-prison-after-finding-god/
http://cnmnewz.com/ex-police-chief-...orrupt-wants-out-of-prison-after-finding-god/
OC for ME
Regular Member
Brandon Lee.
Or the IL trooper who killed those two sisters wants his DL back cuz the hardship w/o one is too much of a hardship.
Or the IL trooper who killed those two sisters wants his DL back cuz the hardship w/o one is too much of a hardship.
utbagpiper
Banned
I believe that every man allowed to walk the streets unsupervised ought to have his rights respected, all of them.
I think this should happen as a matter of course and not require any petitions for restoration of rights, pardons, etc. If a man can't be trusted to buy and carry a gun, he ought not be released from prison. And certainly not after 45 days.
I think a rich liberal is no less entitled to his rights than a poor conservative or middle class libertarian.
It sounds like he committed a very serious crime that probably should have drawn more than 45 days in jail.
On the other hand, has he ever re-offended? If not, it appears the jail time served the purpose of changing behavior (rehabilitation) which I think is one of the most important functions of jail. It is human nature to want revenge. I'm not so sure how much good that actually serves. Some retributive justice is appropriate but kind of theoretical. Protecting society from criminals, and persuading those criminals to change their conduct to respect others' rights methinks are the most important, most valid reasons for punishment. Acting as a deterrence against others who might be inclined to the same criminal conduct is also valuable. Recompensing the victim in whatever way possible is also a fine idea, but almost never happens.
Bottom line, whatever the guy did was some 25 years ago and it looks like he has a clean record since. His political and social views really should have no bearing on this. Fundamentally I believe in repentance (change) and redemption. I do not believe in lifetime scarlet letters. While these are religious beliefs for me, I believe that in total, our nation believes the same thing from a more secular perspective.
Yes, actions have consequences and price must be paid. But having paid the prescribed price (even if it was a substandard price at the time) and having gone on to live a law-abiding life for decades since, the government should no longer be placing limits on his exercise of fundamental rights. He can speak freely, assemble, have access to an attorney, can assert his 4th and 5th amendment rights. In a growing number of jurisdictions he can vote and/or run for and hold public office. Do we, of all people, really want to be part of suggesting that the 2nd amendment is a 2nd class right that can be infringed when all other rights are operative?
My only hesitation is that it is a shame he might get something most others with very similar life stories don't get simply because he can afford the lawyers and publicity.
Charles
I think this should happen as a matter of course and not require any petitions for restoration of rights, pardons, etc. If a man can't be trusted to buy and carry a gun, he ought not be released from prison. And certainly not after 45 days.
I think a rich liberal is no less entitled to his rights than a poor conservative or middle class libertarian.
It sounds like he committed a very serious crime that probably should have drawn more than 45 days in jail.
On the other hand, has he ever re-offended? If not, it appears the jail time served the purpose of changing behavior (rehabilitation) which I think is one of the most important functions of jail. It is human nature to want revenge. I'm not so sure how much good that actually serves. Some retributive justice is appropriate but kind of theoretical. Protecting society from criminals, and persuading those criminals to change their conduct to respect others' rights methinks are the most important, most valid reasons for punishment. Acting as a deterrence against others who might be inclined to the same criminal conduct is also valuable. Recompensing the victim in whatever way possible is also a fine idea, but almost never happens.
Bottom line, whatever the guy did was some 25 years ago and it looks like he has a clean record since. His political and social views really should have no bearing on this. Fundamentally I believe in repentance (change) and redemption. I do not believe in lifetime scarlet letters. While these are religious beliefs for me, I believe that in total, our nation believes the same thing from a more secular perspective.
Yes, actions have consequences and price must be paid. But having paid the prescribed price (even if it was a substandard price at the time) and having gone on to live a law-abiding life for decades since, the government should no longer be placing limits on his exercise of fundamental rights. He can speak freely, assemble, have access to an attorney, can assert his 4th and 5th amendment rights. In a growing number of jurisdictions he can vote and/or run for and hold public office. Do we, of all people, really want to be part of suggesting that the 2nd amendment is a 2nd class right that can be infringed when all other rights are operative?
My only hesitation is that it is a shame he might get something most others with very similar life stories don't get simply because he can afford the lawyers and publicity.
Charles
OC for ME
Regular Member
There is a different thread re this rehabilitation issue. When a citizen "pays" his debt to "society" he must not be disbarred his rights. "Prison" is not a institution that rehabilitates, the facts are clear on this. Who are we to prejudge? Hold to account for acts that have been committed.
I view a citizen who has several citations for speeding as not qualified for further operation of a motor vehicle on our public roads.
I view a citizen who has several citations for speeding as not qualified for further operation of a motor vehicle on our public roads.
papa bear
Regular Member
Wheres the vote for , I DON"T care.
really i don't care
really i don't care
The less you care about other Americans retaining their rights, the less you care about your own.
So many people have given their lives so you can vote. So you can have your guns. So you can be free.
And you describe your feelings as "really i don't care". Because someone cared enough about someone they didn't know, enough that they gave their lives.
You have more rights in this country than anywhere else. And you don't care.
The less you care about other Americans retaining their rights, the less you care about your own.
So many people have given their lives so you can vote. So you can have your guns. So you can be free.
And you describe your feelings as "really i don't care". Because someone cared enough about someone they didn't know, enough that they gave their lives.
You have more rights in this country than anywhere else. And you don't care.
It is soooo much easier to not care. By not caring, you only have to do nothing. :shocker:
papa bear
Regular Member
The less you care about other Americans retaining their rights, the less you care about your own.
So many people have given their lives so you can vote. So you can have your guns. So you can be free.
And you describe your feelings as "really i don't care". Because someone cared enough about someone they didn't know, enough that they gave their lives.
You have more rights in this country than anywhere else. And you don't care.
No you don't understand. I do not care what happens to Mark Wahlberg. he could get hit by a bus. I would say So What
OC for ME
Regular Member
MW's victim "pardons" MW...did not know who he was back then.
utbagpiper
Banned
That our "justice" system fails to achieve (some of) its stated goals should not be a mortgage on the rights of our citizens. More bluntly, government incompetence should not be an excuse to infringe on fundamental rights. If a man is entitled to walk the streets unsupervised, he is entitled to exercise his rights...ALL of his rights.
I view a citizen who has several citations for speeding as not qualified for further operation of a motor vehicle on our public roads.
If one wishes to look at "clear facts" on a subject we could discuss what facts actually say about different speeding tickets, but last time I checked, speeding tickets issued on rural highways and on access controlled interstates with arbitrary limits posted well below the engineering 70th percentile have just about zero correlation to creating hazards for others. But that is really an entirely different discussion since operating a motor vehicle on public roads has never been recognized as the kind of fundamental right protected by and enumerated in Constitutional language such as the 1st and 2nd amendment, nor the right to vote, etc.
Fundamental rights (RKBA, religion, speech, peaceful assembly, voting, freedom from unreasonable/warrantless search and seizure) must be given the highest level of deference. Privileges such as driving get a lower level of regard and are more easily suspended or forfeited.
Charles
Should he be pardoned? Hmmm. I don't know. Ok, he did the crime and he did the time. But not counting what he has done for the community, what has he done to make good with the two men he assailed? If one has a permanent impairment, what has Mark done to compensate for that?
If he has done nothing to compensate for what he has done, then by all means, no. For either of the men, did Mark even bother to apologize? Not in public, but in private? If it's in public, it's just a game for attention. He gets the public praise for an act that truly to be compensible, should be in private.
If he has done nothing to compensate for what he has done, then by all means, no. For either of the men, did Mark even bother to apologize? Not in public, but in private? If it's in public, it's just a game for attention. He gets the public praise for an act that truly to be compensible, should be in private.
JoeSparky
Centurion
Agreed, and adding--- it shouldn't matter what his name, race, creed, religion or non-religion, wealth or poverty.
Personally, IMO, the law that prohibits anyone, Mark Wahlburg or any other person, from possession of a firearm as a result of an act committed as a juvenile who thereafter has a 25 year history of NOT even being arrested for an accusation of a crime should be able to legally own, possess, buy, sell, carry, or acquire a firearm!
Seems to me that some of the "voices" agains Mr. Wahlburg are coming from jealosy (another form of bigotry) of his success as an actor and perceptions of wealth. We as a society have been to long divided by these false devisions.
This ^^ is what happens when folks (not just JoeSparky) drift away from the specific towards the theoretical.
How about you try reading this? http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/gun-control-where-do-stars-stand-on-firearms/mark-wahlberg-6/
And now he wants to be a Reserve Cop so he can be one of the Only Ones. Real consistency of beliefs there.
stay safe.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I agree without reservation.
Not sure where you are going with this.
That little smiley has a hover pop-up. The disbarment of rights for past transgressions is nothing but prejudgement, thinking you will...never mind...
davidmcbeth
Banned
I saw on TV that he wants to be a cop in some reservist capacity.
See, he just wants to do some service to the community.
If hired or accepted, perhaps he'll volunteer for the China Town district.
See, he just wants to do some service to the community.
If hired or accepted, perhaps he'll volunteer for the China Town district.
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
I obviously don't agree with his views on gun ownership, among other things, but when asked about other Hollywood stars comparing their jobs to deployed special ops groups downrange, it was especially gratifying listening to him curse out the Hollywood armchair elitists
What I don't understand is how MW is exempt from federal law. As a felon he is prohibited from using a firearm. Some of the training he has taken requires the use of a firearm and live ammo. So not only is he committing felony possession & use, but those training him either have no idea how to do a background check or they are co-conspirators.
You or I would get 4+ years in federal prison, along with either a concurrent or consecutive sentence for the equivalent state charges as well. He gets a paycheck and prestige, instead.
You or I would get 4+ years in federal prison, along with either a concurrent or consecutive sentence for the equivalent state charges as well. He gets a paycheck and prestige, instead.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
This is the correct answer. You win the thread.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Um, non sequitur alert. Wahlberg isn't seeking restoration of rights (he doesn't need a pardon for that). He's hoping to use his name recognition to be granted retroactive exoneration for a real, serious crime.
Sure, let the man carry guns. Who cares? He doesn't appear to care enough to do so, anyway. But don't let him own a clean record; that would be fraud.
Last edited: