Well, it was bound to happen

Dustin · Jul 21, 2008

imported post

tracylaud83 wrote:

I deal with inmates at the Fed Pen. The thought of ANY of these guys ever carring a gun is a really bad idea....

I don't think he's arguing for them to Carry, I think he means In House Only.

I say they should not be allowed to OC/CC, depending on their crime.

asforme · Jul 21, 2008

imported post

Dustin wrote:

tracylaud83 wrote:

I deal with inmates at the Fed Pen. The thought of ANY of these guys ever carring a gun is a really bad idea....

Click to expand...

I don't think he's arguing for them to Carry, I think he means In House Only.

I say they should not be allowed to OC/CC, depending on their crime.

No, I think they should be able to carry.

If you are afraid of this person carrying a gun, then it means you must be afraid of them committing a violent crime with a gun. Well, there is no need for a gun to commit a violent crime, especially after having first hand training in improvised weapon making via our prison system.

If the person is dangerous to society with a gun on their hip, they are dangerous to our society period and should be locked up. If they have paid their debt to society and are no longer considered dangerous, then they are no longer dangerous. What tools they are allowed to possess or carry does not change that.

compmanio365 · Jul 21, 2008

imported post

asforme wrote:

Dustin wrote:

tracylaud83 wrote:

I deal with inmates at the Fed Pen. The thought of ANY of these guys ever carring a gun is a really bad idea....

Click to expand...

I don't think he's arguing for them to Carry, I think he means In House Only.

I say they should not be allowed to OC/CC, depending on their crime.

Click to expand...

No, I think they should be able to carry.

If you are afraid of this person carrying a gun, then it means you must be afraid of them committing a violent crime with a gun. Well, there is no need for a gun to commit a violent crime, especially after having first hand training in improvised weapon making via our prison system.

If the person is dangerous to society with a gun on their hip, they are dangerous to our society period and should be locked up. If they have paid their debt to society and are no longer considered dangerous, then they are no longer dangerous. What tools they are allowed to possess or carry does not change that.

And as we have seen time and time again, making a law that bars felons from having firearms does NOT prevent these people from obtaining a firearm if they so choose. The truly violent or determined ex-felons WILL obtain a firearm illegally and commit violence against other people yet again.....so the best defense to this is to make sure you and your loved ones are armed to defend against such things.

Removing the rights of those that have been "rehabilitated" and have been released from jail does nothing to enhance the safety of the community or the people around them, despite what those who enforce such laws would have you believe.......

tracylaud83 · Jul 21, 2008

imported post

As many GOOD discussions in this forum.

You have given some very good points and actually have me re-thinking my position.

"A debt paid, is paid in full"

A lenient judge is not the criminals fault, and re-offenders due get punished harder.

(Something for me to think about)

rodbender · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

Has any of you taken into account that most of these people are hothead macho types. They are the kind that will escalate not de-escalate an argument. They will refuse to back down from a fight for fear of being called a coward. This is how the gunfights in the street were started back in the "OLD WEST". While it didn't happen often, it did happen on occasion. If this were to become a problem today, we would all be criminals because they would eventually outlaw guns and we would refuse to give them up. Can't you imagine the anti's and the news media having a blast with this one.

"Gunfight over a parking spot, more at 11" "WE TOLD YOU SO"

"Showdown at Wal-mart over a shopping cart, film at 6" "WE TOLD YOU SO"

"Shoot out on I- 35 at 90 MPH, after this brief message." "WE TOLD YOU SO"

GREATHEADLINES TO HELPOUR CAUSE, DON'T YOU THINK?

builtjeep · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

once again, if these people are so prone to violence, they shouldn't be getting out of jail.

I'm of the belief that anyone who enjoys NOT being in prison would NOT get themselves into such situations.

Doug Huffman · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

So much for principle.

Do you allow your enemies' perceptions to control your actions too?

thx997303 · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

These people escalate situations with their illegally held guns already.

I don't care if they have a gun or not, I will be polite and try to de-escalate situations as I do now. If not, he will probably need that extra second to draw the illegally concealed weapon, whereas I will not.

Let them have the guns, they will have them anyway.

But me and my guns will be defending myself and my loved ones.

.40 Cal · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Has any of you taken into account that most of these people are hothead macho types. They are the kind that will escalate not de-escalate an argument. They will refuse to back down from a fight for fear of being called a coward. This is how the gunfights in the street were started back in the "OLD WEST". While it didn't happen often, it did happen on occasion. If this were to become a problem today, we would all be criminals because they would eventually outlaw guns and we would refuse to give them up. Can't you imagine the anti's and the news media having a blast with this one.

"Gunfight over a parking spot, more at 11" "WE TOLD YOU SO"

"Showdown at Wal-mart over a shopping cart, film at 6" "WE TOLD YOU SO"

"Shoot out on I- 35 at 90 MPH, after this brief message." "WE TOLD YOU SO"

GREATHEADLINES TO HELPOUR CAUSE, DON'T YOU THINK?

I'd have to disagree with you here. "Hothead macho" types will escalate when they think they have the upper hand. If more people had guns we would see these guys think twice before escalating in fear that their precious lives may be at risk. This is why the level of violence that is prevalent in big cities is not so in smaller cities or rural towns where gun ownership is the standard, not the exception. Prior to this discussion, I had my reservations aboutsome felons owning guns. If we start determining which ones can get guns and which ones can't, won't we be doing the same as Chicago and DC have done for the past few decades? I have no problem with more people owning guns because, as we all know, "An armed society is a polite society." If they come armed, I'll be ready.

Citizen · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

Here is a column by Don Kates on rights of felons to guns. Some good info. Here is an excerpt:

The amendment guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" - and the Founding Fathers did not think "the people" included criminals. Under the law as they knew it, felons were "civilly dead": They had no legal rights whatever. All their property (including guns) was forfeit. (Moreover, they were subject to execution - which made their rights irrelevant.)

Link tocolumn at NewYorkPost.com: http://tinyurl.com/6qlmeh

I learned about it from David Hardy's blog at www.armsandthelaw.com

unreconstructed1 · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

Citizen wrote:

The amendment guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" - and the Founding Fathers did not think "the people" included criminals. Under the law as they knew it, felons were "civilly dead": They had no legal rights whatever. All their property (including guns) was forfeit. (Moreover, they were subject to execution - which made their rights irrelevant.)

but who are the "felons"? in the founders time, many of the crimes that are now classified as felonies weren't even criminal.

the constitution didn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it only enumerated it, therefore,the foundershad no right to decide who was "worthy" of that right. the right of self determination and self preservation is a basic human right. therefore, teh only qualification for being endowed with that right should be being human.

as others have said, if someone is such a threat with a gun, then they are a threat without a gun.

tattedupboy · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

If the 2nd amendment were not to apply to felons, it would say:

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. This shall not preclude Congress or the statesfrom passing legislation denying this right to persons who have been convicted of a felony.

Since the Second Amendment does not say this, however, the Supreme Court ruling on this (looked for it but can't find it and I don't remember the name of the case) in the 80s upholding the federal ban on felon firearm possession was wrongly decided. I don't know about most of you, but the idea of a dangerous felon legally being in possession of a firearm makes me uncomfortable, but until the constitution is amended to change that, the law is technically unconstitutional. I would support an amendment to do this, but is is highly unlikely that such an amendment would ever even come up, let alone pass.

asforme · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

Citizen wrote:

The amendment guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" - and the Founding Fathers did not think "the people" included criminals. Under the law as they knew it, felons were "civilly dead": They had no legal rights whatever. All their property (including guns) was forfeit. (Moreover, they were subject to execution - which made their rights irrelevant.)

By this conclusion I have to say this applies only to criminals currently incarcerated. Once someone is out of prison, they can own property again and they are no longer subject to execution. I don't believe that the founding fathers ever intended for a past criminal to be a lower class of citizen even after his debts were paid.

murphy2 · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

I feelwhen a convicted felon has paid his dues to society there rights should be restored. With exceptions. 1. No guns for murders. 2. No guns for rapist. 3. No guns for conviction of armed robbery. That being said,criminals willgetguns anyway.

But if they would execute murders, rapist and not make it so hard on the good people to defend whats there's, we wouldn't have A big % of these crimes. I also feel that it would be very easy to be arrested and turned into a felon, thus loosing your rights. I do not fear having armed felons running around, they are thereanyway. I believe people need to not be targets for crime.

But loosing your rightsof self defence because you failed to pay taxes or your "assault weapon" broke and fires more than one round at a trigger pull. Or youare to vocal against a politician.Then your at the mercy of legislating judges. It is way to easy forgovernment to make you a felon in this country.

SDguy · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

In days past when a cowboy was released from the Arizona State Pen after serving his time he was handed his six gun and the gates were opened for him.

Anyone know when, how and why that was changed? A little history here may be of value.

I don't know the answer, I am just pointing out the change and asking what happened.

However, my reading of the constitution is that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. However, I think that some rights can be lost or taken away due to misuse.

thorvaldr · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

SDguy wrote:

In days past when a cowboy was released from the Arizona State Pen after serving his time he was handed his six gun and the gates were opened for him.

Anyone know when, how and why that was changed? A little history here may be of value.

I don't know the answer, I am just pointing out the change and asking what happened.

However, my reading of the constitution is that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. However, I think that some rights can be lost or taken away due to misuse.

Among other things, the Gun Control act of 1968 prohibited convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts, minors, mentally ill people, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, undocumented immigrants and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship from buying or owning a gun

murphy2 · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

If they where handed there guns back, probably due to the nature of the west at the time. Indian attack, horse thieves and such. People would like to think times have changed and we're more "civilized" now. I do not agree with that line of thought. But to send a man out into the desert in the 1800 and early 1900s unarmed was a death sentence for sure. If you lost your horse you where on foot miles from no where. This is why horse thieves where shot or hung. They where a deferent breed of people back then. LEO (if such there was)of the times where a lot braver,the people where less tolerant of stupidity and crime. Safety was what you made for yourself as far as you could shoot straight. I personally don't think people where shooting each other in the streets every day. I am sure it hasn'tchanged inpercentage ofREALcrime with regards to population. If anything it's probably worse. It was a totally deferent world with real men and fewer cowards. Not having met them, I miss them.

tracylaud83 · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

So much for principle.

Do you allow your enemies' perceptions to control your actions too?

I did not say I changed my mind.

I said that people were bringing up good points, and I had to re-think my position.

Iwould hope that everyone is not so set in their ways, that they never learn and re-think their positions.

The day I stop learning and growing as a person, is the day (second) I die....

UTOC-45-44 · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

Ohio Patriot wrote:

The law barring felons from keeping and bearing arms is ludicrous. If you're a felon, and you've served your time, all of your rights should be restored.

I agree 100% with you, Ohio Patriot.That's the way it was when the Constitution was written and should be now too.

Just my .40

UTOC-45-44 · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

SDguy wrote:

In days past when a cowboy was released from the Arizona State Pen after serving his time he was handed his six gun and the gates were opened for him.

Anyone know when, how and why that was changed? A little history here may be of value.

I don't know the answer, I am just pointing out the change and asking what happened.

However, my reading of the constitution is that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. However, I think that some rights can be lost or taken away due to misuse.

========================

In days past when a cowboy was released from the Arizona State Pen after serving his time he was handed his six gun and the gates were opened for him.

That's right. The main purpose for that was..........you got it, Self-protection. Self-defense.

However, that's how they also got food.

TJ

Well, it was bound to happen

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member