Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 351

Thread: Someone Convicted Of A Felony Or Violent Crime

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Should someone previously convicted of a felony or violent crime be able to carry?

    My answer may cause you to fall out of your chair, but I say "yes".

    I see it this way:

    If they're so dangerous to society that they shouldn't be permitted to carry, why are they out of jail?

    Which of the following will be stopped by this law: Someone who was convicted, served their time and learned a lesson, or someone who was convicted, served their time and still don't give a flip about laws?



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    My simple response, don't let them out. They didn't learn to play well with others, prevent them from doing so.

    Now to realistic speak, I am of two minds on this topic. First, you have a person who has shown that he or she is willing to "take" rights away from others. It seems reasonable to me to subsequently "take" rights away from them.

    Now for a realistic view, given subsequent good behavior after the non-rehabilitation experienced in the clink, restore their rights. Given recidivism, keep the rights away.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    Why are they let out of jail?

    Well, in the case of California, because they can't afford to keep people in prison anymore.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Seriously, I can see someone making a mistake, serving their time, and coming out on the other side a responsible human being with a lesson learned. It truly does happen all the time. Most people make mistakes in their youth, and I don't think they should be punished for youthful ignorance for the rest of their life if they learned their lesson.

    Those that didn't learn their lesson consider themselves outside of the law and aren't affected by it anyway except to become repeat offenders and re-incarcerated.

    If someone has one offense under their belt, serves their time, serves their probation and society never hears from them again, they should have the same access to 2nd Amendment rights as the rest of us. They have become one of us, after all.

    Even with repeat offenders, although I may say it with a sour taste in my mouth, principles dictate that I must say "yes". The bottom line is that every FREE citizen in America has an inalienable 2nd Amendment right. That right should be denied to NO free citizen. If one is free, that right should be theirs.

    Whether or not one should be free is an entirely different argument.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Pamiam wrote:
    Seriously, I can see someone making a mistake, serving their time, and coming out on the other side a responsible human being with a lesson learned. It truly does happen all the time. Most people make mistakes in their youth, and I don't think they should be punished for youthful ignorance for the rest of their life if they learned their lesson.

    Those that didn't learn their lesson consider themselves outside of the law and aren't affected by it anyway except to become repeat offenders and re-incarcerated.

    If someone has one offense under their belt, serves their time, serves their probation and society never hears from them again, they should have the same access to 2nd Amendment rights as the rest of us. They have become one of us, after all.
    Those people can get rights restored if they choose to pursue it. The ones who are hosed are those convicted of a misdemeanor DV charge, and those committed to a mental institution. They are pretty much completely stripped of their 2nd amendment right. I see that as a focal point more than rights of felons. Felons who do not repeat are already (partly, depending upon degree of felony) able to get restoration. The others aren't.

    The part that makes Right removal ok in my eyes is that portion of Right where exercise harms another. A person who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime is likely "harming" another, thus negating his/her exercise as an example of a "right."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    The effect is you're asking the government to release their control and authority over ex-felons. That's all it's about. As has been said elsewhere, if you set the bar low enough, everyone becomes a felon in one form or another.

    Something else to consider, there are a few people who are sent to jail despite their innocence. I know someone who within the past couple years was sent to juvenile hall because her own mother wrote bad checks and then blamed her for it.

    Our justice system is better than a lot of other systems out there, but it is by no means the best nor is it perfect.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Those people can get rights restored if they choose to pursue it. The ones who are hosed are those convicted of a misdemeanor DV charge, and those committed to a mental institution. They are pretty much completely stripped of their 2nd amendment right. I see that as a focal point more than rights of felons. Felons who do not repeat are already (partly, depending upon degree of felony) able to get restoration. The others aren't.
    That's wrong.

    Free people enjoy inherent rights, simply by the fact that they are free people. The concept that one must pursue rights is wrong. When did American start confusing inalienable rights with political privilege?


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Pamiam wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Those people can get rights restored if they choose to pursue it. The ones who are hosed are those convicted of a misdemeanor DV charge, and those committed to a mental institution. They are pretty much completely stripped of their 2nd amendment right. I see that as a focal point more than rights of felons. Felons who do not repeat are already (partly, depending upon degree of felony) able to get restoration. The others aren't.
    That's wrong.

    Free people enjoy inherent rights, simply by the fact that they are free people. The concept that one must pursue rights is wrong. When did American start confusing inalienable rights with political privilege?
    When some people choose to infringe upon the rights of others; namely, the rights of victims. Felons have chosen to use their rights to "take" rights away from others. To have a valid society, the rights of the many are more important than the rights of those who do not honor the rights of the many.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote
    When some people choose to infringe upon the rights of others; namely, the rights of victims. Felons have chosen to use their rights to "take" rights away from others. To have a valid society, the rights of the many are more important than the rights of those who do not honor the rights of the many.
    That's why we have a justice system. When people come out on the other side of it, they are again FREE citizens.

    Please let's not advocate stripping free citizens of their inherent inalienable rights. If they're still so bad that they insist upon depriving fellow free citizens of their own rights, they should not be free. There is no in-between.

    ALL citizens are either free citizens or they are not, and ALL FREE CITIZENS have inalienable rights.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Pamiam wrote:
    wrightme wrote
    When some people choose to infringe upon the rights of others; namely, the rights of victims. Felons have chosen to use their rights to "take" rights away from others. To have a valid society, the rights of the many are more important than the rights of those who do not honor the rights of the many.
    That's why we have a justice system. When people come out on the other side of it, they are again FREE citizens.

    Please let's not advocate stripping free citizens of their inherent inalienable rights. If they're still so bad that they insist upon depriving fellow free citizens of their own rights, they should not be free. There is no in-between.

    ALL citizens are either free citizens or they are not, and ALL FREE CITIZENS have inalienable rights all the way up until the time they relinquish them and become prisoners (or die).
    But that isn't the way our system works. They get released because there are simply too many of them to keep them locked up.
    Don't forget that once released, they are not automatically "free." They must report to parole & probation for a period in most cases, AND report movement for life. They aren't "free."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    But that isn't the way our system works.
    That's the point.

    Again, the bottom line is that all free citizens have inherent inalienable rights.

    If someone is so detrimental to society that they chronically work to strip others of their rights, they shouldn't be free.

    Again, all free citizens have inherent inalienable rights. If anyone sees any gray lines there, you're putting your own rights as a free citizen at risk.

    Our goal as citizens is to carve those lines in stone. Let's help each other work toward it.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Pamiam wrote:
    But that isn't the way our system works.
    That's the point.

    Again, the bottom line is that all free citizens have inherent inalienable rights.

    If someone is so detrimental to society that they chronically work to strip others of their rights, they shouldn't be free.

    Again, all free citizens have inherent inalienable rights. If anyone sees any gray lines there, you're putting your own rights as a free citizen at risk.

    Our goal as citizens is to carve those lines in stone. Let's help each other work toward it.

    I will again point to my comment that "they are not free." They are only no longer incarcerated.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    I will again point to my comment that "they are not free." They are only no longer incarcerated.
    That makes sense like lug nuts on birthday cake.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Pamiam wrote:
    Should someone previously convicted of a felony or violent crime be able to carry?
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony', even to mere allegations of PTSD, or the Alzheimer's that curses your opponent.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Pamiam's got it.

    Carry on

  16. #16
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post


    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    I say if someone commits a crime serious enough to be denied the right to vote, you should be denied the rest of your rights, and just be glad you live in The U.S., and if ya don't like that, then we'll just ship your Ass off to some mountain top in Pakistan..

    If you've been wronged by the legal system, then pursue it, and prove it wrong, if someone doesn't have the fortitudeand moxy to stand up for themselves till their dying days, then they will be trampled!!

    If someone in particular in the legal system sets you up for what would be a felony or knowingly leaves you in a position of blame or framing you for something that will destroy your life and personal credentials, then Plain and simple!!(Take away their Birthday)..



    There's too many Variants for "(something foolish done in their youth)" to be able to discount all violations as the same, so no matter how you slice it there will be some that should never be allowed to see the light of day ever!!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    If you have served your time, ALL of your rights should be restored.

    If we cannot let you back out into society, if you cannot be trusted around guns, children, ect, you should still be behind bars.

    If we had this, we would no longer need background checks on any firearms transaction, background checks for jobs, ect.

    But hey, I can dream.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Carnivore wrote:
    I say if someone commits a crime serious enough to be denied the right to vote, you should be denied the rest of your rights, and just be glad you live in The U.S., and if ya don't like that, then we'll just ship your Ass off to some mountain top in Pakistan..

    If you've been wronged by the legal system, then pursue it, and prove it wrong, if someone doesn't have the fortitudeand moxy to stand up for themselves till their dying days, then they will be trampled!!

    If someone in particular in the legal system sets you up for what would be a felony or knowingly leaves you in a position of blame or framing you for something that will destroy your life and personal credentials, then Plain and simple!!(Take away their Birthday)..



    There's too many Variants for "(something foolish done in their youth)" to be able to discount all violations as the same, so no matter how you slice it there will be some that should never be allowed to see the light of day ever!!
    Sorry, but this is a foolish statement. This kind of thing costs a lot of TIME and MONEY. You are going up against the government which has pretty much unlimited funds. Yes, people should strive for it, but it isn't easy or cheap - which is NOT fair to someone who was wronged.

    We have members of this very board who prosecutors tried to railroad for legally open carrying, thank god they had enough money to afford a good lawyer and weren't stuck with overworked "public defenders"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    If you feel that time served = all is forgiven, then how would you feel about an unregistered sex offender teaching your daughter in an after school Ballet class?

    and then going down to the local youth community game room and seeing the same unregistered sex offender driving the community commuter buss to take the kids back home at 11:00 pm after the game room has closed..

    And how about voting the collector of your county seat from a list of recent releases from thefederal pen.after serving time for embezlement..

    Or better yet vote or hire in the position of Community fire chief a man/woman who so foolishly in their youth was sent to JUVY Hall for burning down three old vacant buildings in the little town of Barely doo and innocently enough the fire spread to three more structures, that were inhabited, but what the heck, the folks got out alive, and they had insurance on the belongings and structure, soNo Harm/No Foul !!??

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    There's too many Variants for "(something foolish done in their youth)" to be able to discount all violations as the same, so no matter how you slice it there will be some that should never be allowed to see the light of day ever!!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Pamiam wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    I will again point to my comment that "they are not free." They are only no longer incarcerated.
    That makes sense like lug nuts on birthday cake.
    Really? Do you believe that someone who is released from prison for a felony conviction is free? Do you believe that simply because they are now released from prison that they have changed, and will assimilate without recidivism? What gauge will you use to measure the danger they may or may not present to others?
    Sure there will be those who "made a mistake," and will not revert to a life of taking rights from others. Who decides?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Stick to your guns, pamiam.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    marine77 wrote:
    Stick to your guns, pamiam.
    Yep and keep your gun stuck to you! It's not really worth arguing about whether felons can have guns or not, most of them probably won't abide by that little nonsense rule anyway, and with Obama in the whitehouse, we'll be able to witness first hand real soon..

    Hopefully all the nonviolent corporate theives will be released first so they can figure how to rip off tens of thousands of peoples retirementsagain.. those folks didn't commit voilent crimes either, but they destroyed millions of lives with basicallyjust the whisp of a pen..

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Isn't it strange, that if you use a gun to commit a crime, you are banned from guns.
    But if you use money to commit a crime, you are not banned from money.

    Just one more example of the stupidity of our government.
    The only real valid argument for the felons having guns, is that our beloved masters
    have made just about everything a felony.


Page 1 of 15 12311 ... 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
  •