NightOwl
Regular Member
imported post
WishI knew, not even sure where to start to get good effect.
WishI knew, not even sure where to start to get good effect.
-
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.
Someone Convicted Of A Felony Or Violent Crime
- Thread starter Pamiam
- Start date
Pamiam
Regular Member
imported post
Carnivore wrote:
You seem to be assuming that these people required firearms to sexually offend, commit arson and/or embezzle. You lost me there. Firearms have nothing to do with any of that.
Would I appreciate any one of them who served their time and were out in the world as free men defending my daughter's life against an attacker? You bet I would.
Do I think they should be able to defend their own as free men? You bet I do.
See how that works?
There are people out here who were convicted decades ago and have never offended again who cannot own/carry. There are people who were convicted of misdemeanors who cannot carry. How long before it's a traffic citation?
I see this as the most dangerous form of gun control because it's the one with which most people agree automatically without any rational thought. This decision is made on what-if's, as illustrated so well in this thread.
I have a couple of questions for you:
- How do you figure that repeat offenders who do not obey laws against rape, arson and/or embezzlement would obey a firearms law and therefore would not have access to guns?
- Who, exactly, do you think these particular laws actually affect? Do you honestly think they make so much of a difference to chronic sex offenders, arsonists and embezzlers that truly repentant free-men who made a mistake and paid restitution, never to offend again, should be denied their rights for the rest of their lives?
Carnivore wrote:
Let's not mistake me for one who would put my daughter under the care of a known UNarmed sex offender.
You seem to be assuming that these people required firearms to sexually offend, commit arson and/or embezzle. You lost me there. Firearms have nothing to do with any of that.
Would I appreciate any one of them who served their time and were out in the world as free men defending my daughter's life against an attacker? You bet I would.
Do I think they should be able to defend their own as free men? You bet I do.
See how that works?
There are people out here who were convicted decades ago and have never offended again who cannot own/carry. There are people who were convicted of misdemeanors who cannot carry. How long before it's a traffic citation?
I see this as the most dangerous form of gun control because it's the one with which most people agree automatically without any rational thought. This decision is made on what-if's, as illustrated so well in this thread.
I have a couple of questions for you:
- How do you figure that repeat offenders who do not obey laws against rape, arson and/or embezzlement would obey a firearms law and therefore would not have access to guns?
- Who, exactly, do you think these particular laws actually affect? Do you honestly think they make so much of a difference to chronic sex offenders, arsonists and embezzlers that truly repentant free-men who made a mistake and paid restitution, never to offend again, should be denied their rights for the rest of their lives?
Pamiam
Regular Member
imported post
Double post - please remove.
Double post - please remove.
imported post
Well... the choice is pretty simple for me.
Read the Bill of Rights as it's worded. No exlusion in the 2nd amendment against criminals, blacks, children, women, mentally challenged, etc.
All FREE men should be allowed to own firearms.
A child who happens to be under the care of a man/woman who got caught drunkenly urinating in public can and probably will lose their 2nd amendment rights for life. This child will have to grow up in a defenseless home due to a victimless felony.
Plenty of scenarios like this...
If the judicial system feels someone is "good" enough to walk the streets and be released from prison, they SHOULD have their rights reinstated.
Would I like only responsible and certain people to own firearms? Absolutely, but i'm willing to put my FEELINGS aside and follow the Bill of Rights as it reads.
This is why we own firearms, to deal with tyrants, those who intend to harm us, and any other reason we as individuals see fit.
ANY form of gun control, no matter how small, is considered an infringement of the 2nd amendment and is not acceptable. Background checks, fees, etc. all are unconstitutional, but peoples feelings have turned the constitution into a joke.
If we do not feel someone should have the rights of a free man, that person should stay in prison.
I'm not advocating giving criminals a gun when they're walking out of prison, i'm advocating giving all free men equal rights.
As ol' Benny Franklin once said... "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty".
Well... the choice is pretty simple for me.
Read the Bill of Rights as it's worded. No exlusion in the 2nd amendment against criminals, blacks, children, women, mentally challenged, etc.
All FREE men should be allowed to own firearms.
A child who happens to be under the care of a man/woman who got caught drunkenly urinating in public can and probably will lose their 2nd amendment rights for life. This child will have to grow up in a defenseless home due to a victimless felony.
Plenty of scenarios like this...
If the judicial system feels someone is "good" enough to walk the streets and be released from prison, they SHOULD have their rights reinstated.
Would I like only responsible and certain people to own firearms? Absolutely, but i'm willing to put my FEELINGS aside and follow the Bill of Rights as it reads.
This is why we own firearms, to deal with tyrants, those who intend to harm us, and any other reason we as individuals see fit.
ANY form of gun control, no matter how small, is considered an infringement of the 2nd amendment and is not acceptable. Background checks, fees, etc. all are unconstitutional, but peoples feelings have turned the constitution into a joke.
If we do not feel someone should have the rights of a free man, that person should stay in prison.
I'm not advocating giving criminals a gun when they're walking out of prison, i'm advocating giving all free men equal rights.
As ol' Benny Franklin once said... "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty".
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
BhmBill wrote:
How do you figure?
BhmBill wrote:
How do you figure?
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
What victim is there from someone urinating on a sidewalk? Give me a break. :quirky
What victim is there from someone urinating on a sidewalk? Give me a break. :quirky
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
Arguably the public health.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Unrinating in public is a felony!!! Learn something new every day. I will certainly have to be more careful from now on.
Unrinating in public is a felony!!! Learn something new every day. I will certainly have to be more careful from now on.
Pagan
Regular Member
imported post
When did urinating in public become a felony? Disgusting and rude yes, but a serious threat to public safety, no. Urine as it is passed is sterile, and was once used to wash clothes and can still be used to cleanse wounds in an emergency, just read the SAS survivial handbook. Not very appealing I agree. .Now if 2 million people were to all at once begin urinating in some towns drinking water supply, that could be a problem, maybe.
But let's just put this into some perspective. Just about everybody involved in the gun rights issue on our side at some point scream about how Hitler banned guns in Nazi Germany and what not. Which is acutally very far from the truth, the Nazi government actually loosened the restrictions on firearm ownership and usage after Hitler took office, the National Socialist form of gun control was not my idea of freedom but it was hands down less prohibitive than the former governments laws and restrictions, I have a whole book of both pre Nazi government guns laws and laws that were changed and or done away with after Hitler came to be elected to office. Don't everybody start flipping out on me, I'm just stating fact, not condoning National Socialism or anything.
My point is, that in Nazi germany, once a prisoner was released from prison,AND had completed his/her parole, they were granted ALL rights restored, even firearm rights in NAZI Germany of all places! Now mind you that in Nazi Germany rape and murder and crimes against children like rape and molestation were capital offenses, say what you will about the Nazi's but they delt with sex criminals the way I would deal with sex criminals, public executions!
Like already posted, if a man or woman is OK to be allowed on the street than ALL rights should be granted therein! So if sex criminals were executed the way they should be, then they would not be back on the street, if murderers were executed the way the should be, then they would not be back on the street, same goes fortraitors to the constitution.
When did urinating in public become a felony? Disgusting and rude yes, but a serious threat to public safety, no. Urine as it is passed is sterile, and was once used to wash clothes and can still be used to cleanse wounds in an emergency, just read the SAS survivial handbook. Not very appealing I agree. .Now if 2 million people were to all at once begin urinating in some towns drinking water supply, that could be a problem, maybe.
But let's just put this into some perspective. Just about everybody involved in the gun rights issue on our side at some point scream about how Hitler banned guns in Nazi Germany and what not. Which is acutally very far from the truth, the Nazi government actually loosened the restrictions on firearm ownership and usage after Hitler took office, the National Socialist form of gun control was not my idea of freedom but it was hands down less prohibitive than the former governments laws and restrictions, I have a whole book of both pre Nazi government guns laws and laws that were changed and or done away with after Hitler came to be elected to office. Don't everybody start flipping out on me, I'm just stating fact, not condoning National Socialism or anything.
My point is, that in Nazi germany, once a prisoner was released from prison,AND had completed his/her parole, they were granted ALL rights restored, even firearm rights in NAZI Germany of all places! Now mind you that in Nazi Germany rape and murder and crimes against children like rape and molestation were capital offenses, say what you will about the Nazi's but they delt with sex criminals the way I would deal with sex criminals, public executions!
Like already posted, if a man or woman is OK to be allowed on the street than ALL rights should be granted therein! So if sex criminals were executed the way they should be, then they would not be back on the street, if murderers were executed the way the should be, then they would not be back on the street, same goes fortraitors to the constitution.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
What would happen if everyone got wasted and dropped trou to piss wherever they felt like it?
You don't see a victim because the act is isolated. Extrapolate it a little and then maybe you'll get the idea.
Even the isolated act has victims. How about the community itself? If you had your child out for a walk and this douche nozzle was drunk, exposed, and taking a leak on the sidewalk, would there be a victim then? You're assuming no one was around, so there's no victim in your mind. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound? It's a crime whether there's someone there to be victimized or not. The line must be drawn. Urinating in public is a crime. Exposing yourself in public is a crime. Public intoxication is a crime. Should we wave the crime because you think it's "victimless"since no one is around this time? Should we allow people to drive drunk as long as they don't crash this time? Should I be able to shoot at my neighbors while they walk as long as I don't actually hit them this time?
compmanio365 wrote:
What would happen if everyone got wasted and dropped trou to piss wherever they felt like it?
You don't see a victim because the act is isolated. Extrapolate it a little and then maybe you'll get the idea.
Even the isolated act has victims. How about the community itself? If you had your child out for a walk and this douche nozzle was drunk, exposed, and taking a leak on the sidewalk, would there be a victim then? You're assuming no one was around, so there's no victim in your mind. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound? It's a crime whether there's someone there to be victimized or not. The line must be drawn. Urinating in public is a crime. Exposing yourself in public is a crime. Public intoxication is a crime. Should we wave the crime because you think it's "victimless"since no one is around this time? Should we allow people to drive drunk as long as they don't crash this time? Should I be able to shoot at my neighbors while they walk as long as I don't actually hit them this time?
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Pagan wrote:
And if the world was perfect we wouldn't have problems, and if my Mistu wasa Ferrari I'd be baller... but it isn't and I'm not.
The legal system is broken, so we work with what we have. Even your perfect world, criminals still lose their 2A rights because they're in jail. So we're all in agreement, the 2A isn't unlimited because criminals shouldn't own guns. Now the focus should be on keeping them in jail.
Pagan wrote:
And if the world was perfect we wouldn't have problems, and if my Mistu wasa Ferrari I'd be baller... but it isn't and I'm not.
The legal system is broken, so we work with what we have. Even your perfect world, criminals still lose their 2A rights because they're in jail. So we're all in agreement, the 2A isn't unlimited because criminals shouldn't own guns. Now the focus should be on keeping them in jail.
imported post
Recall that Hitler himself was convicted of sedition against the German state - presumably a felony - and was not barred from having guns. I'm not offering this as an example of why people with records ought to be armed, but to my knowledge, the only person he personally killed with a gun after prison was himself. As for criminals generally under the Reich, they either had draconian standards like summary execution for "deviants" or lax revolving-door-prison policies for theives and such. They needed all their prison space for political offenders.
-ljp
Recall that Hitler himself was convicted of sedition against the German state - presumably a felony - and was not barred from having guns. I'm not offering this as an example of why people with records ought to be armed, but to my knowledge, the only person he personally killed with a gun after prison was himself. As for criminals generally under the Reich, they either had draconian standards like summary execution for "deviants" or lax revolving-door-prison policies for theives and such. They needed all their prison space for political offenders.
-ljp
Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
Pamiam wrote:
At the risk of quoting wikipedia and getting heckled for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony
"A felony may be punishable with imprisonment for one or more years or death in the case of the most serious felonies, such as murder, treason, and espionage; indeed, at common law when the British and American legal systems divorced in 1776, felonies were crimes for which the punishment was either death or forfeiture of property."
The point here, is that a felony was originally a very serious crime, like murder, treason, espionage, rape, punishable by death. Today however, misdemeanors are being reclassified as felonies at an astonishing rate, while politicians and prosecutors beat their chests claiming to be "protecting the people". What they are doing in my view, is imprisoning the largest percentage of the population in the world, ruining lives, draining state funds, and using the evil "felon" label to take away Constitutionally protected rights (i.e. voting, guns).
In Kentucky, not paying child support for so long, or after it accrues to a specific amount (in the $1,000s), is a felony. Is not paying child support a "heinous" crime like murder, or rape, treason or espionage? No, but the issue of beating up deadbeat dads on the public stage during an election sure garnered up alot of votes for somebody in our state. Should deadbeat dads be punished? Absolutely! Should they be a felon for life, and have voting and gun rights abolished? I think you get the point.
Therefore, we need to make a distinction between "heinous" crimes, crimes of violence, & crimes of non-violence, and adjust the removal of rights according to those standards. But the government is not in the business of restoring rights to people, and promoting freedom. Instead, the tendency is to take away rights, take away power, and concentrate it in a bureaucracy; eventually leading up to a oligarchy or dictatorship. This is the natural course of government.
The U.S. needs to reclassify felonies in accordance to their "heinous" nature, and give the non-heinous criminals who have done their time their rights back.
Pamiam wrote:
In my view, it depends on the felony. But first, we need to understand what a felony is in the first place, and how it was originally interpreted.
At the risk of quoting wikipedia and getting heckled for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony
"A felony may be punishable with imprisonment for one or more years or death in the case of the most serious felonies, such as murder, treason, and espionage; indeed, at common law when the British and American legal systems divorced in 1776, felonies were crimes for which the punishment was either death or forfeiture of property."
The point here, is that a felony was originally a very serious crime, like murder, treason, espionage, rape, punishable by death. Today however, misdemeanors are being reclassified as felonies at an astonishing rate, while politicians and prosecutors beat their chests claiming to be "protecting the people". What they are doing in my view, is imprisoning the largest percentage of the population in the world, ruining lives, draining state funds, and using the evil "felon" label to take away Constitutionally protected rights (i.e. voting, guns).
In Kentucky, not paying child support for so long, or after it accrues to a specific amount (in the $1,000s), is a felony. Is not paying child support a "heinous" crime like murder, or rape, treason or espionage? No, but the issue of beating up deadbeat dads on the public stage during an election sure garnered up alot of votes for somebody in our state. Should deadbeat dads be punished? Absolutely! Should they be a felon for life, and have voting and gun rights abolished? I think you get the point.
Therefore, we need to make a distinction between "heinous" crimes, crimes of violence, & crimes of non-violence, and adjust the removal of rights according to those standards. But the government is not in the business of restoring rights to people, and promoting freedom. Instead, the tendency is to take away rights, take away power, and concentrate it in a bureaucracy; eventually leading up to a oligarchy or dictatorship. This is the natural course of government.
The U.S. needs to reclassify felonies in accordance to their "heinous" nature, and give the non-heinous criminals who have done their time their rights back.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Statesman wrote:
Hey, this guy gets it. Change the system and the classifications, not the reasonable regulations. He's just throwing the bathwater out, not the entire neighborhood.
Statesman wrote:
Hey, this guy gets it. Change the system and the classifications, not the reasonable regulations. He's just throwing the bathwater out, not the entire neighborhood.
Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Thanks. This is an issue that has ticked me off for many years now, and I finally have a chance to get it off my chest.
AWDstylez wrote:
Thanks. This is an issue that has ticked me off for many years now, and I finally have a chance to get it off my chest.
Pagan
Regular Member
imported post
Statesman wrote:
Statesman wrote:
I agree 100%, well said and well thought out.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
If John Hinkley Jr. is ever determined to be sane and set free should he be allowed to carry a gun? If you ask the average person on the street they would say no but ask the average person on this board and you will get varying answers.
I personally know a MLB player who was divorced and his wife was awarded child support for their two daughters. I heard him brag about how he never paid any of the #### child support and as long as he stayed out of state she couldn't touch him. Yes he was in the majors for awhile. But there are some dads that get totally screwed at the same time. The whole thing is that we want things to be black and white, cut and dried and they aren't. One thing that I totally disagree with is that if a person isn't in jail then they should have all of their rights restored. Way too much grey area in that.
I follow your point but I can't dismiss not paying child support as a minor crime in all cases. We tend to make too many blanket statements in our vigor to argue some points and I can show some cases of lack of child support that would make you litterallyvomit. But I do think that too many crimes are classified incorrectly and the whole thing is too emotional to ever be decided in a rational manner.
If John Hinkley Jr. is ever determined to be sane and set free should he be allowed to carry a gun? If you ask the average person on the street they would say no but ask the average person on this board and you will get varying answers.
I personally know a MLB player who was divorced and his wife was awarded child support for their two daughters. I heard him brag about how he never paid any of the #### child support and as long as he stayed out of state she couldn't touch him. Yes he was in the majors for awhile. But there are some dads that get totally screwed at the same time. The whole thing is that we want things to be black and white, cut and dried and they aren't. One thing that I totally disagree with is that if a person isn't in jail then they should have all of their rights restored. Way too much grey area in that.
Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
The point here is not to dismiss the nature of not paying child support, or some other crime someone thinks is significant. The point is, when do we start taking time honored and cherished rights away "permanently"?
The standard used to be only for those who committed the most "heinous" crimes, and that standard has abated to lesser crimes involving imprisonment, such as not paying child support. There are plenty of ways to punish people without resorting to the "felony" label, as it was historically defined.
PT111 wrote:
I don't believe we are in disagreement here. I think the problem is there is a huge grey area around "minor" and "major" classifications of crimes. I think those category descriptions are ambiguous, and are better suited as "heinous", violent, and non-violent crimes.
The point here is not to dismiss the nature of not paying child support, or some other crime someone thinks is significant. The point is, when do we start taking time honored and cherished rights away "permanently"?
The standard used to be only for those who committed the most "heinous" crimes, and that standard has abated to lesser crimes involving imprisonment, such as not paying child support. There are plenty of ways to punish people without resorting to the "felony" label, as it was historically defined.
SANDCREEK
Regular Member
imported post
The list of inclusions continues to grow. Think about it - all that is required now that the bar hascleverly been set to incompass "some" MISDEMEANORS - all that is required is to lengthen the sentencing to meet federal guidlines.
Meanwhile our " highly successful" criminal justice systemcontinues to release dangerous offenders back into society after a couple of years slap on the pinkie.
Statesman's citations of historical treatment of felonies sounds like an excellent brief for a constitutional challenge.
At the current rate of infringement of the 2A right firearms ownership will be reduced to the criminals and a lucky few"no criminal record" citizens within 20 years - if the tide is not reversed.
The CJS is failing in it's responsibility to protect society by removing dangerous predators for life- while it seeks to creat a larger base of defenseless victims for the monsters released back on the streets.
The list of inclusions continues to grow. Think about it - all that is required now that the bar hascleverly been set to incompass "some" MISDEMEANORS - all that is required is to lengthen the sentencing to meet federal guidlines.
Meanwhile our " highly successful" criminal justice systemcontinues to release dangerous offenders back into society after a couple of years slap on the pinkie.
Statesman's citations of historical treatment of felonies sounds like an excellent brief for a constitutional challenge.
At the current rate of infringement of the 2A right firearms ownership will be reduced to the criminals and a lucky few"no criminal record" citizens within 20 years - if the tide is not reversed.
The CJS is failing in it's responsibility to protect society by removing dangerous predators for life- while it seeks to creat a larger base of defenseless victims for the monsters released back on the streets.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
PT111 wrote:
x1000
PT111 wrote:
x1000