View Poll Results: Who should be allowed to purchase a firearm?

Voters
43. You may not vote on this poll
  • Everyone not currently institutionalized or imprisoned

    25 58.14%
  • Everyone not currently in the custody of the state

    14 32.56%
  • Current standards

    3 6.98%
  • Anyone not convicted of a felony

    5 11.63%
  • Anyone not convicted of domestic violence

    7 16.28%
  • Anyone not convicted of a violent felony

    11 25.58%
  • Anyone not addicted to controlled substances

    8 18.60%
  • Other

    4 9.30%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Who should be a prohibited person?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Who should be a prohibited person?

    Who should be allowed or disallowed to own firearms?

    Better poll made by Since9 is here, use that one instead.
    Last edited by Jack House; 10-10-2011 at 08:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Great thread topic!!!

    Does choice 1 mean the same as "anyone NOT in the physical custody of any agency of federal, state or local jurisdiction" ?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Option 1 would be anyone that is not currently in prison/jail or some variant thereof or a patient in a mental institution. Option 2 would include those under house arrest, parole, probation or any variant thereof.

    The poll is really just generic and probably not that good with the options. I tried to make it as balanced as possible, but not really good at that.

    Personally, those serving probation or parole or even house arrest for a nonviolent crime, for example those convicted of having too many speeding tickets, should be allowed to own/purchase firearms in my opinion.

  4. #4
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    this is a tough one. i cannot say "criminals" cant own guns because there are so many variations of what a criminal is in the eyes of the law. for instance some criminals that should be able to own guns.

    someone who has stolen a candy bar
    someone who was 18 and accidentally slept with a 17 year old.....that one kinda tells itself.
    those poor guys who were physically assaulted by their wife and held her back and got charged with DV........yes it happens.


    now criminals that SHOULD NOT be allowed to own guns in my personal opinion.

    people charged with violent crimes and are known to repeat the offense.
    rapists
    murderers
    bank robbers
    anyone who wears gang colors
    anyone who is here illegally
    anyone who has been convicted of a ND
    that cop who shot himself infront of a group of kids
    anyone who is associated with the westborough baptist church
    fonzie
    90% of rappers *they are known to shoot people out of anger*


    also the mentally defective........now this is a tough one as well. someone with anxiety...sure...bipolar even *only because i believe that is a false diagnosis, we all have bipolar, its called a moodswing"

    however. people who are psychitozophrinic *sp* should NOT be allowed, anyone with psychotic tendencies, outbursts of rage, violence, suicidal tendencies or any other HARMFUL attributes to themselves or others..yeah its just a bad idea.


    the problem with criminals is they will get guns no matter how much gun control we put on them. and the more we put, the less freedoms WE have to defend ourselves from said criminals, and if we keep throwing restrictions pretty soon we wont have any guns, the cops wont have guns, and the criminals..........guess what.still will have guns sooo........headache.
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    this is a tough one. i cannot say "criminals" cant own guns because there are so many variations of what a criminal is in the eyes of the law..
    That's the problem... unless you ONLY consider the incarcerated as criminals. If you get out of prison then you are no longer a criminal. This solves the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    90% of rappers *they are known to shoot people out of anger*..
    Hard to argue against this lol!!

    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    the problem with criminals is they will get guns no matter how much gun control we put on them. and the more we put, the less freedoms WE have to defend ourselves from said criminals, and if we keep throwing restrictions pretty soon we wont have any guns, the cops wont have guns, and the criminals..........guess what.still will have guns sooo........headache.
    UNLESS criminals are defined by their incarceration status. Criminal = incarcerated. Incarcerated = no firearms.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    I voted for everyone not currently in state custody. I voted for this as I view things like probation and house arrest as quasi-incarceration in that the state is still watching you and making sure you're able to properly integrate back into society. Once your time is up and you have proven that you are reformed then you have all of your rights restored.

    That being said I would say we are a good ways off from that point as there are a lot of other things that need to be fixed in regards to the release of criminals who shouldn't be released, unreasonable crime punishments, etc. So I don't think our system would be able to handle a sudden switch to this system and it would need to be a gradual switch to it as we fix other issues with the system.

  7. #7
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    That's the problem... unless you ONLY consider the incarcerated as criminals. If you get out of prison then you are no longer a criminal. This solves the problem.



    Hard to argue against this lol!!



    UNLESS criminals are defined by their incarceration status. Criminal = incarcerated. Incarcerated = no firearms.
    true but that is a hard one in itself. i mean heck manson MAY get out at some point. do we want to give him a gun because hes no longer incarcerated? HELL NO lol same goes for a LOT of incarcerated persons. most people in super max used a gun to kill people.........do we want to give them guns? probably not lol i do believe past criminal history should play a big part in it, but the depth of the history is the question. like if a 16 year old kid robs a liquor store...and gets released when hes 40..........i think he learned his lesson and should be given a shot. but if someone had been arrested 16 times for violent crimes. i think they should have their hands cutt off.....but thats just MY opinion haha
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    true but that is a hard one in itself. i mean heck manson MAY get out at some point. do we want to give him a gun because hes no longer incarcerated? HELL NO lol same goes for a LOT of incarcerated persons. most people in super max used a gun to kill people.........do we want to give them guns?
    Manson didn't shoot anyone... he manipulated others to kill... without a firearm.

    It's pretty well settled that letting someone out of prison greatly increased their chances of getting a firearm. The real question is should we ever let murderers or rapists out of prison?

    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    probably not lol i do believe past criminal history should play a big part in it, but the depth of the history is the question. like if a 16 year old kid robs a liquor store...and gets released when hes 40..........i think he learned his lesson and should be given a shot. but if someone had been arrested 16 times for violent crimes. i think they should have their hands cutt off.....but thats just MY opinion haha
    Arrest does NOT equal guilt. Depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process is unconstitutional.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 10-04-2011 at 12:09 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Manson didn't shoot anyone... he manipulated others to kill... without a firearm.

    It's pretty well settled that letting someone out of prison greatly increased their chances of getting a firearm. The real question is should we ever let murderers or rapists out of prison?



    Arrest does NOT equal guilt. Depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process is unconstitutional.

    true. i dont believe we should let murderers or rapists out. but thats my opinion, in my opinion i think the punishment should fit the crime but thats another topic.

    and i know arrest does not equal guilt. being convicted by jury of our peers however in our country according to the constitution does. so if someone was convicted of 10 counts of armed robbery. i dont think they should ever be allowed near a gun again.

    and manson......im pretty sure he would be dangerous with a potato if given to him lol lets bar him from that as well :-p lol
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Actions have consequences. If your actions are irresponsible, don't expect the society to extend further unlimited trust in the aftermath. When societal trust and confidence in the actions of an individual are compromised, the rights of the individual are forfeit. There are no absolutes to all things.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    true. i dont believe we should let murderers or rapists out. but thats my opinion, in my opinion i think the punishment should fit the crime but thats another topic.
    I think this is relevant to this thread. Fixing the existing system we have now will take a lot of work, but we need to set goals so that we know which direction we're headed. The system has been mutilated by liberal type experimentation which has failed. We need to be discussing how to move back to less government and a more simple judicial process.

    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    and i know arrest does not equal guilt. being convicted by jury of our peers however in our country according to the constitution does. so if someone was convicted of 10 counts of armed robbery. i dont think they should ever be allowed near a gun again..
    In other words... keep them incarcerated right?

    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    and manson......im pretty sure he would be dangerous with a potato if given to him lol lets bar him from that as well :-p lol
    Agreed... he can have all the potatoes he wants as long as he's behind bars

  12. #12
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I think this is relevant to this thread. Fixing the existing system we have now will take a lot of work, but we need to set goals so that we know which direction we're headed. The system has been mutilated by liberal type experimentation which has failed. We need to be discussing how to move back to less government and a more simple judicial process.



    In other words... keep them incarcerated right?



    Agreed... he can have all the potatoes he wants as long as he's behind bars
    well the sad thing is in our society and most courts. a murder conviction comes with the term "life". which sounds pretty scary. but in all reality its 25 years. thats it. you take another mans life in cold blood and you get 25 years? ask any family of a murder victim if that is good enough? me? i dont think so. i think the punishment should fit the crime. death. for death.

    but with that said i believe that we need to get a LOT better at investigating murders. people are put to death for crimes they did not commit yearly. this is a problem. we need to restructure the system, to where criminals are AFFRAID to commit the crime.

    take child molesters and rapists. most child molesters get 1-2 years. .....then they get out and they do it again. same with rapists. i saw a guy here in maine rape three girls, got 5 years, was released and raped 2 more people.

    if the punishment doesnt scare the ever living witts out of a criminal ...what is stopping them from commiting the crime in the first place? "oh lets see george, if i rob this bank, ill get 2 years, 1.3 with good behavior, with a plea bargain 5 months, 3 months house arrest and a year of probation....but if i get away with it ill have $50,000!"......easy choice for the criminal to make there. i think we need harsher punishments, longer sentances, more strict parole terms and maybe these creatons will actually be affraid of the crime they are commiting . in iran for example. if you rape someone your crime is to be drug into the street, infront of your peers, pantsed, have your manhood placed on a wooden block and chopped off by the father of girl. ......now if we did thing like that....lurkey in the bushes would think twice.....but again thats MY opinion :-)
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    You are either free or you're not......

    If you are free from incarceration you should have your rights restored. If people are still committing crimes after they've been set free it's a problem with the system not weeding out those who haven't learned from their mistakes.

    If we are to make blanket laws that prohibit all felons from owning firearms the government need only lower the bar of what constitutes a felony to start taking them away from everyone. Now, domestic violence disqualifies firearm ownership, next it's one DUI, then a speeding ticket.

    Rights should only be disabled via specific due process and there should always be a way to restore that right having proven good faith.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  14. #14
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    If you are free from incarceration you should have your rights restored. If people are still committing crimes after they've been set free it's a problem with the system not weeding out those who haven't learned from their mistakes.

    If we are to make blanket laws that prohibit all felons from owning firearms the government need only lower the bar of what constitutes a felony to start taking them away from everyone. Now, domestic violence disqualifies firearm ownership, next it's one DUI, then a speeding ticket.

    Rights should only be disabled via specific due process and there should always be a way to restore that right having proven good faith.
    well thats a problem with the justice system in whole. 90% of felons will tell you that they DONT learn from their mistakes in prison. prison in itself aides in making them a better criminal. when you go to prison you dont get classes on "how to be a citizen" you fight , you sell drugs, you murder, you rape. and if you dont....all of those things happen to you in there. so the system we have forces felons and criminals to become worse people. most felons who have spent 10+ years in prison dont want to be released because crime is all they know, and in knowing that they accept the fact that if released, they will just be incarcerated again. its a horrible cycle really.

    i used to have a neghbor. he spent 30 years in san quintin. i asked him one day over beers if the time he spent taught him anything, or whether he learned any lessons. he relied and i quote "yeah. it taught me to be a bigger piece of **** than i was when i went in, i learned how to extort people, blackmail, assault, lie, harm, mame and kill. did i learn anything good? HELL NO".......and thats about the truth when it comes to jail. jailing people does not "reform" them as the libs would like you to believe, it actually hardens them. jail is good for one thing. keeping the people who dont deserve to walk among us.....away from us. thats about it
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    well thats a problem with the justice system in whole. 90% of felons will tell you that they DONT learn from their mistakes in prison. prison in itself aides in making them a better criminal. when you go to prison you dont get classes on "how to be a citizen" you fight , you sell drugs, you murder, you rape. and if you dont....all of those things happen to you in there. so the system we have forces felons and criminals to become worse people. most felons who have spent 10+ years in prison dont want to be released because crime is all they know, and in knowing that they accept the fact that if released, they will just be incarcerated again. its a horrible cycle really.

    i used to have a neghbor. he spent 30 years in san quintin. i asked him one day over beers if the time he spent taught him anything, or whether he learned any lessons. he relied and i quote "yeah. it taught me to be a bigger piece of **** than i was when i went in, i learned how to extort people, blackmail, assault, lie, harm, mame and kill. did i learn anything good? HELL NO".......and thats about the truth when it comes to jail. jailing people does not "reform" them as the libs would like you to believe, it actually hardens them. jail is good for one thing. keeping the people who dont deserve to walk among us.....away from us. thats about it
    Of course it's silly to think that prison is reform. It's simply a deterent... only if applied properly.

    We have a 2 proged attack against us. The libs have provided saftey nets like food stamps and welfare which take enough concentration off of food and shelter needs to make the mind a fertile place for crimial thoughts. Combine that with a probation / parole system and you get profesional criminals with long CONVICTION records still on the streets. Let's aderess these issues. It's time to push back.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    I voted for everyone not currently in state custody. I voted for this as I view things like probation and house arrest as quasi-incarceration in that the state is still watching you and making sure you're able to properly integrate back into society. Once your time is up and you have proven that you are reformed then you have all of your rights restored.

    That being said I would say we are a good ways off from that point as there are a lot of other things that need to be fixed in regards to the release of criminals who shouldn't be released, unreasonable crime punishments, etc. So I don't think our system would be able to handle a sudden switch to this system and it would need to be a gradual switch to it as we fix other issues with the system.
    While I don't entirely agree with that, for instance I think it should be based off the crime. If that was the way our system worked, I wouldn't see a need to change it. So long as the probation periods matched the crime.

    I do agree that a lot needs to be changed with our justice system. 1st degree murder and the like needs to be a true life sentence. Prison needs to be more geared towards rehabilitation and it should be made easier for reformed cons to get jobs that will actually support them/their family.

    I have a big problem with DV laws. They unjustly favor the female, often ruin peoples lives for frivolous reasons and are way too easy to convict for.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    228
    i would say the mentally ill and violent felons and non legal citizens or residents should not have guns.

    felons should not be able to live in or enter a house with a gun or ammunition in it. they should have their parole violated if they so much as touch a bb gun at a fair. violent felons should have their foreheads branded so as to send visual cues to everyone else.

    if their families want to maintain the right to self defense, they can visit their felon family member at church or restaurants. if they chose to have the felon live in their home, they should sell or surrender their firearms and ammunition.

    felons are not equal. maybe they are equal to you, but they are not equal to me. if we cannot marginalize violent criminals, what is the point?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    If an individual is such a threat to society then why release them at all?

    Posted using my HTC Evo

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    If an individual is such a threat to society then why release them at all?
    Precisely.

    In any case, if you want to disable someones rights, you need to do it through due process, not automatically. Let's say someone embezzles enough money for it to count as a felony. Just because he was greedy doesn't mean he'd ever act violently towards another person. Whether or not he has his 2A rights disabled should be decided separately and specifically by a jury of his peers and not just arbitrarily taken away via statute.

    There was an example of a man who was on this forum a year or so back. Twenty years or so ago, when he was young, he was convicted of 3 DUI's (making it a felony). He had since gotten his act together, was a contributing member of society, had a family and was never violent. Yet, because of our arbitrary system he had lost his rights forever. I for one think he should be able to protect his family with the best tools available. Part of living in a free society is trusting others to do the right thing.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 10-04-2011 at 03:22 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Although the poll speaks only of firearms, the Constitution speaks of bearing arms in general.

    Let us suppose there is a person who committed a violent attack with a pickaxe, and serves x number of years. Two weeks after he is released, he commits another violent attack, again with a pickaxe and serves x number of years. Again, after he has served his sentence he is released and yet again, you guessed it, commits a violent attack with... a pickaxe.

    Does prohibiting him from purchasing a firearm serve any useful purpose that would have prevented the continued attacks?

    Now, let us take a wild ride in Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine to the time of the Revolutionary War. You're a Patriot who has been arrested, charged, sentenced and jailed by His Majesty's lobsterbacks. After you're released, should you be prohibited from again taking up arms against the Crown?

    As a last, I seem to recall (but only from television of course) that even bank robbers and cattle rustlers were handed back their firearms at their release from jail or prison. Of course those were perilous times, with cattle rustlers and robbers about and a man needed protection....

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Once you've served your time in jail you're done. You've served your punishment. Why in the world would you have a lifetime punishment of not being able to defend your life/family?

    Here is the thing, if the criminal get's out of jail and is done serving his time and wants to commit a crime he's not going to say, "oh man, I can't own a gun anymore so now I can't get one to rob another bank." Crime is already illegal, if someone is willing to commit a crime then the crime status of them carrying a gun doesn't deter them, they're already engaging in crime.

    So I say if you're not in jail then carry on. If you're some violent person who has been convicted of violent things and as soon as you get out you're going to point a gun at people - maybe you shouldn't be out of prison.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Case law confirms the notion that even persons with a felony record retain the basic right to self defense, and that exercising that right can include the use of a firearm to which the felon would otherwise not be entitled to posses/use. http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1982002.pdf

    So I need to ask just what it is you are prohibitting and just how strongly you intend to prohibit.

    In other words, there is no one defining answer except "It depends on the circumstances and the individuals involved".

    But thank you for asking me to play.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  23. #23
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    i would say the mentally ill and violent felons and non legal citizens or residents should not have guns.

    felons should not be able to live in or enter a house with a gun or ammunition in it. they should have their parole violated if they so much as touch a bb gun at a fair. violent felons should have their foreheads branded so as to send visual cues to everyone else.

    if their families want to maintain the right to self defense, they can visit their felon family member at church or restaurants. if they chose to have the felon live in their home, they should sell or surrender their firearms and ammunition.

    felons are not equal. maybe they are equal to you, but they are not equal to me. if we cannot marginalize violent criminals, what is the point?
    + 900
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    i would say the mentally ill and violent felons and non legal citizens or residents should not have guns.

    How do you propose to prevent them? Or did you mean only that they should not have legal guns?
    I am reminded of my own experience in high school - easier to get black market unlawful drugs than society-blessed booze.


    felons should not be able to live in or enter a house with a gun or ammunition in it. they should have their parole violated if they so much as touch a bb gun at a fair. violent felons should have their foreheads branded so as to send visual cues to everyone else.

    Do you propose that all gun owners houses be marked so the felons know where not to go? Isn't that like putting up a blue-light special sign on your house?

    if their families want to maintain the right to self defense, they can visit their felon family member at church or restaurants. if they chose to have the felon live in their home, they should sell or surrender their firearms and ammunition.

    Not all felons are violent and not all commit new crimes. Your daughter marries and has children with a man who has a bad business partner. Want her family broken up or unprotected?

    felons are not equal. maybe they are equal to you, but they are not equal to me. if we cannot marginalize violent criminals, what is the point?
    What you're proposing is to make every felony a life sentence - even if not behind bars. Your plan would ensure all branded felons remain forever unemployable, unapproachable, and (legally) defenseless. I can't think of a better way to make sure that the highest possible recidivism rate is achieved.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Every single felon in the US' bursting at the seams prisons was not deterred by the concept of prison. Study after study shows that lengthening sentences does not reduce the rate of a particular crime. (Just Google "prison deterrent".)

    Prison serves to keep the violent away from non-incarcerated victims, and that's about it. If the bad guy is caught, and if he is prosecuted, and if he doesn't plead down to 3rd degree jaywalking.

    I would like to see two tracks for prisoners. The less-than-lifers who are model prisoners work productively. They are treated as humans, given, and must accept, personal responsibility. Those who fail to accept personal responsibility and the lifers go into what our prisons currently are. The only way out of this tier 2 prison is by earning the right to try tier 1 again.

    Anyone who gets out of (tier 1, since tier 2 by definition does not release to the outside) prison has all the rights they were born with.

    If I were king.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •