• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Who should be a prohibited person?

Who should be allowed to purchase a firearm?


  • Total voters
    42

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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/opinions/opncavwp/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.
 

carry for myself

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
544
Location
Maine
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
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
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?

So, you are saying that other than violent crimes, nothing else should be a felony? That's the way it used to be, but today, there are so many non-violent crimes that are felonies that too many people are being marginalized by our justice system that it is creating a second class citizenry out of a major portion of our citizens.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
So, you are saying that other than violent crimes, nothing else should be a felony? That's the way it used to be, but today, there are so many non-violent crimes that are felonies that too many people are being marginalized by our justice system that it is creating a second class citizenry out of a major portion of our citizens.

While I certainly agree that the massive number of crimes classed as felonies is far too large, I would say not only violent crimes qualify. White collar criminals that ruin the lives of 10,000 investors should pay a very steep price. As well as crooked members of the legal system that railroad an innocent into prison.
I would say more that a felony requires one or more victims. Owning 100 pounds of marijuana means Joe is a proficient horticulturist, not a felon. Joe burning down his neighbor's grow operation to limit competition is a felony even if the only harm is financial.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I like Jim's approach, both to what should be classified as a felony and his prison idea. Makes sense to lock up violent prisoners in harsher prisons and give the others a chance to redeem themselves in a prison that offers various programs for better adjustment back into society. Such as work for education or work release programs.

Posted using my HTC Evo
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
In the spirit of objective polling, I'll post my response first, then take the poll.

Oops! The responses in this thread are phrased as negative when they should be positive, which renders responses mutually exclusive when they should be additive. I've revised and reposted, here.

I answered "other" as some of the previous options are semantic spaghetti (contradicting combinations).

In summary, my answer is "no" if they're:

- currently incarcerated or institutionalized
- on probation or similar supervision, including house arrest or otherwise monitored (ankle bracelet), but ONLY for violent crimes
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
The penal system today is a joke. Violent felons should be executed, swiftly. Non-violent offenders should be caned (like Singapore)

IMHO: The courts say that the state has a DUTY to protect only those in it's control (incarcerated, either prison or MH). Otherwise, the government has no specific duty to protect any particular citizen, just the community as a whole. So...

With those things in mind: there is only one answer possible. Anyone that must be responsible for their own safety should not be barred from effectively doing so by whatever means they should choose.

It worked before, it could work again.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
I went with #2. If a person has paid their debt in full then I cannot see keeping from them the right of self defense.

There are those who will continue to throw out "violent criminals" and the "mentally unstable". Violent crimes and the mentally unstable are not a modern development. They existed when the Framers of our Constitution were about their work. Thomas Jefferson stated in his draft of the Virginia State Constitution that "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms[with in his own lands]". If we do not return to those who have served their time the status of "freeman" and all the rights that go along with it, then we create a second class of citizen. A class that we expect to adhere to our laws and customs, but refuse full rights and measures for doing so. If this person once again breaks the laws we have enacted then they should be punished for that, not for the possibility that they might someday be in violation of those same laws.

I find it confusing that in this modern era so many cry that prisons should reform prisoners so as to return them as meaningful members of society, yet cry louder that they should not be allowed to be full members. In these modern times of compassion, it seems strange that some who have committed crimes are never finished serving their sentence, even after they are out of prison.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The penal system today is a joke. Violent felons should be executed, swiftly. Non-violent offenders should be caned (like Singapore)

IMHO: The courts say that the state has a DUTY to protect only those in it's control (incarcerated, either prison or MH). Otherwise, the government has no specific duty to protect any particular citizen, just the community as a whole. So...

With those things in mind: there is only one answer possible. Anyone that must be responsible for their own safety should not be barred from effectively doing so by whatever means they should choose.

It worked before, it could work again.

I agree that the penal system is a joke, I don't agree that the government is competant enough to kill criminals, they make way to many mistakes and many innocent people sit in prison.

There have been innocent men killed by the state, a good read is 'Innocent Man' by John Grisham.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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*

So you would release such a person into society, but not trust them with a weapon? Such is the path to a prison nation. When released a person should have all rights protected again. If a person has done something too terrible to be granted protections to their rights again yet for practical reasons can not be held to a longer prison sentence then perhaps we need the gallows to take their life.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The penal system today is a joke. Violent felons should be executed, swiftly. Non-violent offenders should be caned (like Singapore)

IMHO: The courts say that the state has a DUTY to protect only those in it's control (incarcerated, either prison or MH). Otherwise, the government has no specific duty to protect any particular citizen, just the community as a whole. So...

With those things in mind: there is only one answer possible.

Cane the judges?

Anyone that must be responsible for their own safety should not be barred from effectively doing so by whatever means they should choose.

I agree with this in principle, so long as the rights on both sides are equally respected.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
...
I agree with this in principle, so long as the rights on both sides are equally respected.

I assume you are referring to the principle that one persons rights end where they infringe upon another's rights.
 
Top