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.

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" ?

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.

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.

carry for myself said:

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..

Click to expand...

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.

carry for myself said:

90% of rappers *they are known to shoot people out of anger*..

Click to expand...

Hard to argue against this lol!!

carry for myself said:

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.

Click to expand...

UNLESS criminals are defined by their incarceration status. Criminal = incarcerated. Incarcerated = no firearms.

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.

georg jetson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

carry for myself said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

carry for myself said:

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

Click to expand...

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

georg jetson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 lol

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.

carry for myself said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

carry for myself said:

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..

Click to expand...

In other words... keep them incarcerated right?

carry for myself said:

and manson......im pretty sure he would be dangerous with a potato if given to him lol lets bar him from that as well lol

Click to expand...

Agreed... he can have all the potatoes he wants as long as he's behind bars

georg jetson said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Brass Magnet said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

carry for myself said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Aknazer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

If an individual is such a threat to society then why release them at all?

Posted using my HTC Evo

Jack House said:

If an individual is such a threat to society then why release them at all?

Click to expand...

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.

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....