Should a felon's gun rights be restored...ever???

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Of course a pedophile ex-felon should have his rights restored. Your red-herring is merely a restatement of the Continuum Fallacy and implicitly establishing a hierarchy of moral outrage.

 

[rj3663]

imported post

Ouch!

So, thats one yes.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Of course a pedophile ex-felon should have his rights restored.  Your red-herring is merely a restatement of the Continuum Fallacy and implicitly establishing a hierarchy of moral outrage.

That's what I was getting at.

Nice to read you, Doug.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Is my analysis correct in principle, thus earning your agreement, or is it merely a coup de guerre that will be forgotten as empty rhetoric? I haven't thought on it beyond your red-herring but it may have universal application.

 

[rj3663]

imported post

It was a simple yes or no question. If you have derived some sort of pleasure flaunting your intellectual prowess, good for you. If its important to you to verbally humiliate another, good for you. You don't need my approval on any subject as you seem to have enough of your own to keep you going. I wrongly thought we were all on the same page. Obliously there are some areas of this country where all men are not created equal. I prefer to reside where my peers are my equals. Have a good day.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

rj3663 wrote:

It was a simple yes or no question.

It was a loaded question; you knew it then and you know it now.

You could have fully anticipated the response you got, which was well-deserved.

If you want a polite discussion, don't insult your peers by attempting to use well-known manipulative fallacies.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

rj3663 wrote:

I prefer to reside where my peers are my equals. Have a good day.

Read The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. It is now on-line as a free PDF ~10 MB. Equality of outcome is being enforced on the sheeple and their peers.

Hence my aphorism, "Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth."

 

[NigNog]

imported post

rj3663 wrote:

It was a simple yes or no question.

You'll have to forgive Dougie. His love of fancy words and obsession with latin names for fallacies causes him to miss the simplest of points. It's a sort of pseudo-philosophical wannabe attitude adopted by the insanest of the insane. Marshaul is his protege.

In reality, there was nothing fallacious about your question. It is exactly what you labeled it as: a simple question. However, it throws people of the fantastical universe crowd into a bit of a conundrum. They cannot say yes because, deep down, they know their universe is fabricated and wholly unworkable, and an answer of "yes" would simply never fly in the world of reality. Alas, they also cannot say no. To say no would be to admit fault in their fantastical universe. So, what is a pseudo-philosophical moonbat to do? Attack the question! Summon the legitimate question destroying powers of the fallacy of "headus e rectus" and "assus jackus," and... poof! The potentially life crushing question is no longer a threat to the delicate, fabricated universe of the terminally stupid.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Welcome to OCDO. Whose sockpuppet are you to address us so familiarly?

I thought I gave an unqualified and principled 'yes'. Further, 'continuum' is a perfect American-English word found in abridged dictionaries, certainly the ones I have. The question was not fallacious but some of the responses have been trite and bathetic.

Perhaps you can name a person/personality as a counter-example to my pseudo-intellectual insanity? I thought that I came by my peculiarity honestly, that we are all mad, each in our own way, and that brilliance lies in the application of our madnesses.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

Wow, some people are really touchy around the edges, aren't they.

And I'll answer your question simply, simply I'm not as well-spoken as some here.....YES!

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

The question was not fallacious but some of the responses have been trite and bathetic.

The question itself was not fallacious, rather it was the repetition of it and insistence that it had not been answered previously.

 

[rj3663]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Perhaps you can name a person/personality as a counter-example to my pseudo-intellectual insanity? I thought that I came by my peculiarity honestly, that we are all mad, each in our own way, and that brilliance lies in the application of our madnesses.

Charles Manson comes to mind. Perhaps Ted Bundy. Though these may not really be counter-examples...more like parallels.

 

[NightOwl]

imported post

rj3663 wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Perhaps you can name a person/personality as a counter-example to my pseudo-intellectual insanity? I thought that I came by my peculiarity honestly, that we are all mad, each in our own way, and that brilliance lies in the application of our madnesses.

Charles Manson comes to mind. Perhaps Ted Bundy. Though these may not really be counter-examples...more like parallels.

So, did you just agree?

Charles Manson remains behind bars, and will remain so for the remainder of his life, no panel is going to let him see the light of day again. Ted Bundy was executed. Both are great examples of 'if they're a threat to society, they don't get out, if they aren't, they should have their rights fully restored.'

 

[rj3663]

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

rj3663 wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Perhaps you can name a person/personality as a counter-example to my pseudo-intellectual insanity? I thought that I came by my peculiarity honestly, that we are all mad, each in our own way, and that brilliance lies in the application of our madnesses.

Charles Manson comes to mind. Perhaps Ted Bundy. Though these may not really be counter-examples...more like parallels.

So, did you just agree?

Charles Manson remains behind bars, and will remain so for the remainder of his life, no panel is going to let him see the light of day again. Ted Bundy was executed. Both are great examples of 'if they're a threat to society, they don't get out, if they aren't, they should have their rights fully restored.'

My question was in reference to pedophiles. I in no way offered any thoughts as to the restorstion of rights to those two. My question was in search of a simple yes or no answer. It was a simple question, not alltwisted and loaded with twenty dollar words. If its to hard for the university professors to say yes or no, skip it guys

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

I thought I gave an unqualified and principled 'yes'.

But the OP was not seeking concord but discord.

 

[45acpForMe]

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

.... he should be a free man when he walks out the door of the jail.

What needs to be changed is the definition of a felony, not the treatment of felons.

I am going to Agree with Styles here <dodges tomatoes> I personally think that we have way to many convoluted laws, and it's all to casual to be a felon these days. My friend and I were discussing this very subject this morning.... interesting.

- My personal feelings are incredibly harsh, and i know most wont agree. I feel we need to reduce the amount of laws on the books. Laws should be easy to understand by the common man, eliminating the need for lawyers in most cases. Becoming a "Felon" should be an incredibly serious matter, more liken to life in prison, or death penalty. With less laws, it should be much harder to break laws or become an actual criminal. Punishments need to be much more in-line and on par with the actual offence. We need to observe intent, and meditation of the crime as well.... Extremely violent, or heinous criminals need to be dispatched and eliminated via death sentence or life of hard labor depending on severity of crime, but they should not be released ever - period. Lesser offenses need to dealt with in the light of "non-criminal" and consequences more linear with the offence. Becoming a felon should be attune to being a home invader or a murder / rapist, none of which should see the topsoil ever again.

- So, in that light, Should Felons have their gun right restored ??? Sure, toss it in the coffin with em.

Just my thoughts, harsh as they may be.

P.S. This is a subject that understandably still has allot of "open ends" and (for me at least) is still in the contemplating stage. As always, i am open to retort or debate, and will consider all polite words of wisdom.


Bat

+1 but you aren't as harsh as me.

Our country's foundersnever envisioned prisons. Jails were places that people were held until/during a trial. Punishment for the guilty was deathor things such as 30 lashes or stockades. Thesesentences were dispatched fairlyquickly meaning hours or days.So violent offenders would be pushing up daisies and would have no need for guns. Other offenders would be punished, recover and never have their guns confiscated.

Now back to current times where you can be a felon for OC-ing within a 1000 yards of a gun-free zone. If the law sets someone free, they are free and should have no restrictions on them. During something like probation, they are still considered serving part of their sentence just in different less secure location.

Personally I know a few felons that have put their past behind them and are productive members of society. I agree that the classification of "felon" is ambiguous and problematic.

 

[zack991]

imported post

ScottyT wrote:

Non-violent felons should never have those rights taken away from them in the first place.

Agreed.

 

[PT111]

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

Our country's foundersnever envisioned prisons. Jails were places that people were held until/during a trial. Punishment for the guilty was deathor things such as 30 lashes or stockades. Thesesentences were dispatched fairlyquickly meaning hours or days.So violent offenders would be pushing up daisies and would have no need for guns. Other offenders would be punished, recover and never have their guns confiscated.

Now back to current times where you can be a felon for OC-ing within a 1000 yards of a gun-free zone. If the law sets someone free, they are free and should have no restrictions on them. During something like probation, they are still considered serving part of their sentence just in different less secure location.

Personally I know a few felons that have put their past behind them and are productive members of society. I agree that the classification of "felon" is ambiguous and problematic.

Exactly the reason for the Eight Amendment against Cruel and Unusual punishment. People would be executed on the word of someone they had never seen or for minor crimes if they had the wrong judge or sheriff. Remember burning the witches at the stake. As for a prison only to hold someone until trial the Sixth Amendment covers that. They were tired of people being held for years without ever knowing if they would get a trial. Think of the castle dungeons.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

45acpForMe wrote:

Our country's founders never envisioned prisons.   Jails were places that people were held until/during a trial.  Punishment for the guilty was death or things such as 30 lashes or stockades.  These sentences were dispatched fairly quickly meaning hours or days.  So violent offenders would be pushing up daisies and would have no need for guns.  Other offenders would be punished, recover and never have their guns confiscated. 

Now back to current times where you can be a felon for OC-ing within a 1000 yards of a gun-free zone.   If the law sets someone free, they are free and should have no restrictions on them.   During something like probation, they are still considered serving part of their sentence just in different less secure location.

Personally I know a few felons that have put their past behind them and are productive members of society.  I agree that the classification of "felon" is ambiguous and problematic.

Exactly the reason for the Eight Amendment against Cruel and Unusual punishment.  People would be executed on the word of someone they had never seen or for minor crimes if they had the wrong judge or sheriff.  Remember burning the witches at the stake.  As for a prison only to hold someone until trial the Sixth Amendment covers that.  They were tired of people being held for years without ever knowing if they would get a trial.  Think of the castle dungeons. 

When my roommate gets back with my copy of Jefferson's complete works which he has borrowed, I have quite a response penned to 45acpForMe's post.

I need to reference a few things first. The internet isn't being helpful.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Thank you for delaying while you fetch ammo, here where many go off half-cocked before ensuring anything but wad to shoot. The double entendre is intentional.