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..
90% of rappers *they are known to shoot people out of anger*..
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.
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
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 lol
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
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
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 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.
If an individual is such a threat to society then why release them at all?