User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:23:17 PM EDT
[#1]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:25:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should be swinging from a rope if you've done something so heinous you can't be trusted with full restoration of rights on release. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:25:47 PM EDT
[#3]
Here is my take on it. Traditionally, a felony was a fairly heinous crime that was punishable by death or forfeiture of property. Life imprisonment with subsequent parole was an act of mercy on the part of the justice system such that your citizenship rights were "executed" but you were spared. Within that framework, I am OK with felons losing their right to vote, their right to bear arms, etc.
However, in the modern framework where you have crimes like "Felony Parking Meter Stuffing" or you can become a felon for having a 14.5" barrel with a removable flash hider, I don't support the loss of rights for those types of crimes; because frankly, those aren't the kinds of serious crimes that justify losing any of your citizenship rights. So I guess in my view, the problem isn't that felons lose their Second Amendment rights, it is that there are too many bullshit "crimes" defined as felonies now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:26:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I think it does... You have an unalienable right not be harmed (Assault, theft, rape, murder etc). You have a right to freedom of movement (kidnapping, imprisonment, etc). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. Once their probation and time is served, they can petition to have their rights restored. Why should they have to petition to get their "rights"? They willingly gave up those rights when they violated the rights of others (see Crime) That is not an apt description of "crime" in our legal system. No, I think it does... You have an unalienable right not be harmed (Assault, theft, rape, murder etc). You have a right to freedom of movement (kidnapping, imprisonment, etc). So I can infer that you agree that an act that violates no one's rights should not be a crime? Because a shit ton are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:26:51 PM EDT
[#5]
I voted no, but sentencing would have to reflect the crime, and if you aren't safe enough to be trusted in public with a gun, you don't get out of prison.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:29:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I can infer that you agree that an act that violates no one's rights should not be a crime? Because a shit ton are. You'd be talking about say, crimes against the state, or crimes which are malum prohibitum. yes. Only Felonies should be crimes which are Malum in se. And pruned the Quote tree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:30:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simply because a man is not incarcerated, does not make him free. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simply because a man is not incarcerated, does not make him free. Then why is he/she not still in prison? Quoted:
YES! Because the judicial system is all fucked up, that's why. There are some really violent people walking around today that shouldn't be. The last Officer that was shot to death was done in by a shitbag with 14, yes 14 that's not a typo, violent felony convictions. There is no reason in the world that piece of trash should have been walking around outside of the prison. But he was. Then there was the early out by Nikko Jenkins. He randomly killed 4 people inside about 3 weeks from his release. I also realize that neither of these shitbags obtained guns legally. But why make it easier on them? I understand this, and appreciate this...believe me, I do. But...why are they free in that case? I would argue they should still be in prison if they cannot be trusted out in public with a firearm. If you are not in prison, you are a free man and should have all rights thereof. YES, our justice system is fucked up...but do NOT penalize those who are legitimately free, eh? Those who served their time, earned their release, etc. If people should be in prison, KEEP THEM THERE. Do not penalize free men for a fuckup's problems.. Just my opinion, and I see where I could be wrong, but ..well, that's the way I see things... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:30:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You should be swinging from a rope if you've done something so heinous you can't be trusted with full restoration of rights on release. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:31:35 PM EDT
[#9]
too open of a question. If you are a violent felon, then your 2A amendments be damned. Tired of the victim mentality, even here....with so many things wrong in this country the last thing I'm going to waste time on is determining which felons should have their gun rights restored. This may also suggest restoring other privileges/rights like voting.....which would largely help the Commie/Dems......fuck this bleeding heart Arfcomism.......worry about the attacks on law abiding gun owners or at least your own shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:31:37 PM EDT
[#10]
The only way you can vote yes is to admit that the gun, and not the felon, is the real safety threat.
If a felon is a serious risk to my safety, the means by which they attack is irrelevant. They should remain detained until they are no longer a threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:31:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is my take on it. Traditionally, a felony was a fairly heinous crime that was punishable by death or forfeiture of property. Life imprisonment with subsequent parole was an act of mercy on the part of the justice system such that your citizenship rights were "executed" but you were spared. Within that framework, I am OK with felons losing their right to vote, their right to bear arms, etc. However, in the modern framework where you have crimes like "Felony Parking Meter Stuffing" or you can become a felon for having a 14.5" barrel with a removable flash hider, I don't support the loss of rights for those types of crimes; because frankly, those aren't the kinds of serious crimes that justify losing any of your citizenship rights. So I guess in my view, the problem isn't that felons lose their Second Amendment rights, it is that there are too many bullshit "crimes" defined as felonies now. This is pretty much my opinion, so many things have been classified as felonies that should not be, that the term does not mean what it once did, but everyone still treats it like it does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:32:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know the numbers (of violent vs non violent felons in prison), so please forgive my ignorance, but what if we reserved prisons for the violent people that really deserve to be there? For everyone else, fines, work camps, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. California already released most of their non violent and non-sexual offenders and they are still over crowded. When determining if someone was violent or not they only used the last conviction, not criminal history. So child molesters, robbers, murderers who were currently in for non violent stuff like burglary or auto theft got released as "non-violent." But they are still overcrowded because they havent built new prisons to match the increased population. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:33:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only way you can vote yes is to admit that the gun, and not the felon, is the real safety threat. If a felon is a serious risk to my safety, the means by which they attack is irrelevant. They should remain detained until they are no longer a threat. This X 87. Fucking nailed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:33:38 PM EDT
[#14]
if theyhave served their time, no. full constitutional rights should be restored upon their release.
edit: wow, more yes votes than i thought id see.... interdasting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:34:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are locked up, then yeah, they should be. Once out and off probation then no. If we can't trust them to be back out in society, keep them locked up. And should child molesters be on a registry after they've served their time? Or should we even HAVE criminal histories to allow for higher penalties for subsequent charges for the same type of crime? People make a choice when they commit crimes. They are accepting the risk of the penalties (ALL of them) if they are caught. Want to rob someone for some fast cash? Accept that if you are caught, you will lose the right to possess modern firearms for life. No problem at all with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:35:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why is he/she not still in prison? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Simply because a man is not incarcerated, does not make him free. Then why is he/she not still in prison? I think you didn't quite get my meaning, none of us are in prison yet our freedoms are stepped on frequently, we've become accustomed to it as the new normal. Every time they infringe on a right/liberty, we bitch and moan but given enough time it's accepted and most people just see it as the status quo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:36:03 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. But knowing that we wont keep them in prison where they belong, I'm fine with them not legally possessing guns, or voting, or holding political office. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. I agree. But knowing that we wont keep them in prison where they belong, I'm fine with them not legally possessing guns, or voting, or holding political office. youd be surprised at how many felons run for office every election... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:36:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
I've personally always though that this was the worst and most accepted gun control our nation has ever seen. Your thoughts? I have a friend who, before I met him, was convicted of a couple of felonies involving drugs. He did his time, got out and reunited with his wife and came to know Christ. He works hard, supports his wife and 4 children, and finally managed to purchase a house on several acres after years of saving. He and his family are some of the kindest and most generous people I have ever met. He is trying to keep chickens and have a little hobby farm but coyotes keep killing his chickens. He can not own a firearm to protect his family or his chickens. Not even a single shot 22. That's wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:36:27 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And should child molesters be on a registry after they've served their time? Or should we even HAVE criminal histories to allow for higher penalties for subsequent charges for the same type of crime? People make a choice when they commit crimes. They are accepting the risk of the penalties (ALL of them) if they are caught. Want to rob someone for some fast cash? Accept that if you are caught, you will lose the right to possess modern firearms for life. No problem at all with it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If they are locked up, then yeah, they should be. Once out and off probation then no. If we can't trust them to be back out in society, keep them locked up. And should child molesters be on a registry after they've served their time? Or should we even HAVE criminal histories to allow for higher penalties for subsequent charges for the same type of crime? People make a choice when they commit crimes. They are accepting the risk of the penalties (ALL of them) if they are caught. Want to rob someone for some fast cash? Accept that if you are caught, you will lose the right to possess modern firearms for life. No problem at all with it. 1. So you argue that people can never change. Once a criminal, always a criminal? 2. What about a 14 year old tried as an adult. They should never realize the fullness of their rights? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:38:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is my take on it. Traditionally, a felony was a fairly heinous crime that was punishable by death or forfeiture of property. Life imprisonment with subsequent parole was an act of mercy on the part of the justice system such that your citizenship rights were "executed" but you were spared. Within that framework, I am OK with felons losing their right to vote, their right to bear arms, etc. However, in the modern framework where you have crimes like "Felony Parking Meter Stuffing" or you can become a felon for having a 14.5" barrel with a removable flash hider, I don't support the loss of rights for those types of crimes; because frankly, those aren't the kinds of serious crimes that justify losing any of your citizenship rights. So I guess in my view, the problem isn't that felons lose their Second Amendment rights, it is that there are too many bullshit "crimes" defined as felonies now. Then your vote is no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:38:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should be swinging from a rope if you've done something so heinous you can't be trusted with full restoration of rights on release. correct |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:41:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ibtp Eh depends on the felony. Violent crime yes. Non violent no. I would agree with this. Murderers and rapists shouldn't have any rights. But someone who got hit with like credit fraud or something like that should still be able to legally defend themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:43:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would agree with this. Murderers and rapists shouldn't have any rights. But someone who got hit with like credit fraud or something like that should still be able to legally defend themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ibtp Eh depends on the felony. Violent crime yes. Non violent no. I would agree with this. Murderers and rapists shouldn't have any rights. But someone who got hit with like credit fraud or something like that should still be able to legally defend themselves. the word felony has become meaningless, the amount of crimes that rate felonious is absurd |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:43:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
youd be surprised at how many felons run for office every election... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. I agree. But knowing that we wont keep them in prison where they belong, I'm fine with them not legally possessing guns, or voting, or holding political office. youd be surprised at how many felons run for office every election... Nothing a politician does could surprise me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:43:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a friend who, before I met him, was convicted of a couple of felonies involving drugs. He did his time, got out and reunited with his wife and came to know Christ. He works hard, supports his wife and 4 children, and finally managed to purchase a house on several acres after years of saving. He and his family are some of the kindest and most generous people I have ever met. He is trying to keep chickens and have a little hobby farm but coyotes keep killing his chickens. He can not own a firearm to protect his family or his chickens. Not even a single shot 22. That's wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always though that this was the worst and most accepted gun control our nation has ever seen. Your thoughts? I have a friend who, before I met him, was convicted of a couple of felonies involving drugs. He did his time, got out and reunited with his wife and came to know Christ. He works hard, supports his wife and 4 children, and finally managed to purchase a house on several acres after years of saving. He and his family are some of the kindest and most generous people I have ever met. He is trying to keep chickens and have a little hobby farm but coyotes keep killing his chickens. He can not own a firearm to protect his family or his chickens. Not even a single shot 22. That's wrong. Black powder is the appropriate loophole. That said, it is still a penalty for what he did. Great that he turned around, but should we take a child molester off of the registry because he "got right with God" and is a good neighbor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:43:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. it's not good for the people to have the government be able to strip rights without damn good reason. not all felonies are violent, and in those cases, there really isn't a good case for stripping rights after they have paid their debt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:44:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...I would argue they should still be in prison if they cannot be trusted out in public with a firearm. ... I don't think that you could find a single person in this thread who wouldn't agree that that SHOULD be the case. But the reality is that it is NOT the case, and I am far more interested in what is/is not than what SHOULD be. (This should not be an issue at all because we all should treat everyone the way we would want to be treated and then there would be no crime. We should, but we don't.) NOT picking on you or your post FTR, there are many just like it and I just happened to quote from your. A bad case of SHOULD breaks out every time this subject is brought up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:45:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Only while incarcerated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:45:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are either safe to be in public as a citizen, or you are not. If the GOP really wants to gain some minority ballots, they ought to pursue and end to felons being prevented from voting and owning guns. Vote gains aside, it is the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:45:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Only violent felons.
It's way too easy to become a felon today. You can do it without hurting anyone. I don't think being a felon means what it used to, so I don't think it's as big a mark of shame as it once was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:46:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. So you argue that people can never change. Once a criminal, always a criminal? 2. What about a 14 year old tried as an adult. They should never realize the fullness of their rights? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they are locked up, then yeah, they should be. Once out and off probation then no. If we can't trust them to be back out in society, keep them locked up. And should child molesters be on a registry after they've served their time? Or should we even HAVE criminal histories to allow for higher penalties for subsequent charges for the same type of crime? People make a choice when they commit crimes. They are accepting the risk of the penalties (ALL of them) if they are caught. Want to rob someone for some fast cash? Accept that if you are caught, you will lose the right to possess modern firearms for life. No problem at all with it. 1. So you argue that people can never change. Once a criminal, always a criminal? 2. What about a 14 year old tried as an adult. They should never realize the fullness of their rights? Any you believe that penalties should be arbitrary? That the restoration process which exists to allow them to PROVE they have changed is too much of a burden? FSA/victim mentality.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:46:20 PM EDT
[#32]
I voted yes. But my yes equals, while incarcerated and on parole/probation. Once all time is restored they should be instantly reinstated along with voting rights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:46:34 PM EDT
[#33]
I think if you're out of prison and off any probation or registry you should automatically get your rights back.
All that type of language in the law would do is cause nearly indefinite probation times and lifetime registries for a boatload of new categories. It's for the children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:46:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only way you can vote yes is to admit that the gun, and not the felon, is the real safety threat. If a felon is a serious risk to my safety, the means by which they attack is irrelevant. They should remain detained until they are no longer a threat. Well put sir. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:46:53 PM EDT
[#35]
I voted yes, but as others have stated, I really only feel that way about violent offenders. I don't see why somebody who was caught insider trading or evading taxes should lose that right permanently. Though it's my understanding that these types of non-violent crimes make it much more likely to have the right reinstated after serving their sentence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:47:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only while incarcerated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:47:12 PM EDT
[#37]
since felony don't mean shit anymore, we need to create a new classification for truly heinous crimes
turbofelony |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:48:30 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Black powder is the appropriate loophole. That said, it is still a penalty for what he did. Great that he turned around, but should we take a child molester off of the registry because he "got right with God" and is a good neighbor? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always though that this was the worst and most accepted gun control our nation has ever seen. Your thoughts? I have a friend who, before I met him, was convicted of a couple of felonies involving drugs. He did his time, got out and reunited with his wife and came to know Christ. He works hard, supports his wife and 4 children, and finally managed to purchase a house on several acres after years of saving. He and his family are some of the kindest and most generous people I have ever met. He is trying to keep chickens and have a little hobby farm but coyotes keep killing his chickens. He can not own a firearm to protect his family or his chickens. Not even a single shot 22. That's wrong. Black powder is the appropriate loophole. That said, it is still a penalty for what he did. Great that he turned around, but should we take a child molester off of the registry because he "got right with God" and is a good neighbor? No. They should be taken out back and shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:48:59 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
since felony don't mean shit anymore, we need to create a new classification for truly heinous crimes turbofelony I couldn't agree more (except maybe the name ), and would heartily support such an effort.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:49:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think anybody should be stripped of any rights. So don't even jail murderers and child molesters? Sounds reasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:49:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Black powder is the appropriate loophole. That said, it is still a penalty for what he did. Great that he turned around, but should we take a child molester off of the registry because he "got right with God" and is a good neighbor? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always though that this was the worst and most accepted gun control our nation has ever seen. Your thoughts? I have a friend who, before I met him, was convicted of a couple of felonies involving drugs. He did his time, got out and reunited with his wife and came to know Christ. He works hard, supports his wife and 4 children, and finally managed to purchase a house on several acres after years of saving. He and his family are some of the kindest and most generous people I have ever met. He is trying to keep chickens and have a little hobby farm but coyotes keep killing his chickens. He can not own a firearm to protect his family or his chickens. Not even a single shot 22. That's wrong. Black powder is the appropriate loophole. That said, it is still a penalty for what he did. Great that he turned around, but should we take a child molester off of the registry because he "got right with God" and is a good neighbor? Nice reductio ad absurdum. How is being on a registry compare to losing what is and should always be an inalienable right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:50:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would agree with this. Murderers and rapists shouldn't have any rights. But someone who got hit with like credit fraud or something like that should still be able to legally defend themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ibtp Eh depends on the felony. Violent crime yes. Non violent no. I would agree with this. Murderers and rapists shouldn't have any rights. But someone who got hit with like credit fraud or something like that should still be able to legally defend themselves. So, there is some difference in a person who steals your money and causes severe harm to your life with a computer, and the guy who strongarms you or uses a knife to get the 20 bucks out of your pocket? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:50:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is my take on it. Traditionally, a felony was a fairly heinous crime that was punishable by death or forfeiture of property. Life imprisonment with subsequent parole was an act of mercy on the part of the justice system such that your citizenship rights were "executed" but you were spared. Within that framework, I am OK with felons losing their right to vote, their right to bear arms, etc. However, in the modern framework where you have crimes like "Felony Parking Meter Stuffing" or you can become a felon for having a 14.5" barrel with a removable flash hider, I don't support the loss of rights for those types of crimes; because frankly, those aren't the kinds of serious crimes that justify losing any of your citizenship rights. So I guess in my view, the problem isn't that felons lose their Second Amendment rights, it is that there are too many bullshit "crimes" defined as felonies now. This. Felonies should be violent crimes only. Maybe we should invent a middle tier or something, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:51:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. Hang a few and make some room. Make the penalty for committing a violent or sex crime so horrific that it's an actual deterrent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:51:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I voted no, but that would only be for non violent crimes, violent crimes have shown society they are a danger. non violent should have full rights restored after paying their due.. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:54:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ibtp Eh depends on the felony. Violent crime yes. Non violent no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:55:28 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hang a few and make some room. Make the penalty for committing a violent or sex crime so horrific that it's an actual deterrent. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. Hang a few and make some room. Make the penalty for committing a violent or sex crime so horrific that it's an actual deterrent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:57:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
or stop flooding our prisons with non-violent offenders on stupid drug charges. We are only out of room because everything has become a felony. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. Hang a few and make some room. Make the penalty for committing a violent or sex crime so horrific that it's an actual deterrent. or stop flooding our prisons with non-violent offenders on stupid drug charges. We are only out of room because everything has become a felony. Get both. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:59:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
or stop flooding our prisons with non-violent offenders on stupid drug charges. We are only out of room because everything has become a felony. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. Hang a few and make some room. Make the penalty for committing a violent or sex crime so horrific that it's an actual deterrent. In most places you'd do more time for possession of an unregistered machine gun than for beating the shit out of someone. 
Lesson there the gov doesn't care as much about you assaulting someone as you owning weapons it finds scary. The WOD is 100% about money though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:59:06 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
or stop flooding our prisons with non-violent offenders on stupid drug charges. We are only out of room because everything has become a felony. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally always thought if they were too dangerous to have guns, they shouldn't be out with the general public. This is true but not realistic.. We simply can't afford to house them all. Hang a few and make some room. Make the penalty for committing a violent or sex crime so horrific that it's an actual deterrent. Winner winner, chicken dinner. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
