User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 9:38:33 AM EDT
[#1]
Non-violent offenders? You bet.
Their crimes are likely "white-collar" in nature, and as such, they don't really pose any threat to public safety. ...just don't take investment tips or tax advice from them. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 10:02:34 AM EDT
[#2]
I vote: Dangerous people should be executed, so "Yes".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 10:12:04 AM EDT
[#3]
i voted yes, BUT should Don Juan who was caught with 10lbs. of coke be allowed to hvae a gun? no
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 10:28:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Does anyone really believe that someone who would break into your house and steal your stuff, for example (non-violent) wouldn't just as easily do it at gunpoint.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 10:29:59 AM EDT
[#5]
I actually like to annoy my leftist - um, I wouldn't call them "friends", so let's say the leftists I know - with this one. It's discrimination to "stigmatize" former felons because they've served their time and have been rehabilitated. That's why we taxpayers cough up the bucks to give them cable TV and better workout gear than I can afford, make sure we're sensitive to their cultural, social and dietary needs and try not to fry them too often, right? So, why can't they have guns like the rest of us when they get out?
And, if the thought of a former felon owning a gun freaks them out, maybe we shouldn't be letting the fvckers out of the can so soon, eh? Anyway, my knee-jerk reaction is they shouldn't be armed but my final answer is "Yes". If you're a citizen, you get to buy guns. That's the way it works, even if the Democrats don't like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 10:49:54 AM EDT
[#6]
No, they should still be on parole when they get out.
If [b]non-violent[/b] felons were to have their 2nd Amendment rights restored ( I doubt that will ever happen ) they should still have to complete their parole first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 10:59:27 AM EDT
[#7]
Straw purchases and felonies are non-related.
I belive that non-violent felons should have some avenue to have their rights restored AT SOME POINT. But not automatically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 11:03:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Does anyone really believe that someone who would break into your house and steal your stuff, for example (non-violent) wouldn't just as easily do it at gunpoint. Actually, in most jurisdictions, burglary (the breaking into a dwelling place with intent to commit a felony therein) is classified as a violent offense, so someone convicted of that offense would still be prohibited from firearms possession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 11:09:14 AM EDT
[#9]
I say no... Give them a 'cooling down' period, to prevent immediate revenge; unless they can prove someone's going after them.
Also, IMO, if a non-violent is released, and commits a violent offense linked to the non-violent one, he should just get life and be put away for good (in a work camp). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 11:23:23 AM EDT
[#10]
I posted this on the "straw purchase" thread but is more suited here.
My absolute view on this is everyone should have the right to own firearms, even violent convicted felons. If they are released from prison, then they have served their time for the crime and payed their debt. Is their life any less important than yours? And yes, I understand that violent felons will most likely commit another violent crime...but do you really think banning guns (for just them) is going to stop them? I will be very suprised if anyone here can actually answer that with yes. What is needed is to hold people responsible for their actions. Let felons buy guns to shoot and defend themselves with, but if they use a gun to commit another crime have a two strikes and you are out rule and lock them up permanently as they have shown repeatedly that they are violent, are not responsible, and will threaten the lives of others. I can't believe that people here actually think that creating a class of people that can't own weapons or certain kinds of weapons is completely acceptable. That attitude will eventually be used and turned against you even though you haven't committed any crime...oh sh*t that's already happend with the AW ban. Now please restate your arguments for this and justify creating a "class" of people who should not be trusted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 11:31:22 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: No, they should still be on parole when they get out. I agree. If they can go 5-10 years out in society without screwing up, then they should be let off parole. No law will stop them from getting a gun if they just want to commit more crimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 11:53:31 AM EDT
[#12]
You mean like Burglars?
What about people who kill other people while driving drunk? Chronic drunk drivers? How about con-artists that swindle elderly folks out of their retirement money, or emblezzle their life or medical insurance payments? Arsonists? People who get into high-speed chaces with the police? I could probably go on and on. The common factor is this, they do stuff that shows a signigant lack of judgement and maturity. Sure let's have have as many guns as they want. It's not like people should actually be held accountable for their actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 11:59:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: You mean like Burglars? What about people who kill other people while driving drunk? Chronic drunk drivers? How about con-artists that swindle elderly folks out of their retirement money, or emblezzle their life or medical insurance payments? Arsonists? People who get into high-speed chaces with the police? I could probably go on and on. The common factor is this, they do stuff that shows a signigant lack of judgement and maturity. Sure let's have have as many guns as they want. It's not like people should actually be held accountable for their actions. Wouldn't you say that putting somebody in prison for a crime they committed is holding that person accountable for their actions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:06:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: You mean like Burglars? What about people who kill other people while driving drunk? Chronic drunk drivers? How about con-artists that swindle elderly folks out of their retirement money, or emblezzle their life or medical insurance payments? Arsonists? People who get into high-speed chaces with the police? I could probably go on and on. The common factor is this, they do stuff that shows a signigant lack of judgement and maturity. Sure let's have have as many guns as they want. It's not like people should actually be held accountable for their actions. What about people who violate AWB's? They're felons too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:08:56 PM EDT
[#15]
No.
Any felony conviction should carry the penalty of lifetime loss of voting rights, right to bear arms, right to serve in the militia or in law enforcement, or to hold any public office. If you behave properly after you are released from prison, apply for Executive Clemency. That is the reason its there, the reason we gave Governors and Presidents that power. The restoration of rights is always going to be a judgement call, it needs to be in the hands of someone the voters-the people who will be affected by a bad judgement- can deal with if the judgement is poor. The other alternative-but I know of no state where this is law- is to allow a ex-convict to sue for restoration of rights and leave it for a jury to decide, just as it was the responsiblity of a jury to decide the original case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:18:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: No. Any felony conviction should carry the penalty of lifetime loss of voting rights, right to bear arms, right to serve in the militia or in law enforcement, or to hold any public office. Which includes people who are convicted of TECHNICAL violations of things like NFA, GCA and AWB. That's a blanket policy that's no bueno in my book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:22:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: No. Any felony conviction should carry the penalty of lifetime loss of voting rights, right to bear arms, right to serve in the militia or in law enforcement, or to hold any public office. Which includes people who are convicted of TECHNICAL violations of things like NFA, GCA and AWB. That's a blanket policy that's no bueno in my book. Yes it DOES mean for violations of those laws, and as long as those laws ARE laws it is a felony to break them. You don't like it remove the law, but you cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce. Obviously, unless the executive is a anti-gun radical such violations will be looked upon more favorably for Executive Clemency than those in which people have been killed or injured. One of the biggest problems with the law in this country is this idea that they are all negotiable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:30:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Bottom line, if you don't want to go to jail and lose your rights don't do the damm crime. Some people just don't know how to keep their damm nose clean. There sure are a lot of BS laws/gun laws.
Just because a scumbag felon did some time that doesn't mean the crime never happened. Should a convicted scumbag pedophile be allowed to work with kids just because he did some time? Fck no, personally I think he should've been shanked in prison. If the scumbag felon wants to rearm let him do so illegally. That way when the scumbag felon commits another crime there would be an extra charge of felon in possession of a gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:34:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No. Any felony conviction should carry the penalty of lifetime loss of voting rights, right to bear arms, right to serve in the militia or in law enforcement, or to hold any public office. Which includes people who are convicted of TECHNICAL violations of things like NFA, GCA and AWB. That's a blanket policy that's no bueno in my book. Yes it DOES mean for violations of those laws, and as long as those laws ARE laws it is a felony to break them. You don't like it remove the law, but you cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce. Obviously, unless the executive is a anti-gun radical such violations will be looked upon more favorably for Executive Clemency than those in which people have been killed or injured. One of the biggest problems with the law in this country is this idea that they are all negotiable. No, those laws are not "negotiable", they are illegal, as they fly directly in the face of the Constitution. Our beloved politicians are passing laws that make felons out all sorts of people that have no INTENTION of, or desire to do others harm. If that's a fact of life, so be it, BUT if I get doinked on one of these technical felonies (either through my own voilition or ignorance), I want to know that my rights will be restored after "paying my debt" to society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:38:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Bottom line, if you don't want to go to jail and lose your rights don't do the damm crime. Some people just don't know how to keep their damm nose clean. There sure are a lot of BS laws/gun laws. i.e. Don't bother to excercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, because it will make me a felon, which then lawfully abridges my right to keep and bear arms? Is that how I should keep my nose clean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:53:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Wouldn't you say that putting somebody in prison for a crime they committed is holding that person accountable for their actions? Someone who voluntarily turns their back on their duties as a citizen, by commiting a felony, should lose some of the Rights inherent to a citizen. The best predictor of future behavior is..................................................................PAST BEHAVIOR. Guess what that means? As far as white collar criminals, weren't there multiple, pointed calls for arrests after Enron? Weren't people up in arms what the mismanagment at that company did to stock holding, and the national economy? White collar criminals are just as vicious and berift or morals as street thugs. Their presentation is just much better, and often far more profitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 12:54:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line, if you don't want to go to jail and lose your rights don't do the damm crime. Some people just don't know how to keep their damm nose clean. There sure are a lot of BS laws/gun laws. i.e. Don't bother to excercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, because it will make me a felon, which then lawfully abridges my right to keep and bear arms? Is that how I should keep my nose clean? All I'm saying is follow the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences. A simple concept. Don't think for one minute I agree with this gun ban BS. What are you getting at? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 1:14:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line, if you don't want to go to jail and lose your rights don't do the damm crime. Some people just don't know how to keep their damm nose clean. There sure are a lot of BS laws/gun laws. i.e. Don't bother to excercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, because it will make me a felon, which then lawfully abridges my right to keep and bear arms? Is that how I should keep my nose clean? All I'm saying is follow the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences. A simple concept. Don't think for one minute I agree with this gun ban BS. What are you getting at? What I'm getting at is that being a "felon" in this country doesn't take too much effort. And in some (a lot of) cases, like with NFA, GCA and AWB, by excercising a RIGHT (i.e. owning a scary black rifle) you can become a "felon". So, by your statement, if they outlaw (which they have) my right to keep and bear arms as I see fit and choose to (rightfully) ignore that law and excercise my rights and get caught, I DESERVE to lose my rights forever. Which further means that the government has the "right" to do all of this in the first place. I disagree, and think that (under current circumstances) a NON-VIOLENT felon, as in a TECHNICAL felon, SHOULD have his rights restored, precisely because of the fact they are TECHNICAL violations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 1:22:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Origianlly posted by OLY-M4gery Someone who voluntarily turns their back on their duties as a citizen, by commiting a felony, should lose some of the Rights inherent to a citizen. That's fine with me as long as EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN isn't a felony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 1:37:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line, if you don't want to go to jail and lose your rights don't do the damm crime. Some people just don't know how to keep their damm nose clean. There sure are a lot of BS laws/gun laws. i.e. Don't bother to excercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, because it will make me a felon, which then lawfully abridges my right to keep and bear arms? Is that how I should keep my nose clean? All I'm saying is follow the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences. A simple concept. Don't think for one minute I agree with this gun ban BS. What are you getting at? What I'm getting at is that being a "felon" in this country doesn't take too much effort. And in some (a lot of) cases, like with NFA, GCA and AWB, by excercising a RIGHT (i.e. owning a scary black rifle) you can become a "felon". So, by your statement, if they outlaw (which they have) my right to keep and bear arms as I see fit and choose to (rightfully) ignore that law and excercise my rights and get caught, I DESERVE to lose my rights forever. Which further means that the government has the "right" to do all of this in the first place. I disagree, and think that (under current circumstances) a NON-VIOLENT felon, as in a TECHNICAL felon, SHOULD have his rights restored, precisely because of the fact they are TECHNICAL violations. Yes, apparently it does not. Where have you been? The .gov's been doing this sort of BS for years. And getting away with it I might add. As I stated on a previous thread ( a couple months ago ), violent felons should never be allowed to rearm legally. Let those scumbags go to the back alleys. Depending on the violation, I wouldn't really have a problem with non-violent offenders being restored rights to a certain degree. Either way, I don't see a big movement underway to restore felons gun rights happening anytime soon. Did I miss anything? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 1:48:34 PM EDT
[#26]
I voted no because my fiancee's ex I guess would be considered a non violent felon (posession of marajuana w/ intent to distribute). Turns out that he's in to stronger stuff than just pot, he's a meth and coke head, and he's just mentally unstable. One night when my fiancee had enough she and I changed the locks to the house, because he still had a key, he procedes to break down a door with a hammer because he was "going to come and settle the divorce once and for all". Too bad I wasn't armed that night, because if he had actually made it inside the house, I think the divorce would have been settled right there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 1:51:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line, if you don't want to go to jail and lose your rights don't do the damm crime. Some people just don't know how to keep their damm nose clean. There sure are a lot of BS laws/gun laws. i.e. Don't bother to excercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, because it will make me a felon, which then lawfully abridges my right to keep and bear arms? Is that how I should keep my nose clean? All I'm saying is follow the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences. A simple concept. Don't think for one minute I agree with this gun ban BS. What are you getting at? What I'm getting at is that being a "felon" in this country doesn't take too much effort. And in some (a lot of) cases, like with NFA, GCA and AWB, by excercising a RIGHT (i.e. owning a scary black rifle) you can become a "felon". So, by your statement, if they outlaw (which they have) my right to keep and bear arms as I see fit and choose to (rightfully) ignore that law and excercise my rights and get caught, I DESERVE to lose my rights forever. Which further means that the government has the "right" to do all of this in the first place. I disagree, and think that (under current circumstances) a NON-VIOLENT felon, as in a TECHNICAL felon, SHOULD have his rights restored, precisely because of the fact they are TECHNICAL violations. Yes, apparently it does not. So, we agree. Where have you been? The .gov's been doing this sort of BS for years. And getting away with it I might add. I've been right here in Kali watching people become overnight felons. Just cuz' they get away with it doesn't make it right. As I stated on a previous thread ( a couple months ago ), violent felons should never be allowed to rearm legally. Let those scumbags go to the back alleys. But this thread is about Non-Violent felons. Depending on the violation, I wouldn't really have a problem with non-violent offenders being restored rights to a certain degree. That's better. I still say go further and give em' all back. Either way, I don't see a big movement underway to restore felons gun rights happening anytime soon. Me neither. I don't see a big movement in my rights being restored at all. Did I miss anything? That's subjective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 1:54:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Wouldn't you say that putting somebody in prison for a crime they committed is holding that person accountable for their actions? Someone who voluntarily turns their back on their duties as a citizen, by commiting a felony, should lose some of the Rights inherent to a citizen. So I guess your answer to my question would be no, right? The best predictor of future behavior is..................................................................PAST BEHAVIOR. Guess what that means? Gee, I guess that means that citizens are now viewed as "guilty until proven innocent" of future crimes that they [b]might[/b] commit. As far as white collar criminals, weren't there multiple, pointed calls for arrests after Enron? Weren't people up in arms what the mismanagment at that company did to stock holding, and the national economy? White collar criminals are just as vicious and berift or morals as street thugs. Their presentation is just much better, and often far more profitable. Except they rarely ever shoot, stab, rape, or bludgeon their victims. Other than that, the similarities are incredible. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 2:09:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line, if you don't want to go to jail and lose your rights don't do the damm crime. Some people just don't know how to keep their damm nose clean. There sure are a lot of BS laws/gun laws. i.e. Don't bother to excercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, because it will make me a felon, which then lawfully abridges my right to keep and bear arms? Is that how I should keep my nose clean? All I'm saying is follow the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences. A simple concept. Don't think for one minute I agree with this gun ban BS. What are you getting at? What I'm getting at is that being a "felon" in this country doesn't take too much effort. And in some (a lot of) cases, like with NFA, GCA and AWB, by excercising a RIGHT (i.e. owning a scary black rifle) you can become a "felon". So, by your statement, if they outlaw (which they have) my right to keep and bear arms as I see fit and choose to (rightfully) ignore that law and excercise my rights and get caught, I DESERVE to lose my rights forever. Which further means that the government has the "right" to do all of this in the first place. I disagree, and think that (under current circumstances) a NON-VIOLENT felon, as in a TECHNICAL felon, SHOULD have his rights restored, precisely because of the fact they are TECHNICAL violations. Yes, apparently it does not. So, we agree. Where have you been? The .gov's been doing this sort of BS for years. And getting away with it I might add. I've been right here in Kali watching people become overnight felons. Just cuz' they get away with it doesn't make it right. As I stated on a previous thread ( a couple months ago ), violent felons should never be allowed to rearm legally. Let those scumbags go to the back alleys. But this thread is about Non-Violent felons. Depending on the violation, I wouldn't really have a problem with non-violent offenders being restored rights to a certain degree. That's better. I still say go further and give em' all back. Either way, I don't see a big movement underway to restore felons gun rights happening anytime soon. Me neither. I don't see a big movement in my rights being restored at all. Did I miss anything? That's subjective. If you read my first post it specifically makes reference to non-violent felons. So I figure why not thrown in my two bits about violent felons on the same thread? Half the posts on this thread make reference to violent felons as well. I hope I didn't imply that .gov getting away with it was right, hell I even stated their gun laws were BS. Which for the most part they are. You got me on that last comment it was pretty funny. I know plenty of Kommiefornia gun owners and when the BS Kommiefornia ban came in 2000 everyone's black rifles suddenly disappeared. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 2:26:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I know plenty of Kommiefornia gun owners and when the BS Kommiefornia ban came in 2000 everyone's black rifles suddenly disappeared. That's for sure. Let's see David Copperfield top THAT disappearing act. I know at the end of the day we all pretty much want the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 2:32:31 PM EDT
[#31]
[b]Should NON-VIOLENT felons be allowed to purchase guns and vote immediately upon release from jail/prison?[/b]
No way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 2:38:25 PM EDT
[#32]
I would have to say Yes to this one. To fully answer the question requires a closer look at the whole criminal justice system.
With the system the way it is - violent criminals repeatedly released after short sentences until they do something really bad - preventing them from buying guns legally is good. Of course, the need to do this points to a more serious flaw in the criminal justice system, since repeated violent crime is a criminal justice problem, not a gun law problem. IMHO, I would move the whole system to harsher punishments for convicted criminals, but full restoration of rights when released. You shouldn't be released from prison at all if you are not believed to be fit to exercise all of your rights in a responsible manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 2:46:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: I know plenty of Kommiefornia gun owners and when the BS Kommiefornia ban came in 2000 everyone's black rifles suddenly disappeared. That's for sure. Let's see David Copperfield top THAT disappearing act. I know at the end of the day we all pretty much want the same thing. He can't, only fag Gay Davis can pull that off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 2:58:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Does anyone really believe that someone who would break into your house and steal your stuff, for example (non-violent) wouldn't just as easily do it at gunpoint. I would include BREAKING and entering with the intention of theft as a violent criminal act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 3:00:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Straw purchases and felonies are non-related. I disagree. Straw purchases for a person convicted of a felony is a felony in itself. This, IMHO is one of the main reasons there is such a term as "Straw Purchases", so you may not buy a weapon for your buddy who is a convicted felon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 3:01:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Should felons also lose the right to free speech? Jury trial?
The 2nd amendment doesn't say "the people ( except convicted felons)" it says "the people" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 3:08:38 PM EDT
[#37]
You people crack me up!! Just how the hell do you intend to "RESTORE" a God given right?
If you are free to walk the street you are free to own guns. If they cant be trusted with a gun then why are they out? Like I said MANY times lately, "HYPOCRITES"!!! I swear, some of you cant find your ass with both hands!! Its that lump on your shoulders!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 3:09:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: I would have to say Yes to this one. To fully answer the question requires a closer look at the whole criminal justice system. With the system the way it is - violent criminals repeatedly released after short sentences until they do something really bad - preventing them from buying guns legally is good. Of course, the need to do this points to a more serious flaw in the criminal justice system, since repeated violent crime is a criminal justice problem, not a gun law problem. IMHO, I would move the whole system to harsher punishments for convicted criminals, but full restoration of rights when released. [red]You shouldn't be released from prison at all if you are not believed to be fit to exercise all of your rights in a responsible manner.[/red] I could not agree more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 4:02:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Except they rarely ever shoot, stab, rape, or bludgeon their victims. Other than that, the similarities are incredible. [rolleyes] Most armed robberies don't involve shooting either. So is by your definition armed robbery a non-violent crime because nobody was actually shot? Think for a second if your parents or grandparents went from having enough to retire, and meet their basic needs. Then the investment counselor, or insurance agent they truseted skips town. You find out your parents/grandparents didn't have insurance, or the money they had invested, actually invested. They now can't get insurance, and will have medical bills, or their retirement account is WIPED out. Is that more or less devestating than losing a wallet to a mugger when you are 30? An arsonist destroys your SUV, to protest fuel usage. You want that guy to have a firearm, after the 30 days in jail he gets for wipping out your $30,000 vehicle? Ripmeyer, idiot, listen careful people get sent to jail, or prison for a set period of time based on the crime they were convicted of. There is no test prior to them being released to indicate whether or not they are "safe". They WILL be released at the end of their sentence, if they say they WILL be committing crimes before the sun sets the day they get released, to the Warden, Judge, or Govenor, and they still get released. Ripmeyer if you want to find your ass with both your hands look on top of your neck. S |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 4:07:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: IMHO, I would move the whole system to harsher punishments for convicted criminals, but full restoration of rights when released. You shouldn't be released from prison at all if you are not believed to be fit to exercise all of your rights in a responsible manner. The 8th Amendment might disagree with you. People are sent to jail/prison based on the crime they are convicted of. The CAN'T be held past the assigned release date, even if the proclaim they will be committing more crimes, starting the day they get out. Until your system of keeping criminals in jail/prison on the prediction of future behavior, I think felony conviction=no guns, no voting, no holding public office to name a few. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 4:18:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: You people crack me up!! Just how the hell do you intend to "RESTORE" a God given right? If you are free to walk the street you are free to own guns. If they cant be trusted with a gun then why are they out? Like I said MANY times lately, "HYPOCRITES"!!! I swear, some of you cant find your ass with both hands!! Its that lump on your shoulders!! You are typing smack. You obviously don't understand how the criminal justice system works in regards to sentencing. Since you don't understand sentencing it makes it very tough for you to make any educated comments on why, how long etc, convicted persons are or should be incarcerated, and how they should be treated later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 4:42:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: Except they rarely ever shoot, stab, rape, or bludgeon their victims. Other than that, the similarities are incredible. [rolleyes] Most armed robberies don't involve shooting either. So is by your definition armed robbery a non-violent crime because nobody was actually shot? No, I would define somebody using a firearm to coerce another to give something up as a violent crime. I guess you're not so good at "reading" people's intentions after all, huh? Think for a second if your parents or grandparents went from having enough to retire, and meet their basic needs. Then the investment counselor, or insurance agent they truseted skips town. You find out your parents/grandparents didn't have insurance, or the money they had invested, actually invested. They now can't get insurance, and will have medical bills, or their retirement account is WIPED out. And how exactly would that be a violent crime? Sorry, try again. Is that more or less devestating than losing a wallet to a mugger when you are 30? Pathetic comparison. Do you really believe those two examples are comparable? An arsonist destroys your SUV, to protest fuel usage. You want that guy to have a firearm, after the 30 days in jail he gets for wipping out your $30,000 vehicle? I don't give a shit. He'd probably shoot himself with it anyway. Seriously, is arson considered a non-violent crime? I never thought of firebugs as white-collar criminals. --snip stuff directed at RipMeyer-- edit to fix board code |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 4:44:04 PM EDT
[#43]
No where in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill Of Rights does it say the right to bear arms can be abridged for any reason.Yes,we have laws that people need to follow,or they go to jail.But this discussion is really a moot point for any true red blooded american that stands behind the U.S. constitution.First it was Felonies,Now as some of you must have forgotten,A misdemeanor conviction can take away your right to posess a firearm.Just remember,when arguing about the thread subject with your wife,mother,father,brother or sister,or neighbor,do not yell during the heated debate,or someone overhearing the debate may mistake the situation for Domestic Violence and call the law.There goes your right to posess a firearm.And don't say it wont happen...It is in the news at least a couple of times a month. flame suit on.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 4:47:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Prohibiting felons from owning guns was an anti-gun ploy identical to the assault weapons ban.
The goal was to create a "class" of people that were too dangerous to be trusted with firearms. Just as the AW ban was designed to create a "class" of firearms too dangerous to be owned. The anti-gunners started out with the most extream cases, ex. those evil dangerous felons should not have guns or the current version no one needs those evil dangerous assault weapons to go duck hunting. The goal was to create that "class" and get the majority of the public backing it. Then once that "class" was established they could easily add people or firearms too it. As you know in addition to felonies they have also added some misdemeanors (again the extream ones to get the public backing the idea of misdemeanors being an acceptable reason to deny someone the right to own a firearm). They haven't had as much luck creating the classes of firearms that are too dangerous. They have been working on the .50 cal ban and the "pocket rocket" ban but haven't gotten any traction lately. Thank you all for supporting the anti-gunners in their movement to ban private ownership of firearms. The next time you run into firearm ownership restriction give yourself a pat on the back and say "good job". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 5:06:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Prohibiting felons from owning guns was an anti-gun ploy identical to the assault weapons ban. ... Thank you all for supporting the anti-gunners in their movement to ban private ownership of firearms. The next time you run into firearm ownership restriction give yourself a pat on the back and say "good job". Very nicely put, SWIRE! This is, indeed, very similar to the divide and conqueror strategy the antis use with gun types. "We only want to ban sniper/assault/pocket guns, not the kind that [i]normal[/i] people own." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 6:16:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Prohibiting felons from owning guns was an anti-gun ploy identical to the assault weapons ban. ... Thank you all for supporting the anti-gunners in their movement to ban private ownership of firearms. The next time you run into firearm ownership restriction give yourself a pat on the back and say "good job". Very nicely put, SWIRE! This is, indeed, very similar to the divide and conqueror strategy the antis use with gun types. "We only want to ban sniper/assault/pocket guns, not the kind that [i]normal[/i] people own." Hip Hip Horrah For Swire! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 6:22:05 PM EDT
[#47]
And Swire gets the Shiny Star today. Hit that fucker right on the nose!
I'll go one better, the whole "longer than one year".... BS. That was to create a bigger class that incorporated more than just felons! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 6:23:44 PM EDT
[#48]
Sure, why not?
[img]http://www.milesfortis.com/church/images/shotguns/stevens04.jpg[/img] Nothing wrong with a well-armed cat. Wait, I thought you said feline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 6:28:43 PM EDT
[#49]
here's a true story. My great uncle was a felon. He and his brothers robbed during the Great Depression to feed the family. He got into an altercation with the PA State Police and holed up in a mine with some dynamite and then he and the other brothers surrendered. Went to Bellfonte state prison for 3 years got out, robbed again breaking parole and were sent back for 3 more years. Now he had lots of guns. All hunting rifles and shotguns. If he were alive today he would be barred by NCIS, correct? After he got out of jail the second time he flew straight. Was a grumpy old codger as I remember but a decent human and was married, has a house,etc. I didn't think he was at all wrong for keeping guns even though it was illegal for him to do so. I looked at it like this. Times were tough. He was poor and his parent, brothers and sisters were cold and hungry. He did what he had to do to get by and paid the price. But he died at 86 years old and he couldn't get a .22lr from Walmart even in his last decrepid days if he wanted. What kind of logic is that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 6:43:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: here's a true story. My great uncle was a felon. He and his brothers robbed during the Great Depression to feed the family. He got into an altercation with the PA State Police and holed up in a mine with some dynamite and then he and the other brothers surrendered. Went to Bellfonte state prison for 3 years got out, robbed again breaking parole and were sent back for 3 more years. Now he had lots of guns. All hunting rifles and shotguns. If he were alive today he would be barred by NCIS, correct? After he got out of jail the second time he flew straight. Was a grumpy old codger as I remember but a decent human and was married, has a house,etc. I didn't think he was at all wrong for keeping guns even though it was illegal for him to do so. I looked at it like this. Times were tough. He was poor and his parent, brothers and sisters were cold and hungry. He did what he had to do to get by and paid the price. But he died at 86 years old and he couldn't get a .22lr from Walmart even in his last decrepid days if he wanted. What kind of logic is that? Sorry Valkyrie, but robbing people for any reason is a violent crime, I wouldn't sell your uncle a gun to save my life. No personal flames, just MHO. |
|
|
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.
