[^]

He's dead.  He paid his debt.  Lived a good life.  He worked paid taxes to a gov't he wasn't allowed to help elect or vote out of office.  Saw the error of his ways and really walked the line afterwards.  Even after 50 years passes he would have been barred.  Times were different and he was illiterate, could not read or write.  He had "a mind that was weak and a back that was strong" yeah his crimes were wrong BUT unforgivable?  If not then our justice system as it is now and has been for a long time is a farce.  rehabilitation has no standing in it then and it is a system that churns out repeat offenders and denies otherwise qualified people from securing better employment, etc.  A criminal record is one thing but restrictions on your rights are a direct infringment upon your right to life, liberty and the pursiut of happiness.  I for one believe that we should kill all the murderers, rapists and child predators.  Everyone else does their time or pays the fine and gets full rights uninfringed when they are paid or served.  Anything less is "uncivilized"!

No... They should also be barred from public office, voting, law enforcement, and commissioned military service.

You screw up, you pay the price... What is not fair is congress prohibiting the ATF from restoring people's rights, as provided for by the 68 GCA.

However, if it was to be changed, the only logical replacement would be to make firearms prohibition a sentancing item, just like 'years untill parole' (so they could be sentanced to 'no guns for 5 years', 'no guns for life', or whatever, at the discretion of the judge/jury...)

If the Justice system were different and actually punished criminals for the crimes they commit, I might be for all felons getting their rights back. But the way it is now I can't say I want violent felons ever having a gun again.

I feel like it shouldn't be that way, like somebody else said the 2nd amendment does not specifically exempt felons from the RKBA.

If the justice system would ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books, handing out swift sentencing and then CARRY OUT the sentence, the violent crime would plummet.

A buddy of mine single-handedly turned a do-gooding,holier than thou social worker's attitude on gun control 180 degrees in the other direction!!!
Here's what happened:
He was locked down for a non-violent crime (No need to go into the details)at a "country-club type prison for 2 yrs. This counselor got on her high horse about guns and criminals and how we will all be better off when guns are outlawed! My buddy was getting sick of her irrational attitude and so when asked what he thought- he said somthing to the effect of that's good,I don't want YOU to have a gun! I will always have a gun! As soon as I get out,I know 10 places I can go and pick up whatever I want! So you go on ahead and turn over your guns and outlaw them,it will make NO DIFFERENCE to me!! It's already illegal for me to own them,but I'll have them anyway!And I don't want you to have them.....  

I guess she really got the message,and became very quiet! And NEVER said anything about gun control again!

If I was a NON-VIOLENT felon I would vote yes, but since I suffer from Schadenfreude Syndrome I vote no.

Yankee1911

Burglary, Arson, etc. are PROPERTY CRIMES.

Now read the next pararapghs COMPLETELY then thinking about what you have just read answer the questions.

A 30 year old male gets "mugged" by 2 large males, who threaten to hit him with baseball bats if he doesn't hand over his wallet. He loses his wallet, ATM, and credit card along with $300 dollars.

An elderly couple has their medical insurance premiums embezzled by their insurance agent. One of them gets sick and has to be hospitalized, for 3 weeks. The hospital bill is $32,000. They find out they don't have medical insurance. They have to sell there house to repay the hospital. The healthy spouse is forced to return to work.

1) Which is the "violent crime"?

2) Which crime effected the victims more?

3) Which thief showed more disregard for other people in their actions?  

1) Obviously the mugging is the violent crime.  And using the threat of physical force kinda takes it out of the class of white-collar crime, doesn't it?

2)  Purely subjective.  But the elderly couple in your example didn't face immediate physical harm.  

3) Again, purely subjective.  

But as far as burglary, arson, etc., being Propery Crimes, it seems that at least the state of Texas considers them to be directly threatening enough to the victims to allow the use of deadly force against the criminal.  Though I doubt that even in Texas, shooting an embezzler would be considered legally justifiable.

And again, I wouldn't define burglary, arson, etc., as white-collar crimes.

It`s getting easier EVERY day to be labeled a criminal. Keep that in mind when they want to take away your freedom of speech, keep and bear Arms, Quarter a soldier in YOUR house, to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects, Against unreasonable searches and seizures, Enjoy the right to NO trial, and NO Witness YOU, Etc.....

Shall I go on? Does any of that sound good to you? (don't answer that, you are scaring me).
What if posting on AR15.com becomes a Felony?
Should we be allowed to own guns/Free Speech..ETC?

Your logic is flawed. You cannot take away God given rights, let alone have them restored.

When a felon is released from prison he can go to a judge and get a waiver for this. I wouldnt say they would be issued the day they got out of jail. I have seen one six months after someone was released for a non violent crime. I have seen several of these and they have all been issued for non-violent crimes. So they get their right under the 2nd amendment back.

It is also a fact that most criminals start off with non-violent crimes. Ones they dont get the excitement from these they sometimes turn to violent crimes. This is I believe the reason for the law.

Well sir, I believe you are correct that more and more things are being considered felonies.

But part of my thought is this. Back in the "early days" the Constitution was applied to CITIZENS. Don't own land etc, etc, you didn't get the full measure of "Rights" listed in the Constitution.

Your Right to swing your fists about freely has always eneded at the tip of someone else's nose. There are limits to other Rights, why shouldn't there be limits to the 2nd? I would also say that a person that forsakes their citizenship, or at least diminishes it, by committing a felony, should expect that the Rights that go along with being a citizen should be diminished as well.

Yankee1911, White collar crimes, like the one I keep asking you about, can be far more devestating to the victim than street crimes. The criminal who does them knows, or should know how much their crime will effect other people. Yet the do their crime anyway. Not in the heat of the moment, but by choice. The white collar criminal also never exposes himself to physical danger during the commision of the crime. They can destroy lives, and stay clean and safe.

Sorry, I'm more worried about the vicitims and what happens to them then the CRIMINALS.