Guns and non-violent ex-cons [W:165]

[Kal'Stang]

Why should a non-violent ex-con have thier Right to own a gun removed?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why should a non-violent ex-con have their Right to own a gun removed?

Because it helps the hoplophobes get that much closer to denying that right to everyone.

 

[Naptyme]

I don't see the point in it myself. Guns are pretty much like weed if you want it badly enough the law isn't going to stop you from getting it.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Because they have proven that they cannot live in civil society without preying on others.
They want their rights back, go to court and petition for them.
I can go through life and not be a felon, and I am no angel. If I can, anyone can.

 

[Ikari]

Why should a non-violent ex-con have thier Right to own a gun removed?

No reason other than some holier-than-thou folk want to come down and pretend they're better than everyone else and because they're better they are justified in their use of infinite government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

In the end, I even think that violent ex-felons should have the full of their rights recognized again. If someone wants to exert further force beyond the punishment of court, they have to prove their focused beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law; not the other way around.

 

[CRUE CAB]

No reason other than some holier-than-thou folk want to come down and pretend they're better than everyone else and because they're better they are justified in their use of infinite government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

In the end, I even think that violent ex-felons should have the full of their rights recognized again. If someone wants to exert further force beyond the punishment of court, they have to prove their focused beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law; not the other way around.

I am better than a felon.
And you are willing to put guns in the hands of murderers, bank robbers, rapists, child molesters?

 

[SMTA]

No reason other than some holier-than-thou folk want to come down and pretend they're better than everyone else and because they're better they are justified in their use of infinite government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

In the end, I even think that violent ex-felons should have the full of their rights recognized again. If someone wants to exert further force beyond the punishment of court, they have to prove their focused beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law; not the other way around.

Nope.

There was a local case several months ago where an ex-felon used a handgun to kill his ex-wife, her 15 y/o daughter, and severely wounded the daughter's friend.

He had been released about 7 months prior to the incident.

I also seem to recall that the NY guy who set a fire, killed his neighbor and several fireman was an ex-felon.

Two local teenage punks were just caught after a killing spree just last week.
They had just been released from juvenile a short time before,

No, they can forgo their rights to ever owning a gun.

Screw them.

 

[blaxshep]

Because they have proven that they cannot live in civil society without preying on others.

That really means nothing, the entire Capitalist system is built on preying on others.
I guess that means rich people should be denied the right to carry a gun?

 

[Ikari]

I am better than a felon.
And you are willing to put guns in the hands of murderers, bank robbers, rapists, child molesters?

Oh look at that. Emotional appeal. Logic fail.

Any individual upon completion of punishment must have the full of their rights recognized again. If you wish to use government force beyond that, you have to prove the point; not the other way around.

 

[Ikari]

Nope.

There was a local case several months ago where an ex-felon used a handgun to kill his ex-wife, her 15 y/o daughter, and severely wounded the daughter's friend.

He had been released about 7 months prior to the incident.

I also seem to recall that the NY guy who set a fire, killed his neighbor and several fireman was an ex-felon.

Two local teenage punks were just caught after a killing spree just last week.
They had just been released from juvenile a short time before,

No, they can forgo their rights to ever owning a gun.

Screw them.

There will be cases of criminals repeat offending, there will be cases of people offending for the first time. This is neither here nor there. It's just emotional appeal based on hand selected incident, not proper philosophy and statistic. You want to punish future crime, but our system was not meant to handle that.

 

[What if...?]

Oh look at that. Emotional appeal. Logic fail.

Any individual upon completion of punishment must have the full of their rights recognized again. If you wish to use government force beyond that, you have to prove the point; not the other way around.

Right. The OP is talking about non-violent felons.

A case can be made that a violent felon, or one that USED a gun in their felony, "deserves" to lose their right to bear arms or have them suspended.

But there's no causal link to justify taking the right permanently for possession of pot. There is no victim, so there is no demonstrated threat to society. Which should be required to permanently remove a constitutional right.

We don't strip the right to free speech when someone is convicted of slander.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Oh look at that. Emotional appeal. Logic fail.

Any individual upon completion of punishment must have the full of their rights recognized again. If you wish to use government force beyond that, you have to prove the point; not the other way around.

I dont have to prove anything. They have proved they are willing to be part of a sub culture of criminals in our nation.
How is it logical to allow felons to have access to guns?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Right. The OP is talking about non-violent felons.

A case can be made that a violent felon, or one that USED a gun in their felony, "deserves" to lose their right to bear arms or have them suspended.

But there's no causal link to justify taking the right permanently for possession of pot. There is no victim, so there is no demonstrated threat to society. Which should be required to permanently remove a constitutional right.

We don't strip the right to free speech when someone is convicted of slander.

Because we cant take all means of speech from someone. How do you take all pens, pencils, computers, I pads, phones, cans and string from everyone that commits slander?
But we can take guns out of the hands of those who commit felonies and make it a crime for them to possess a gun in the future.
And by the way, most slander cases end up as civil cases any way.

 

[What if...?]

I dont have to prove anything. They have proved they are willing to be part of a sub culture of criminals in our nation.
How is it logical to allow felons to have access to guns?

Or that their sub-culture has been criminalized.

 

[Ikari]

I dont have to prove anything. They have proved they are willing to be part of a sub culture of criminals in our nation.
How is it logical to allow felons to have access to guns?

We have a system of limited government force and punishment. You can't punish people for crimes they may commit and you cannot use infinite government force without proving your case in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. You're the one who wants to use government force, you're the one who must prove the case.

 

[What if...?]

Because we cant take all means of speech from someone. How do you take all pens, pencils, computers, I pads, phones, cans and string from everyone that commits slander?
But we can take guns out of the hands of those who commit felonies and make it a crime for them to possess a gun in the future.
And by the way, most slander cases end up as civil cases any way.

Why couldnt you make it a crime to possess the things you mention?

 

[CRUE CAB]

There will be cases of criminals repeat offending, there will be cases of people offending for the first time. This is neither here nor there. It's just emotional appeal based on hand selected incident, not proper philosophy and statistic. You want to punish future crime, but our system was not meant to handle that.

So the amount of repeat offenders is of no consequence?
Personally, I think all felons should be shot on sight. But thats just me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because they have proven that they cannot live in civil society without preying on others.
They want their rights back, go to court and petition for them.
I can go through life and not be a felon, and I am no angel. If I can, anyone can.

Do you realize that in some jurisdictions, by merely engaging in an entirely legitimate exercise of your Second Amendment rights, without getting permission from the state and jumping through certain hoops that the state decides to put before you, you can be committing a felony? And of course, once that corrupt state prosecutes you for the “crime” of legitimately exercising your Second Amendment rights, you are now a convicted felon, and have no provided the state with an excuse to deny you that right entirely.

 

[Ikari]

So the amount of repeat offenders is of no consequence?
Personally, I think all felons should be shot on sight. But thats just me.

Well then you're quite the megalomaniacal despot and it's good you're not in charge.

There will be repeat offenders, nothing can be done about that. But you cannot use that as basis for improper government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. If you cannot prove necessity for life in prison without parole, the punishment must end and at that point all rights are to be recognized and respected.

This is a consequence of freedom.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am better than a felon.
And you are willing to put guns in the hands of murderers, bank robbers, rapists, child molesters?

Murderers, bank robbers, and child molesters should be kept in prison for life, or put to death. There is no excuse for allowing such subhuman animals to ever go free again; and certainly no excuse for using them as a reason to deny the most essential of Constitutional rights to those who haven't risen to this level of criminality.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Well then you're quite the megalomaniacal despot and it's good you're not in charge.

There will be repeat offenders, nothing can be done about that. But you cannot use that as basis for improper government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. If you cannot prove necessity for life in prison without parole, the punishment must end and at that point all rights are to be recognized and respected.

This is a consequence of freedom.

No this is not a consequence of freedom.
This is a consequence of not using personal responsibility to govern your life in such a manner as to not become a felon.
I have no problem with many felons doing life, first offence for rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery. But that is not reality. They get out, and do it again most of the time.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Do you realize that in some jurisdictions, by merely engaging in an entirely legitimate exercise of your Second Amendment rights, without getting permission from the state and jumping through certain hoops that the state decides to put before you, you can be committing a felony? And of course, once that corrupt state prosecutes you for the “crime” of legitimately exercising your Second Amendment rights, you are now a convicted felon, and have no provided the state with an excuse to deny you that right entirely.

First it always behooves one to know the laws of the state they are in if they are going to take their guns with them.
There are books available that have ever state and local gun law in the country, if you ignore that? To bad.
I live in Florida. So what happens in New Jersey and other left leaning states does not concern me. People choose to live where they do. No one is made to be there.

 

[Ikari]

No this is not a consequence of freedom.
This is a consequence of not using personal responsibility to govern your life in such a manner as to not become a felon.
I have no problem with many felons doing life, first offence for rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery. But that is not reality. They get out, and do it again most of the time.

So, you got the data to back up that "most of the time" statement, yes?

 

[CRUE CAB]

So, you got the data to back up that "most of the time" statement, yes?

FBI info for recidivisim is plenty available.
You really must be blind to not know that most jails and prisons are a revolving door of criminals in and out.
Tell you what, you file the suit on the behalf of all your scumbag criminal friends to get their rights restored. Let us know how it works out.

 

[Ikari]

FBI info for recidivisim is plenty available.
You really must be blind to not know that most jails and prisons are a revolving door of criminals in and out.
Tell you what, you file the suit on the behalf of all your scumbag criminal friends to get their rights restored. Let us know how it works out.

Oh, I know they are available. I just wanted to know if you had the intellectual honestly to post them in defense of your statements. You have no stats or data, just insults. Insults do not make the argument. So perhaps you need to step back and calm down, the return to this argument once you can make posts not centered on unsupported claims and fits of emotion.