• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
Calm down. What you dont like felons being called what they are. Worthless, lowlife, meaningless scum that have no business living amongst people that have done nothing wrong and work for a living without preying on our fellow man.
You taking that as an insult tells me alot about you.
 
This discussion seems to have grown out of the discussion in another gun thread.

I do not think there is any rational basis for denying a person their Second AMendment rights simply because they have committed a crime in the past. There are all kinds of crimes and all kinds of criminals who commit them

It depends on what they did.

If a person committed a crime involving the use of a gun, then they have shown that they abuse the right. Then one can make a reasonable case to deny them their Second Amendment rights.

If a person committed a crime that did not involve the use of a gun, there is no logical reason to deny them their Second Amendment Constitutional rights in the future.

Why would you selectively and arbitrary pick on one Constitutional right - the right to keep and bear arms when their crime did not involve a gun?

And if you are okay with the denial of their Second Amendment rights, are you also all right with denial of other Constitutional rights. Lets go through them:


Would you also deny them the right to freedom of speech?

Would you also deny them their rights under freedom of the press?

Would you also deny them their rights under freedom of religion?

Would you also deny them their rights under freedom to assemble?

Would you also deny them their rights to petition for redress of grievances?

Would you also deny them their rights under the Third Amendment to keep their homes free from quartering of troops in peacetime?

Would also deny them their right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures?

Would you also deny them their rights to be not arrested unless on probably cause?

Would you also deny them their rights to not answer for a crime unless indicted?

Would you also deny them their right to be protected against double jeopardy?

Would you also deny them their right to be protected from self incrimination?

Would you also deny them right to thei own property from being seized by the government without fair compensation?

Would you also deny to them the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury?

Would you also deny to them the right to confront witnesses against them?

Would you also deny to them the right to have counsel or an attorney in their defense?

Would you also deny them the right to sue in court ?

Would you also deny them bail in a court proceedings?

I think these are crucial questions which help answer the question. If the crime is gun related, then one can see the sense in taking a person who has abused the right and barring them from another one. However, to simply arbitrarily and selectively single out ones Second Amendment rights when the crime has not a thing to do with guns, picking on one Constitutional right while ignoring the others and leaving them intact is only discriminatory and arbitrary and for some reason singles out the SecondAmendment when it has no connection with that crime.
 
haymarket said:
This discussion seems to have grown out of the discussion in another gun thread.

I do not think there is any rational basis for denying a person their Second AMendment rights simply because they have committed a crime in the past. There are all kinds of crimes and all kinds of criminals who commit them

It depends on what they did.

If a person committed a crime involving the use of a gun, then they have shown that they abuse the right. Then one can make a reasonable case to deny them their Second Amendment rights.

If a person committed a crime that did not involve the use of a gun, there is no logical reason to deny them their Second Amendment Constitutional rights in the future.

Why would you selectively and arbitrary pick on one Constitutional right - the right to keep and bear arms when their crime did not involve a gun?

And if you are okay with the denial of their Second Amendment rights, are you also all right with denial of other Constitutional rights. Lets go through them:


Would you also deny them the right to freedom of speech?

Would you also deny them their rights under freedom of the press?

Would you also deny them their rights under freedom of religion?

Would you also deny them their rights under freedom to assemble?

Would you also deny them their rights to petition for redress of grievances?

Would you also deny them their rights under the Third Amendment to keep their homes free from quartering of troops in peacetime?

Would also deny them their right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures?

Would you also deny them their rights to be not arrested unless on probably cause?

Would you also deny them their rights to not answer for a crime unless indicted?

Would you also deny them their right to be protected against double jeopardy?

Would you also deny them their right to be protected from self incrimination?

Would you also deny them right to thei own property from being seized by the government without fair compensation?

Would you also deny to them the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury?

Would you also deny to them the right to confront witnesses against them?

Would you also deny to them the right to have counsel or an attorney in their defense?

Would you also deny them the right to sue in court ?

Would you also deny them bail in a court proceedings?

I think these are crucial questions which help answer the question. If the crime is gun related, then one can see the sense in taking a person who has abused the right and barring them from another one. However, to simply arbitrarily and selectively single out ones Second Amendment rights when the crime has not a thing to do with guns, picking on one Constitutional right while ignoring the others and leaving them intact is only discriminatory and arbitrary and for some reason singles out the SecondAmendment when it has no connection with that crime.
Click to expand...
Expanding the conversation to areas that are not part of the conversation is not warranted.
Felons should not own guns, simple concept. They have proven to not bear the personal responsibility to act in accord with our laws.
Such to the extent that they are now felons.
They want all their rights, let them go to court and ask.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Calm down. What you dont like felons being called what they are. Worthless, lowlife, meaningless scum that have no business living amongst people that have done nothing wrong and work for a living without preying on our fellow man.
You taking that as an insult tells me alot about you.
Click to expand...

It was more you being left with nothing more than claiming I'm blind because I asked you to support your claims. Which you have yet to do, BTW.
 
CRUE CAB said:
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.
Click to expand...

1: Other people are not you. Expecting people to be just like you is a denial of reality.

2: Making a mistake one time in which no violence occuring is no reason to deny them a Right.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Expanding the conversation to areas that are not part of the conversation is not warranted.
Felons should not own guns, simple concept. They have proven to not bear the personal responsibility to act in accord with our laws.
Such to the extent that they are now felons.
They want all their rights, let them go to court and ask.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. It brings up the central question as to why anybody would pick on Second Amendment rights in an arbitrary manner for something which had nothing to do with Second Amendment rights while ignoring other Constitutional rights?

Can you explain why you are picking on Second Amendment rights for a crime that had nothing to do with the abuse of those same rights while not advocating exctending to the loss of the other Constitutional rights to people convicted of a crime?

This suggests either this idea is based on total illogic since there is not logical connection to the SecondAmendment or those advocating such denials are demonstrating a clear anti-Second Amendment bias for those taking the position.

Which is it for you?
 
SMTA said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do believe that I made this post about non-violent offenders. Lets keep the discussion to them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, you are not. You are a person just like anyone else.
Click to expand...
Yea, whatever you say. I can vote, own guns, move from state to state with out checking in with anyone.
Yea, I am better than any felon.
 
haymarket said:
Actually it is. It brings up the central question as to why anybody would pick on Second Amendment rights in an arbitrary manner for something which had nothing to do with Second Amendment rights while ignoring other Constitutional rights?

Can you explain why you are picking on Second Amendment rights for a crime that had nothing to do with the abuse of those same rights while not advocating exctending to the loss of the other Constitutional rights to people convicted of a crime?

This suggests either this idea is based on total illogic since there is not logical connection to the SecondAmendment or those advocating such denials are demonstrating a clear anti-Second Amendment bias for those taking the position.

Which is it for you?
Click to expand...

Because dangerous people should not own guns.
Real simple concept. Wanna own guns, dont be a felon.
 
CRUE CAB said:
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.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about rape, murder, child molestation or armed robbery. This thread is about NON-VIOLENT ex-cons. Lets keep it to that shall we?
 
CRUE CAB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bold: That is a lie. Not even our own government knows every single law on the books. This is especially true since the laws are always changing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I do believe that I made this post about non-violent offenders. Lets keep the discussion to them.
Click to expand...

But the "what ifs" started to fly.
If you are a felon, you have no business owning a gun. Not only is that my opinion, thats the law. Dont like the law, file suit.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Expanding the conversation to areas that are not part of the conversation is not warranted.
Felons should not own guns, simple concept. They have proven to not bear the personal responsibility to act in accord with our laws.
Such to the extent that they are now felons.
They want all their rights, let them go to court and ask.
Click to expand...

Why not? I think its a valid question. If you're going to suspend a persons right to a gun because they made a mistake of committing a non-violent crime then why not suspend ALL of their rights?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why not? I think its a valid question. If you're going to suspend a persons right to a gun because they made a mistake of committing a non-violent crime then why not suspend ALL of their rights?
Click to expand...
Because most things like rights to assemble are totally un enforceable.
But once you are a felon, there are places and things you cannot do beyond owning guns and voting in many states.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Yea, whatever you say. I can vote, own guns, move from state to state with out checking in with anyone.
Yea, I am better than any felon.
Click to expand...

So because you can own a gun you think that you are better? That is stupid.

BTW, ex-cons can still vote and move to any state they wish.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: That is a lie. Not even our own government knows every single law on the books. This is especially true since the laws are always changing.
Click to expand...

"The 2013 United States Travelers Guide to the Firearms laws of all 50 States". Its in print and on Amazon right now.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Because dangerous people should not own guns.
Real simple concept. Wanna own guns, dont be a felon.
Click to expand...

How is a non-violent ex-con dangerous? Indeed a pot smoker is definitely not dangerous as all they'll do is sit on a couch and eat when they are stoned.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So because you can own a gun you think that you are better? That is stupid.

BTW, ex-cons can still vote and move to any state they wish.
Click to expand...
I am better because I never harmed anyone and have lived my life with a great deal of personal responsibility.
Iam not perfect by any stretch, but I am not a felon.
 
Guns and non-violent ex-cons

Kal'Stang said:
I do believe that I made this post about non-violent offenders. Lets keep the discussion to them.
Click to expand...

I do apply the same restrictions to them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom