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

[CRUE CAB]

The only text you should have to read is the 2nd.

Yea, that would be nice. But thanks to millions of people who have no personal responcibilty, and dont care about other peoples rights.
They get to lose some of theirs. And I dont feel bad for them one iota.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

I don't care about "what-ifs". I'm talking about non-violent ex-cons.

And the law was made as it is only due to politicians wanting to get elected so they made "feel good" laws. Not due to any real valid reason.

 

[CRUE CAB]

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.

I know alot of "pot smokers". Very few are felons, seeing as personal use amounts of pot dont make you a felon.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

They are just as unenforceable as any other anti-object law. Don't believe me? Look at bans on drugs.

 

[Kal'Stang]

"The 2013 United States Travelers Guide to the Firearms laws of all 50 States". Its in print and on Amazon right now.

That does not have all the laws in the country like you claimed. Want to try again?

 

[CRUE CAB]

I don't care about "what-ifs". I'm talking about non-violent ex-cons.

And the law was made as it is only due to politicians wanting to get elected so they made "feel good" laws. Not due to any real valid reason.

Your opinion. Do you have a fact to back that up. Some quote that is attributed to a politician or judge?

 

[Kal'Stang]

I live in Florida, thats all I care about.

What's that got to do with you thinking you're better?

 

[CRUE CAB]

That does not have all the laws in the country like you claimed. Want to try again?

The ones that pertain to carrying and owning guns in states throughout the country. Have you read it? Do you own a copy?

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

This does not show that you are better than any ex-con. It just shows that you have been able to avoid being caught.

 

[CRUE CAB]

What's that got to do with you thinking you're better?

Nothing, I am better than a felon, because Iam not a felon. Real simple.
Let me ask, are you a felon?

 

[blaxshep]

Yea, that would be nice. But thanks to millions of people who have no personal responcibilty, and dont care about other peoples rights.
They get to lose some of theirs. And I dont feel bad for them one iota.

That would be due process and I have no issue with that.

BTW - ... people who have no personal responcibilty, and dont care about other peoples rights.

That means you wouldn't allow congressmen to own guns?

 

[Kal'Stang]

I do apply the same restrictions to them

Why?

.......

 

[CRUE CAB]

This does not show that you are better than any ex-con. It just shows that you have been able to avoid being caught.

Oh, that must be it. Yea, upbringing and all that dont matter a bit. I just havent been caught. LOL
Sounds like you are justifying your being a felon to me.

 

[CalGun]

You can't multi task? The fact is all ex cons are banned from gun ownership violent or not and I have zero trouble with that. To me once a felon always a felon.

Ask that in another thread please. This thread is about non-violent ex-cons.

 

[CRUE CAB]

That would be due process and I have no issue with that.

BTW - ... people who have no personal responcibilty, and dont care about other peoples rights.

That means you wouldn't allow congressmen to own guns?

Not if they are a felon. See, we are talking about felons. You know, people who have done time behind bars. Not people that maybe could, should have, would have or otherwise havent.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You can't multi task? The fact is all ex cons are banned from gun ownership violent or not and I have zero trouble with that. To me once a felon always a felon.

There ya go, a man with some common sense.

 

[blaxshep]

Not if they are a felon. See, we are talking about felons. You know, people who have done time behind bars. Not people that maybe could, should have, would have or otherwise havent.

Yes that is due process. Their right is revoked because of a crime. I have no problem with this.

The part about congress was a joke. Although the part about them having no accountability, and don't care about other peoples rights is dead on.

 

[haymarket]

Because dangerous people should not own guns.
Real simple concept. Wanna own guns, dont be a felon.

There is absolutely no connection between somebody who does time for investment fraud and the Second Amendment. Singling out ones Second Amendment rights for denial for a crime not associated with abuse of a firearm clearly shows either total illogic or a bias against Second Amendment rights when you clearly ignore all the other rights you could also deny the individual.


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?

 

[CRUE CAB]

There is absolutely no connection between somebody who does time for investment fraud and the Second Amendment. Singling out ones Second Amendment rights for denial for a crime not associated with abuse of a firearm clearly shows either total illogic or a bias against Second Amendment rights when you clearly ignore all the other rights you could also deny the individual.


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?

Dont commit investment fraud. Simple. Or tax evasion. Dont be stupid, that always helps. Use some common sense.

 

[haymarket]

Why are you connecting such a crime to loss of Second Amendment rights when the crime had nothing to do with the Second Amendment or guns?

Why are you demonstrating bias against Second Amendment rights and singling them out over all the others that you do not touch?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Why are you connecting such a crime to loss of Second Amendment rights when the crime had nothing to do with the Second Amendment or guns?

Why are you demonstrating bias against Second Amendment rights and singling them out over all the others that you do not touch?

Raping a child has nothing to do with the 2A either. Would you want the man who rapes and strangles your wife to be able to get a gun when he gets out of jail in 10 years?

 

[SMTA]

Why?

.......

A felon is a felon is a felon.

I have seen the progression over the years from non-violent to violent crimes by felons.

Recidivism rates are high, and I have no tolerance for any felon.

 

[Ikari]

Raping a child has nothing to do with the 2A either. Would you want the man who rapes and strangles your wife to be able to get a gun when he gets out of jail in 10 years?

Maybe the bigger problem is getting out after 10 years. Still, government force is limited and once punishment is complete the full of one's rights must be recognized again.

 

[Ikari]

A felon is a felon is a felon.

I have seen the progression over the years from non-violent to violent crimes by felons.

Recidivism rates are high, and I have no tolerance for any felon.

All sorts of "crimes" are felonies in today's over policed world.

So what are these recidivism rates?

 

[Ikari]

You can't multi task? The fact is all ex cons are banned from gun ownership violent or not and I have zero trouble with that. To me once a felon always a felon.

You cannot properly punish for possible future crime.