I'm a Felon.

[Ikari]

In Texas, you can have your rights restored, and then you can own a gun.

It's backwards. If the government wants to continue to exert its force it must prove its case.

 

[LaMidRighter]

In Texas, you can have your rights restored, and then you can own a gun.

Still can't clear the NICS though if it isn't a full clemency. It has to be full clemency with full voting rights restored or a form filled out with the ATF applying for restoration of rights(They haven't funded that program sufficiently or issued many restorations according to their own site, you're better off with clemency).

 

[danarhea]

It's backwards. If the government wants to continue to exert its force it must prove its case.

1) The laws in most states say that, if you are a convicted felon, then you cannot own a gun.

2) Kal says that he is a convicted felon.

3) Therefore, the government proved it's case when Kal pled guilty.

NOTE: Kudos to you, Kal, for turning your life around. Everybody makes mistakes. Some people learn from them.

 

[Ikari]

1) The laws in most states say that, if you are a convicted felon, then you cannot own a gun.

2) Kal says that he is a convicted felon.

3) Therefore, the government proved it's case when Kal pled guilty.

NOTE: Kudos to you, Kal, for turning your life around. Everybody makes mistakes. Some people learn from them.

But he's neither in jail nor on parole, thus his punishment ended. If the government wants to exert force beyond that, it must prove that Kal is still a reasonable enough threat as to warrant force against his rights. Right now, it's reverse and that's why I call it backwards.

 

[LaMidRighter]

1) The laws in most states say that, if you are a convicted felon, then you cannot own a gun.

2) Kal says that he is a convicted felon.

3) Therefore, the government proved it's case when Kal pled guilty.

NOTE: Kudos to you, Kal, for turning your life around. Everybody makes mistakes. Some people learn from them.

True, but as Ikari stated, for the state to argue that beyond the sentence a person can be further punished it should have a higher burden of proof than just "it's the law". Sentences are one thing, if the state wanted say, an additional five year firearm prohibition also fine, but saying that a person is permanently a second class citizen unless they hire a lawyer, pay court fees, and prove they aren't under sentence or guilty anymore has always stunk of cruel punishment to me.

 

[Captain America]

1) The laws in most states say that, if you are a convicted felon, then you cannot own a gun.

2) Kal says that he is a convicted felon.

3) Therefore, the government proved it's case when Kal pled guilty.

NOTE: Kudos to you, Kal, for turning your life around. Everybody makes mistakes. Some people learn from them.

Hold on D., Kal may or may not be a felon. See post #1.

Everybody does make mistakes. I forgot to leave a tip once thinking my wife had taken care of it. Then there was that zipper thing. I ran a stop sign once but wasn't ticketed. No cop around. I could have killed somebody had a car been coming the other way. Thank god it was just me at the intersection.

But I don't recall committing any felonies. That would be a huge "mistake." I am not sure deciding to commit a felony would actually be considered a mistake. A dumbass moment, perhaps, but no mistake.

 

[ARealConservative]

It wasn't a fallacy though, so there's nothing to defend. You just made the statement without proof. Nothing I said was the fallacy you describe.

ikari using the ostrich debate defense. head in the sand.

humans have rights because they decided they were smarter and deserved them is how your premise breaks down. You can go tell me to read some dude that impresses you, but your beliefs are infantile as is your ability to debate them

 

[mac]

The big issue is that those the laws are written for, probably shouldn't be on the streets if they can't be trusted to be full citizens in the first place.

Can't argue against that.

 

[Ikari]

ikari using the ostrich debate defense. head in the sand.

humans have rights because they decided they were smarter and deserved them is how your premise breaks down. You can go tell me to read some dude that impresses you, but your beliefs are infantile as is your ability to debate them

No, the premise is that rights, being an abstract concept of metaphysics, requires intelligence and empathy to understand. That which has already been demonstrated through humanity and has shown itself already. Rights can be understood through intelligence alone, it needs not a deity.

But if insult and hyperbole are the only way you can handle an argument, then so be it.

 

[Captain America]

ikari using the ostrich debate defense. head in the sand.

humans have rights because they decided they were smarter and deserved them is how your premise breaks down. You can go tell me to read some dude that impresses you, but your beliefs are infantile as is your ability to debate them

I got no dog in the fight but I submit that if humankind was entrapped on an isolated island or continent, without ever being exposed to any religion or diety beliefs, they would figure out not to steal, kill, and all the other behaviors some people believe, only a "god" could teach us.

I believe mankind can be moral and civil and charitable without religion mandating such. I do not subscribe to
"God given rights," or religious laws as much as I do human common sense. There will always be humans that break what we might call laws or morals. Even in a culture that has never heard of Jesus.

Reminds me of a joke.

Pope: "Repent from sin and accept Jesus for eternal life."
Dali Lama: "What if I had never been told about this, would God send me to hell?"
Pope: "Of course not. God is loving and merciful. You cannot be held accountable for denying Christ without first knowing Christ."
Dali Lama: "Then why did you tell me?"

No sir. I don't need a religious excuse or some diety to tell me what is right and wrong. Religion has long sought to have that powerful domination over man. I will not allow that in my life. They can only dominate me if I let them. I refuse.

Have a great day.

 

[sangha]

No, the argument is that rights can be understood from intelligence and empathy, a deity is not required. This is essentially the argument of Kant.

So someone stupid enough and sociopathic enough to commit a felony and get caught can be denied rights

 

[Ikari]

So someone stupid enough and sociopathic enough to commit a felony and get caught can be denied rights

Not really, we understand universal law and natural rights and that applies to all humans as humanity itself was capable of understanding universal law through our intelligence and empathy. However, those of unsound mind are often not sent to the same places as those of "sound" mind and punishments can be different. Even the individuals who may be stupid and sociopathic enough cannot have rights taken away, but we can and do apply force against their free exercise of rights if they infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[sangha]

Not really, we understand universal law and natural rights and that applies to all humans as humanity itself was capable of understanding universal law through our intelligence and empathy. However, those of unsound mind are often not sent to the same places as those of "sound" mind and punishments can be different. Even the individuals who may be stupid and sociopathic enough cannot have rights taken away, but we can and do apply force against their free exercise of rights if they infringe upon the rights of others.

You've argued that beings who lack a certain amount of intelligence and empathy have no rights.

I believe that, under that standard, felons may not qualify for rights, in which case there is nothing wrong with the state forbidding them from owning a weapon

 

[Ikari]

You've argued that beings who lack a certain amount of intelligence and empathy have no rights.

I believe that, under that standard, felons may not qualify for rights, in which case there is nothing wrong with the state forbidding them from owning a weapon

Not really, rights and universal law can be understood through intelligence and empathy. That universal law applies to humans on whole, and on whole we have demonstrated the necessities to understanding rights. It's not quite the same thing as what you are saying.

 

[sangha]

Not really, rights and universal law can be understood through intelligence and empathy. That universal law applies to humans on whole, and on whole we have demonstrated the necessities to understanding rights. It's not quite the same thing as what you are saying.

Nope.

rights are held by individuals, not groups. The individuals who commit felonies have demonstrated that they lack the intelligence and empathy required to retain rights.

 

[Ikari]

Nope.

rights are held by individuals, not groups. The individuals who commit felonies have demonstrated that they lack the intelligence and empathy required to retain rights.

Not what I said in the least, and you cannot take away their rights. You can only use force against the free exercise of rights, you can't actually seize rights.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope.

rights are held by individuals, not groups. The individuals who commit felonies have demonstrated that they lack the intelligence and empathy required to retain rights.

I don't believe that's necessarily true. It depends upon the situation and the crime. Besides, some felons are extremely intelligent.

 

[Captain America]

I think it's a blessing in disguise for a felon, or someone who chose to commit a breaking and entering burglary, is even here to debate whether or not they should be allowed to possess guns. They do not realize how lucky they really are.

What SHOULD have happened, instead of the burglar getting caught and doing time and then whining about not being able to legally possess a gun, is that the owner of said bowling alley should have came out a back office door, catching the burglars in the act, took his 12 gauge pump shotgun, loaded with 00 buck shot, and blown the intruders away. That would have been a MUCH better thread topic. :lol:

 

[Tucker Case]

A halfass Google search found one immediately. It does happen.

And how egregious was the offense? Was it a case of negligence or was it a case of "oops, my equipment broke on the same day that the evidence was gathered! Bad luck for me!"

Not true, bureaucrats are notorious for being Judge Dredd types.

Wow. I thought you might actually present an argument. Silly me.

You are wrong Tucker, anyone in the vehicle may legally be charged, the officer has the discretion of charging either the driver or the person in the immediate area of the drugs but may charge all persons in the vicinity.

And a dancing llama may fly out of my ass while whistling Dixie. Doesn't actually happen ever, though. :shrug:

Okay, well then please explain where the power to make those felonies is granted to either the EPA or the federal government in the United States Constitution.

I'm arguing that they should be felonies, not that they should be federal, so what the **** does the constitution have to do with it? (hint: nothing)

I'm actually using legal theory.

No, you aren't. You are using legal opinion. as in you are latching onto a legal opinion that you agree with and are pretending that sharing someone else's legal opinion means you are stating fact. That's dishonest, if only with yourself.

No, you aren't, you are adding your "yeah buts" to it. I'm going off of things I remember actually happening to people as seen in the news over the years, and a few things that have happened to people I know. Not everything is something I can give a reference to but have happened.

I'm not saying yeah but at all. I'm saying "No, that's just some bull**** you are making up and pretending is true. you are pretending your opinions are facts, when they are not. You are utilizing nothing but faacy to present your case, and here are those fallacies and here is why tehy are fallacies."

your responses to these things have been "Nuh uh! (repeate fallacies)!"

Because that person may not even know they are committing a felony, which was my initial point.

So? Just becaus ethey are stupid doens't mean they don't deserve punishment.

You don't want to admit it, but a person can easily "commit" a felony without even knowing their behavior is illegal at the time, no intent to commit which does not matter to the court.

Here's the problem. Just because they don't know something is a crime does not mean they do not intend to commit that crime. Example, let's say I am unbelievably retarded and I don't know that raping a woman is a felony. Then, in my profound ignorance, I rape a woman. My raw stupidity is not a mitigating factor on my crime. I intended to commit the crime, despite th efact that I am a ****ing moron.

Thus, your argument is still invalid. You are using a premise that is unrelated to the conclusion.

However, you are arguing against my point and trying to convolute it, my point was that people who want to permanently punish felons should be careful because anyone can become a felon without intending to break the law.

My point is exactly to your point. no distortions are necessary. My point as always been that you are 100% incorrect when you say that "anyone can become a felon without intending to break the law". You have not yet provided a single example of a person becoming a felon without intending to break the law. you have dishonestly tried to argue that it is a fact that certain things should not be felonies (both a red herring fallacy and flat out dishonest to portray your opinions as facts). you have shown people who definitely intended to break the laws (Al Capone intended to evade his taxes, for example, that is beyond any doubt), you have shown that the government takes steps to catch law breakers (EPA stuff), but you haven't demonstrated at all that "anyone" can become a felon. In fact, you've run away form supporting that claim like Rosie O'Donnell runs from a salad bar.

You don't have to agree, but it is the truth.

If it's the "truth" then you should be abel to provide even one ****ing example, Not something you make up glossing over the details like "My buddy was busted for bootlegging!" or

I rest my case.

You rest your case because something totally ****ing different exists from what you claimed? That's just ****ing pathetic, dude.

By your logic, people should be opposed to life sentences for murders because people can be falsely convicted of murder. By your logic, people should be opposed to ALL forms of punishments, because "Anyone can be falsely convicted of a crime they didn't commit".

We're not talking about crimes that people didn't commit, we're discussing crimes that they did commit.

No, I am being perfectly honest.

Bull****. You are being as intellectually dishonest as anyone I have ever seen on this site, which is saying quite a bit. You haven't supported you claim, you've decided that totally different **** does support your claim, and you have pretended that your opinions are facts.

So you want to discredit the language because you won't concede the point?

correction: I want to discredit the language because it's dishonest. Since it is dishonest, no point is actually made. It's a lie you are pretending to be true. Lies are not points.

It's very simple, if you don't want to forgive someone who has served their sentence extend the sentence

They haven't served their sentence if their sentence includes a permanent ban on gun ownership. they have served PART of their sentence (i.e. the prison part), but not th eentirety of the sentgence. Stop lying to yourself by pretending that a part of the sentence is not part of the ****ing sentence. You aren't making a point, you are telling a lie.

There are stories in the news constantly about these types of things, pick one.

Do you have any idea how ****ing pathetic it is that, instead of presenting a single ****ing instance supporting your claim, you avoid it by saying "You should be able to find it. I'm too lazy and incometent to do so, so you should just believe me, but **** you if you actually expect me to support my position."

They were hypotheticals based on real issues I remember making their way to a court room.

I don't trust your memory, especially after you've demonstrated huge degrees of intellectual dishonesty in this debate. Provide an example. A real example. Like find a ****ing link and post it. Allow those reading to analyze your judgement. You cannot expect someone to blindly trust your ****ing opinion and memory when they cannot, after quite a bit of trying, find a single example of what you claim is possible. NOT ****ING ONE EXAMPLE COULD I FIND. And I tried.

I can't find anything supporting your claim. Thus I reject your claim as any person with a functioning brain should do. If you do not wish for people to disregard such claims as pure, unadulterated bull****, then man the **** up and support the goddamned claim with evidence that actually supports the ****ing claim that was made.

Here's the claim again, paraphrased for clarity: "Anyone can become a felon by accidentally committing a minor crime they weren't aware was a felony, such as downloading music or a leaking car, if the cops take it in their mind to charge you with said crime." Support it. Show that this is ****ing possible. My search indicates it's not ****ing possible. The only cases where a person has been convicted of a felony for internet piracy were cases that were incredibly egregious (like thousands and thousands of dollars in thefts).

They are generic hypotheticals based on real events

Then provide a single link to one of these "real" events so that the quality of your personal judgement of the "minor" nature of these crimes can be objectively assessed (given the fact that you tried to use Al Capone's tax evasion charges as an example, your judgement of "minor" is, at the very least, questionable in this debate, and at worst, utterly worthless)

Happens all the time.

If it does, then there's plenty of evidence you should be able to provide, so why the **** aren't you doing so?

Don't worry. I haven't been able to find any evidence that supports your claim, either. Of course, for me that indicates that the claim is false. For you, it appears to indicate that the evidence is flawed. That's honest, right? :lol:

He was a professional bootlegger

Holy ****! You actually tried to use a professional ****ing criminal as your "example" to support your claim that anyone can become a felon? Any profesional criminal not only CAN become a felon, they should become felons.

You're all over the place.

No they aren't, if you can't clear your name you are by law a felon, then a former felon and there is no difference as far as your remaining rights go.

Being convicted in the first place for a crime one didn't commit is the injustice. Every aspect of the sentence is unjust. ALL aspects. Prison time, fines, lawyer fees, and yes, even lifetime bans on owning weapons. All of it is unjust. It's totally unrelated to the discussion because it has nothing to do with sentences and everything to do with the court system doing the job it is designed to do correctly.

Sentences are a totally different issue from having an effective court system, no? Therefore wrongful convictions have no place in a discussion about the "fairness" of various sentences.

There is no movement of the goal posts, my argument was that if you wish to prohibit people from exercising certain rights upon felony conviction be careful because you may have to wear those shoes.

So your argument is basically that there should be no harsh punishments for any crimes at all because anyone can be wrongfully convicted of a crime (wrongful convictions ARE possible, unlike the accidental convictions for music downloads and leaky oil argument you made before).

Because that is the conclusion of such an argument when it is based on wrongful convictions. Such an argument requires one to denounce all "permanent" sentences, including, but not limited to the following:

• life in prison for murder
• the death penalty
• permanent bans from working with children for a child molestation conviction

So basically, once a guilty pedophile gets out of jail, they should be allowed to open up a daycare, because, let's face it, anyone can be wrongfully convicted of a crime and once a perosnis out of jail, all other aspects of their sentence should be thrown out the window because... yeah!

 

[Visbek]

It's not hyperbole. The only just infinite punishment is life in prison without parole.

"Infinite" means "unlimited," which does not describe state powers. I assume you mean "indefinite."

There is absolutely no reason why the "only" just indefinite punishment is life without parole. The Constitution does not provide a list of what qualifies as "cruel and unusual," or any limits on the duration of a punishment, nor is there some objective standard we can apply. It is ultimately up to us, the citizens, to decide which punishments are just. And we've done that, via the relevant laws. If we change our minds, we change the laws.

You don't have to fill out a form to end probation and beg government for your rights back.

Positing this as a horrendous violation of rights is laughable -- especially considering the hoops that conservatives want citizens to jump through just to vote.

If you commit a felony, part of your punishment is the suspension of the right to own a gun until you demonstrate that your judgment can be trusted.

If the government wishes to keep applying force it must prove itself.

It already proved its case, with the conviction.

Matters of public record are public record so that the government may not do whatever they want to anyone at any time.

I have no idea where you came up with this very strange idea about the "public record." Keeping a record of convicted felons is for the safety of the community, not to restrain the state.

Infinity punishment based upon possible future crime is both cruel and unusual.

And as I pointed out, it's not a punishment for "future crime." They receive the punishment because they already committed a crime. Please try to keep up.

Probation is the natural end of punishment wherein all requirements are fulfilled. And that has an end date. That's it, after that the force of government must be removed from the individual...if freedom and liberty are our goals that it.

There is no "natural" end. Punishment and probation are not "natural" processes.

There is no requirement for the state to end punishment, and we've already established that the state can apply indefinite punishments.

The idea is that the punishment suits the crime. If you are a violent individual, you have demonstrated that your judgment cannot be trusted. If you can demonstrate that your judgment is restored, then you fill out the form and you get your rights restored.

 

[sangha]

Not what I said in the least, and you cannot take away their rights. You can only use force against the free exercise of rights, you can't actually seize rights.

If rights are something held by people who surpass a certain level of intelligence and empathy, then those who fall below the standard have no rights to take away.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Well who cares about your rights anyways?

My obvious point was that people used to believe that laws like in Washington and Colorado would never happen in out lifetime. Yet there they are.

Im sorry that your distaste for a plant made you miss my point. In case you need further leading in this conversation the over all assertion that I made was that Second Amendment rights just may very well be returned to law abiding citizens that have been disenfranchised by a bunch of hypocrites.

This is the problem with the "gun debate". Here and other forums. It just cant be about guns and gun ownership, it has to have all kinds of other crap dragged into it.
Like pot, gay marriage, felons, non felons etc etc.
The 2A is very clear, yet the libs wish to muddy the water. I dont see them doing it to any other amendment. Just the second.
Tells me they are just plain scared of guns, legal gun owners and wish for our government to provide protection for them 24/7. Which they cant.

 

[LaMidRighter]

This is the problem with the "gun debate". Here and other forums. It just cant be about guns and gun ownership, it has to have all kinds of other crap dragged into it.
Like pot, gay marriage, felons, non felons etc etc.
The 2A is very clear, yet the libs wish to muddy the water. I dont see them doing it to any other amendment. Just the second.
Tells me they are just plain scared of guns, legal gun owners and wish for our government to provide protection for them 24/7. Which they cant.

They do it with other rights as well. They do tamper with the right of assembly in the first because felons are prohibited from knowingly associating with other felons, and they do violate some contract(not BOR) rights by putting prohibitions on many licenses, a felon in many places cannot legally own a licensed bar.

 

[Ikari]

If rights are something held by people who surpass a certain level of intelligence and empathy, then those who fall below the standard have no rights to take away.

Rights are something understood through intelligence and empathy. You keep wanting to twist words around.

 

[CRUE CAB]

They do it with other rights as well. They do tamper with the right of assembly in the first because felons are prohibited from knowingly associating with other felons, and they do violate some contract(not BOR) rights by putting prohibitions on many licenses, a felon in many places cannot legally own a licensed bar.

Felons lose rights. That is a known deal from the moment you are convicted.
They dont want them associating is because they dont want them coming up with new schemes to prey on the rest of us with.
Dont want to lose rights, dont be a felon. Its actually very easy. I am far from a saint, but I have stayed clear of felony convictions pretty easily.