- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
See also:Man arrested after firing gun at home burglary suspect
The armed and masked suspect fled the scene
Published On: Aug 29 2013 03:29:13 PM CDT Updated On: Aug 29 2013 05:39:47 PM CDT
A man was arrested after firing a gun at a home burglar in southwest Houston.
Houston police said shots were fired Thursday afternoon at a home in the 4900 block of N. Cancun. Police said an armed suspect entered the house and a man inside grabbed his gun and fired at the suspect after the suspect started shooting. Officials said the suspect ran out of the house and jumped in a Ford F-150 pickup that was waiting for him outside. Police said the suspect was wearing a mask or scarf to conceal his face during the incident.
The man inside the home was arrested by Houston police because was a felon in possession of a weapon.
Using the utility access across the dividing median on a freeway to make a u-turn is a felony. Why do you assume the original crime was violent at all? Making an illegal u-turn hardly justifies losing your right to vote or own guns for life.Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
You mmake the mistake of confusing violent offenders with non violent.Steal a laptop worth 450.00 from someone's unlocked car = misdemeanor. Steal a laptop from an unlocked car worth more than 500.00 = felony. Lie on a loan application = felony. Evade taxes = felony.
If a person convicted of a non violent felony has served their time, they have payed the penalty for their crime. No problem allowing them to vote, own firearms etc. Nobody is stating violent offenders should be permitted to posses firearms....
Nevermind, I read it wrong, I thought this meant a felon defending himself during commission of his own crime. Once someone has satisfied a sentence they are a former felon, so yes they do deserve their rights restored.See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?
*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.
This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.
A harmonious compromise is a Federal Caste Doctrine and Constitutional Carry law, this way repeat offenders can be executed in-the-act by the victim, but few people are interested in compromise these days.
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?
*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.
This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.
Well, you have to differentiate between violent and nonviolent felonies. And realistically if someone is violent, they should be in prison until they show they have changed that aspect.I agree with Fisher. If he wanted to keep his right to own a firearm, he should have stayed away from felonies. I'm all for removing that right on felons because they do tend to repeat their offenses and the right is only removed after they are positively proven to have committed a serious crime.
Using the utility access across the dividing median on a freeway to make a u-turn is a felony. Why do you assume the original crime was violent at all? Making an illegal u-turn hardly justifies losing your right to vote or own guns for life.
The thing is, after serving years for making an illegal u-turn, that felon can still get a driver's license and a car. Restricting the right to vote or own a gun is cruel and unusual punishment for an illegal u-turn. Instead, ban that person from the privilege of driving.
You mmake the mistake of confusing violent offenders with non violent.Steal a laptop worth 450.00 from someone's unlocked car = misdemeanor. Steal a laptop from an unlocked car worth more than 500.00 = felony. Lie on a loan application = felony. Evade taxes = felony.
If a person convicted of a non violent felony has served their time, they have payed the penalty for their crime. No problem allowing them to vote, own firearms etc. Nobody is stating violent offenders should be permitted to posses firearms....[/QUOTE
My state has a process for people to get their rights back. Until one has availed themselves of the process, they are committing an additional felony by possessing a firearm. The feds, however, do not recognize restorations, but as long as you stay out of their crosshairs, you would be fine.
What if the felony was a DWI (2nd offense), attack on an assistance animal, bigamy, alcohol in a dry zone (2nd offense), bingo fraud, practice chiropracty w/o license, selling untaxed cigarettes, failure to pay child support, delivering marijuana > 1/4 oz. or tax evasion?[/QUOTE
Doesn't matter. Avail yourself of the restoration process or pay the price for your additional possession felony.
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?
*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.
This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.
A harmonious compromise is a Federal Caste Doctrine and Constitutional Carry law, this way repeat offenders can be executed in-the-act by the victim, but few people are interested in compromise these days.
Sorry, but if someone loses their right to possess a firearm due to a felony then society should not look the other way just because they used it to defend themselves. Every day they had a gun between their conviction and the time they defended themselves, they were breaking the law. The last thing we need is for a bunch of gangbangers to be able to arm themselves with impunity the second they walk out of jail and have no recourse but to wait until they rob or kill and we catch them again.
That special process is called parole. Once your time is up, that's it, the state needs to back off. I thought it would be common sense that your rights should automaticaly be protected, that there shouldn't be any other "special process" other than the normal process of being discharged from the Department of Corrections.You mmake the mistake of confusing violent offenders with non violent.Steal a laptop worth 450.00 from someone's unlocked car = misdemeanor. Steal a laptop from an unlocked car worth more than 500.00 = felony. Lie on a loan application = felony. Evade taxes = felony.
If a person convicted of a non violent felony has served their time, they have payed the penalty for their crime. No problem allowing them to vote, own firearms etc. Nobody is stating violent offenders should be permitted to posses firearms....[/QUOTE
My state has a process for people to get their rights back. Until one has availed themselves of the process, they are committing an additional felony by possessing a firearm. The feds, however, do not recognize restorations, but as long as you stay out of their crosshairs, you would be fine.
My state has a process for people to get their rights back. Until one has availed themselves of the process, they are committing an additional felony by possessing a firearm. The feds, however, do not recognize restorations, but as long as you stay out of their crosshairs, you would be fine.
See also:
Felon Voting ProCon.org -- Should felons be allowed to vote?
*****
IMO your right to arms should only be as limited as your right to speech or religion.
This of course means that I fully support a felon owning arms if the State deems them fit to rejoin society. If we cannot trust a convict with a gun, then we cannot trust them around our schools or driving cars or repairing our homes or making our food. If they're so dangerous then we should either keep them locked up or exicute them. Once freed, however, all rights should be restored.
A harmonious compromise is a Federal Caste Doctrine and Constitutional Carry law, this way repeat offenders can be executed in-the-act by the victim, but few people are interested in compromise these days.
That special process is called parole. Once your time is up, that's it, the state needs to back off. I thought it would be common sense that your rights should automaticaly be protected, that there shouldn't be any other "special process" other than the normal process of being discharged from the Department of Corrections.
Presuming we could...would we want to bar felons from obtaining an abortion? Same thing. In both cases, home defence and abortion, its an otherwise perfectly legal and ethical thing.The refusal to even support or recognize existing laws is what provides ammo, if you will, for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms.
I agree with Fisher. If he wanted to keep his right to own a firearm, he should have stayed away from felonies. I'm all for removing that right on felons because they do tend to repeat their offenses and the right is only removed after they are positively proven to have committed a serious crime.
The refusal to even support or recognize existing laws is what provides ammo, if you will, for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms.
The Second Amendment asserts that we, the people, have a right to keep and bear arms, and that government is absolutely forbidden from infringing upon this right. Period.
There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that allows government to created specific classes of people to whom this right is denied.
Your logic is exactly backward. Fully standing up for this right is not what “provides ammo…for the other side that wants even more laws making it harder to own firearms”; what “provides ammo…” is allowing government to get away with some violations of this right, which serve as obvious incremental steps toward further denying this right to more and more people.
This isn't a right that we will lose all at once, in one big step; it is a right that we are losing, little by little, in many little steps, each step being made to seem reasonable once we have accepted the steps that led up to it.
In a country with over 310 million firearms in the hands of civilians,I seriously doubt it.We are going to lose the right to have firearms. That is just the reality of it.
I do not think he said anything about a zero sense of responsibility.He is not advocating that laws against murder be taken down or that it should be legal to shoot your firearm off at 3A.M. for no reason nor is he suggesting that you should be able to randomly shoot people for the hell of it.There are too many people like you who are so full of rights with zero sense of responsibility.
Rights only exist to the extent that the government wants them to. Has always been that way; will always be that way.
Using the utility access across the dividing median on a freeway to make a u-turn is a felony. Why do you assume the original crime was violent at all? Making an illegal u-turn hardly justifies losing your right to vote or own guns for life.
The thing is, after serving years for making an illegal u-turn, that felon can still get a driver's license and a car. Restricting the right to vote or own a gun is cruel and unusual punishment for an illegal u-turn. Instead, ban that person from the privilege of driving.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?