- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,684
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Deegan said:I think it depends on the charge, was it a serious felony, was anyones life changed for the worse, was it the first offense, etc. I don't see why this can not be reviewed, and it would appear that most states have some sort of review board for this very issue. I think it could be used to gage the persons commitment to being a useful, responsible citizen once again, I am all for taking it case by case, and I didn't always feel this way.
GySgt said:It's not about debt. There should be repercussions for breaking some laws other than a stint in prison. Felons are not supposed to purchase fire arms. This too is a repercussion.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The practical reason for not wanting ex-felons to own firearms is apparent.
What's the practical reason for not letting him vote?
Please, in your answer, expend some effort to make sense.
DocAR said:If the person in question is a felon, convicted of a non-violent crime, what is the practical reason that they shoudln't be able to own firearms?
DocAR said:For that matter, what is the practical reason that a felon should be allowed to vote?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The practical reason for not wanting ex-felons to own firearms is apparent.
What's the practical reason for not letting him vote?
Please, in your answer, expend some effort to make sense.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:As a matter of bureaucratic simplicity, they don't discriminate between a felony rape or a felony embezzlement. The convicted rapist is far more likely to cause harm with a firearm, but the embezzler might decide that more direct methods of stealing money are preferred, too. But mostly it's so the state doesn't have to bog down the permitting process with criminal record searches.
The prohibition on firearms is part of an effort to protect the public. Since the most dangerous criminal participating in an election has his name on the ballot, its not obvious at all what harm an ex-felon's vote could do.
Ehrlich to veto bill on felons
Ehrlich to veto bill on felons
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2006
ANNAPOLIS -- Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. yesterday vowed to veto a bill that would restore voting rights to felons, including the state's most violent criminals, immediately upon their release from prison.
"I don't think you reward the franchise to those who commit the most horrific crimes," Mr. Ehrlich, a Republican, told The Washington Times. "Full restoration of every right is inappropriate."
Dozens of House Democrats have co-sponsored legislation that would allow about 150,000 murderers, rapists, robbers and other felons to vote this year, and the state Democratic Party has endorsed the bill.
The bill's lead sponsor -- Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, Baltimore Democrat -- said yesterday that Mr. Ehrlich's position reinforces the racist underpinnings of the state law that denies the vote to felons, of whom about 85,000 are black.
Mrs. Marriott, who is black, said Mr. Ehrlich's sentiment "reflects the thinking" of Carter Glass, a delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1901 who said felon disenfranchisement aims to "eliminate the darkie as a political factor."
"We all were raised in a racist society," said Mrs. Marriott, stressing that she was not calling Mr. Ehrlich a racist. "Let us be clear about what were the intentions of these laws."
Mr. Ehrlich said he would not "indulge her" by responding to her comments.
"There are white felons. Every issue isn't a racial issue around here," said the governor, who is seeking re-election.
Democratic lawmakers have attributed the Marriott bill's popularity to their party's aim to oust Mr. Ehrlich and secure black votes after Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a Republican, in 2002 became the first black to win statewide office in Maryland.
...
As far as the Dems playing the race card - what happens when you cry wolf?Scarecrow Akhbar said:An update on the situation in Mary Land.
So it doesn't look like the side in favor of restoring the franchise to felons is capable of discussing their idea rationally. Being Democrats, they've already played their Race of Spades card and are sitting back expecting the Republicans to run away and the media to come flocking in adulation.
So, who banned Shuamort?Glad I found this article, I'd gotten tired of the Shuamort/Shoot ******* match and left. I see a post I should respond to...
DocAR said:If a felony is an important enought offence to ban one from ownership of firearms (a Contuitionally-protected right) then why would it NOT be important enough to have consquences on your other rights?
A felony is no small matter. I supose your voting rights are suspended because you have shown a lack of judgement on a sufficent scale to disqualify you from voting in elections that will help deturmine the future of the country. Decisions such as those are hardly the type I want being made by common criminals.
DocAR said:"Bog down the system with criminal record searches".
Like the ones you currently have to go through in order to buy a firearm? (and they DO look at specific offences)
Good thing we avoided that fiasco. (BTW- I usually pass in less than 2 minutes. Not much of a draw on the system)
DocAR said:The prohibition on voting is very likely for the exact same reason.
DocAR said:The cheap shot at Bush (I assume), though. Cute. Very cute. I suppose you're of the mind that only a few more felon voters couls have put that "nice Mr Kerry" in to office, eh?
Goobieman said:As far as the Dems playing the race card - what happens when you cry wolf?
States have the power to deprive felons of voting rights. That most felons are people of color in no way necessitates that the exercise of this power is based on the desire to disenfranchise people of color.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:I know that. It doesn't mean that it wasn't it's purpose, though, either. That hasn't been proven this thread by any means.
Let's face it. IMO the Democrats are making an issue of the felon vote because they're presuming that since the majority of these people are black that they'll be getting more voters. They're not doing this out of any love of humanity, of course not. I'm not gullible.
The Democrats always play the race card. I don't think their constituency is capable of thought, so they jump straight for the emotion buttons.
But that doesn't mean the issue doesn't have it's own merits.
Goobieman said:Well... sifting through the thread, it seems the claim was that laws that prevent felons from voting were/are intended to disenfranchice people of color, and therefore violate the 15th amendment. THAT claim has not been proven. Absent any support for that claim, there's no 15th amendment argument, and so the state laws that do disenfranchise felons stand.
Its easy to claim intentional discimination - its hard to prove. Liberal Democrats feel that the accusation is proof enough, I guess.
George_Washington said:Yes, they've served their time but we're talking about felonies here, not just petty misdemeanors. We're talking about letting mentally ill and sick people have a say in how our government is run. I don't they should have a voice as to keep our political system as efficient as possible.
shuamort said:In Minnesota, shoplifting over $300 of merchandise is a felony.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Read today that Maryland Democrats are trolling for votes in the sewage treatment plant settling tanks:
Maryland Dems Want to Give Ex-Felons the Vote
So, should ex-felons be allowed to vote?
shuamort said:I voted yes. They've served their time. Moreover, it seems unconstitutional that some states allow ex-felons to vote for national elections and some states don't.
hipsterdufus said:OJ can vote, but in some states convicted felons can't.
After they serve their time, I would say yes.
Some states even let felons in prison vote.
Felons are citizens of this country as much as someone with a 20 IQ or the hate mongers from godhatesfags.com.
Why is this a states / rather than federal issue? Just curious.
Stinger said:The states are given the explict authority to do whatever they want as far as national elections. There is not even a right to vote in national elections, the state legislature can select electors if they want to.
jamesrage said:We got politicians catering and kissing the asses of special interest groups and foriegners instead of the American voters.I do not want politicians running round promising to put a XBOX or PS2 in every cell to get votes.I do not want politicians running around promising to put a water park in every prison to get votes from potential repeat degenerates.
So I say no,I do not want potential repeat offenders to be a voting base for any politician.
Ex-felons are potential repeat offenders.If I was one of these degenerates I would most likely vote for someone who favors turning prison into country clubs.Because if I was one of these degenerates I would have to consider the possibility that I could wind up back in prison even though my intentions would be to never return to prison.Scarecrow Akhbar said:"Ex-Felons", not guys who list their address *** Cell Block B.
jamesrage said:Ex-felons are potential repeat offenders.If I was one of these degenerates I would most likely vote for someone who favors turning prison into country clubs.Because if I was one of these degenerates I would have to consider the possibility that I could wind up back in prison even though my intentions would be to never return to prison.
fooligan said:Hey asshole, I'm an ex-felon. Bite my degenerating ***.
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?