• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should felons own guns?

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
For all the anti-gun talk I have a response, the very first thing Hitler did was to register guns, then the owners dissappeared when they were finally made illegal. That being said, violent felons probably shouldn't own guns, but the case has been made since the Brady bill to include all felons which is in my opinion an abuse of constitutional and federal law.
One thing I have to say is that in Louisiana we own guns, and know how to safely use and accurately fire them, I can remember the Elian Gonzales event in Florida, a whole squad of storm troopers going in to this family's house with fully automatic rifles and forcing their way in without giving the family the benefit of a knock first. The aforementioned abuse may have happened in my state as well, but chances are pretty good that after the first response shot would be fired by a surprised owner, the offending authority would get a little more polite.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LaMidRighter said:
For all the anti-gun talk I have a response, the very first thing Hitler did was to register guns, then the owners dissappeared when they were finally made illegal.
Actually German Gun control was instituted by the previous Weimar Republic, not by Hitler. They were trying to disarm the nazis and communists. After ganing power the nazis did add a few restrictions to the law, mainly concerning Jews and non citizens.

LaMidRighter said:
That being said, violent felons probably shouldn't own guns, but the case has been made since the Brady bill to include all felons which is in my opinion an abuse of constitutional and federal law.
The Brady bill in my opinion an abuse of constitutional and federal law.

LaMidRighter said:
One thing I have to say is that in Louisiana we own guns, and know how to safely use and accurately fire them, I can remember the Elian Gonzales event in Florida, a whole squad of storm troopers going in to this family's house with fully automatic rifles and forcing their way in without giving the family the benefit of a knock first. The aforementioned abuse may have happened in my state as well, but chances are pretty good that after the first response shot would be fired by a surprised owner, the offending authority would get a little more polite.
From a law enforcement as well as a public safety standpoint, the Elian Gonzales event was handled in such a manner as to give no one any opportunity to resist. They surprised and overwhelmed everyone, limiting any possible resistance.

What part of Louisiana are you from? I spent my first 40+ years in south Louisiana, so I guess that makes me a native.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Charlie Reese, who is an op-ed journalist and constitutionalist who is very close to Florida basically stated that all that would have been necessary to retrieve the child would have been a social worker escourted by an unarmed female police officer. Apparently, the family had no desire to resist and so the Reno led storm troopers were overkill. I firmly believe that Clinton's actions towards this family are exactly what cost Gore the 2k election and thank god!
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LaMidRighter said:
Charlie Reese, who is an op-ed journalist and constitutionalist who is very close to Florida basically stated that all that would have been necessary to retrieve the child would have been a social worker escourted by an unarmed female police officer.
I am familiar with Charlie Reese and the Lew Rockwell Foundation. I enjoy his writings but as a "constitutionalist," he lacks.

LaMidRighter said:
Apparently, the family had no desire to resist and so the Reno led storm troopers were overkill.
On this issue, if what you are saying he stated is true then he obviously was unaware of a few key facts. Although originally they stated they would obey the court rulings, later Lazaro stated that officials would have to deal with the crowds and was quoted as saying "you're going to have to take him by force." This indicates a desire to resist, and this desire was subdued in such a manner as to thwart any attempt to facilitate that desire. The authorities were warned (actually threatened), and along with any warning or threat one has to assume the possibility that they had the means to resist regardless of whether they did or not. One does not have hindsight until after an event.

BTW, if the agents were indeed "storm troopers" as you stated, weren't they somewhat sloppy allowing photos of the raid to escape?
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
LaMidRighter said:
One thing I have to say is that in Louisiana we own guns, and know how to safely use and accurately fire them
You've got to be kidding, right? Your wonderful state was ranked the most dangerous state in the Union in 2003 and improved to #2 in 2004.

I think before you boast about how safe you and your fellow Louisianans are you need to wake up! I cannot remember laughing so hard as I did when I read your post. You live in the most dangerous state in America and you think that gun control wouldn't help.

Amazing!
:2rofll: :2funny:

Source: http://www.morganquitno.com/dang04.htm
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since approximately only 7% of Louisiana's violent crimes (Approximately the national average also) involves firearms, what's your point? Would more, or less firearms in the hands of the law abiding change how the non-law abiding act?
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's not exactly a hard process to go from law abidding to criminal when you own a gun. You just pull a trigger.
 

neccy60

New member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, Illinois.
I have no idea what's being debated on precisely now, but I will say that felons should not own guns. There's too high a probablity they'll use it again.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gandhi>Bush said:
It's not exactly a hard process to go from law abidding to criminal when you own a gun. You just pull a trigger.
The process may not be hard, but with approximately 200 million legally owned firearms in this country, it appears to be a process not normally utilized.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
neccy60 said:
I have no idea what's being debated on precisely now, but I will say that felons should not own guns. There's too high a probablity they'll use it again.
I don't believe they should either, but out of curiosity, do you believe all felons used a firearm for their crimes?
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gandhi>Bush said:
With over 30,000 deaths related to guns in a given year (2002), it happens often enough.
Strawman? This doesn't address your previous statement in the least.

Gandhi>Bush said:
It's not exactly a hard process to go from law abidding to criminal when you own a gun. You just pull a trigger.
That is unless you are claiming the 17,108 suicides and 762 unintentional shootings and 300 legal interventions and the 243 undetermined shootings has somehow turned the law abiding in to criminals.

Let's say your statement is correct correct concerning the 11,829 homicides, and it actually cannot be because some of those will result in acquittals. But use this number anyhow and assume each used a different firearm and they were all legally owned. This would mean that approximately .000591450% of legally owned firearms made criminals of their owners with just the pull of a trigger. Even giving you all these deaths to prove your point, it is still obvious that "it appears to be a process not normally utilized."
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The use of a gun that results in a death is the irresponsible use of a gun.

I will concede it is a low percentage, but it is quite high if someone you knew was a part of that 30,000.

What is Strawman?
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The strawman was a seemed reliance on information which did not support the statement, and at the same time appeared to be changing the point.

Gandhi>Bush said:
The use of a gun that results in a death is the irresponsible use of a gun.
Over 17000 of the deaths you are including was a decision affecting only the life of the individual concerned. For example in the year referenced, the mother of a coworker took her own life with a handgun. She had terminal cancer and was enduring the treatments which were extermely hard on her. She tried to tell her family to let the cancer take her, but their insistance of continuing the treatments were also extremely stressful on her, so she took a handgun, put it to her head and fired. This did not make her go from law abidding to criminal by just pulling a trigger as you stated.


Gandhi>Bush said:
I will concede it is a low percentage, but it is quite high if someone you knew was a part of that 30,000.
True, but if you are one of the masses, you should be relieved that your chance of committing suicide is dependent on your own decision and acts, not someone elses. Also that the odds of being a homicide victim are extremely remote, and those odds are tremendously raised in your favor if you stay away from certain situations.
 

Republican

New member
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Tennessee
I say NO, because when the person commited the felony he gave up his rights and he can't be completely trusted anymore. Allowing him to own a gun is just asking for more crime.
 

Gamago25

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No felon should have a legal avenue to own a handgun/rifle/shotgun. Period.
 

swampkritter

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Location
Georgia
Gamago25 said:
No felon should have a legal avenue to own a handgun/rifle/shotgun. Period.
I disagree. No felon convicted of drug use or sales, murder, assault, robbery, or any violent crime should own a firearm.

However, there are many other crimes which are felonies that have nothing to do with violence or drug use. I believe that on a case by case basis in these instances, there should be a way to get their rights reinstated.
 

johnsdad

New member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Absolutely not.

You give up the right when you commit the felony. I can also add this: A neighbor family, one house away, had a child one month younger than I. Essentially, I have known him since I was born and I am 66.

We lived in that close proximity until we were in college, but because of reunions, mutual friends etc, we have remained in contact for our entire lives.

One the eve of a reunion, knowing he was single (2000) I put in a call to him to share a hotel room as my wife was unable to attend, I was unable to hook up with him, so I called his brother.

It was then that I found out that he was awaiting trial for interstate dealing in child porn. I about s**t!

As the story developed, it was determined that two other classmates and I now knew of the situation.

The situation: Long, long story made short

While he was at an Ivy league college where he graduated, he was caught and convicted of fondling a child. No news anyplace, suspended sentence if he completed psychological treatment. He did, but carried conviction of a felony.

Approximately ten years later, another incident and he was convicted, but due to the prior conviction did spend one and a half years in state prison. At the time, I was in Vietnam.

So, from the 1970's onward he was on some sort of drug, did get married but divorced ten years later. This "angered" him and he stopped the drugs, bought a farm in VT (15 ac.), worked and went back to his habits except added dealing in child porn and hiding video camera's in school a/c vents in locker rooms and bathrooms. He was caught retrieving the tapes, was arrested and with the fondling, dealing and all, was looking at a max of three years in jail. In addition the school was in NY and he crossed over to VT, so the feds entered the picture.

In the ensuing investigation, it was determined that the extent in dealing was good sized, but still only amounted to maybe another one year in jail. There were no charges of "molesting" a girl (always girls) but he did fondle one that was known.

The big break in the case came when searching the old farm house, it was discovered that he had a single shot 22 Cal rifle that was about 50 years old.

BINGO....The gun rap is a big deal for the feds and it carried a 17 year mandatory sentence. He was convicted. He's dong the time in a federal pen and teaching other inmates reading. He writes scientific papers and still gets published. He will get out with good behavior in 8-9 years, and be 75 years -old... Assuming he lives that long.

If it weren't for the gun and the existing law, he'd be out now tracking your daughter, grand-daughter or friends daughter.

KEEP THE LAW
 

swampkritter

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Location
Georgia
Again, the decision whether or not non-violent felons should have their rights restored should be decided on a case by case basis. I agree that child molesters shouldn't own firearms, after all, that is, at least in my opinion, a violent crime.
 

teacher

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
johnsdad said:
Absolutely not.

You give up the right when you commit the felony. I can also add this: A neighbor family, one house away, had a child one month younger than I. Essentially, I have known him since I was born and I am 66.

We lived in that close proximity until we were in college, but because of reunions, mutual friends etc, we have remained in contact for our entire lives.

One the eve of a reunion, knowing he was single (2000) I put in a call to him to share a hotel room as my wife was unable to attend, I was unable to hook up with him, so I called his brother.

It was then that I found out that he was awaiting trial for interstate dealing in child porn. I about s**t!

As the story developed, it was determined that two other classmates and I now knew of the situation.

The situation: Long, long story made short

While he was at an Ivy league college where he graduated, he was caught and convicted of fondling a child. No news anyplace, suspended sentence if he completed psychological treatment. He did, but carried conviction of a felony.

Approximately ten years later, another incident and he was convicted, but due to the prior conviction did spend one and a half years in state prison. At the time, I was in Vietnam.

So, from the 1970's onward he was on some sort of drug, did get married but divorced ten years later. This "angered" him and he stopped the drugs, bought a farm in VT (15 ac.), worked and went back to his habits except added dealing in child porn and hiding video camera's in school a/c vents in locker rooms and bathrooms. He was caught retrieving the tapes, was arrested and with the fondling, dealing and all, was looking at a max of three years in jail. In addition the school was in NY and he crossed over to VT, so the feds entered the picture.

In the ensuing investigation, it was determined that the extent in dealing was good sized, but still only amounted to maybe another one year in jail. There were no charges of "molesting" a girl (always girls) but he did fondle one that was known.

The big break in the case came when searching the old farm house, it was discovered that he had a single shot 22 Cal rifle that was about 50 years old.

BINGO....The gun rap is a big deal for the feds and it carried a 17 year mandatory sentence. He was convicted. He's dong the time in a federal pen and teaching other inmates reading. He writes scientific papers and still gets published. He will get out with good behavior in 8-9 years, and be 75 years -old... Assuming he lives that long.

If it weren't for the gun and the existing law, he'd be out now tracking your daughter, grand-daughter or friends daughter.

KEEP THE LAW
Glad to hear he's up the river no matter what the reason. Florida Law just got tougher. Proud father of 3 girls the thing I wonder is, of all those dads out there whose girls have been in the arms of evil, how is it none have quietly sent these (hell bound or blinking to nothing, you pick) full grown adolescents to their final situation all the sooner thank you, thus saving the anguish of all those victims there probably would have been after he got out of jail AGAIN, and cutting the thread of misery he wove through society. Punishing. Just think if the first dad had done it how different johnsdad's horrible story would be. If there was no doubt is it your moral obligation to solve ever body's problem for good? Wager on a poll of all the college following dads and the likely future dads of violated daughters of this guy without the gun arrest,should the first guy do it?>#of gahndi's tea farm bushes methinks.
 

johnsdad

New member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Teacher

Glad you agree.

The guy is a real nice guy if you just met him, very well educated, pleasant etc. Family as we grew up was very nice, church going and both he and his brother were very active in student-body politics. On the outside, he was very normal.

But, he is one sick person. I had the occasion to meet a "shrink" that worked for the state and was involved in working with hard-core criminals that were being released back into society after lengthy prison stays exceeding 25 years.

In the discussion, the "molester" came up and he stated that essentially these people are never cured and only about 5-10% ever go straight. That he believed that those 5-10% were not actually cured, but were just smart enough to realize that they didn't like prison, so they went straight but were really not cured of their illness.

Jail is the best place and then a monitor on them for the rest of their lives when and if you ever let them out.

It's a sad story, but so is a much worse sad story for the parents, families, and the child if they are molested or worse.

Johnsdad
 

teacher

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
johnsdad said:
Teacher

Glad you agree.

The guy is a real nice guy if you just met him, very well educated, pleasant etc. Family as we grew up was very nice, church going and both he and his brother were very active in student-body politics. On the outside, he was very normal.

But, he is one sick person. I had the occasion to meet a "shrink" that worked for the state and was involved in working with hard-core criminals that were being released back into society after lengthy prison stays exceeding 25 years.

In the discussion, the "molester" came up and he stated that essentially these people are never cured and only about 5-10% ever go straight. That he believed that those 5-10% were not actually cured, but were just smart enough to realize that they didn't like prison, so they went straight but were really not cured of their illness.

Jail is the best place and then a monitor on them for the rest of their lives when and if you ever let them out.

It's a sad story, but so is a much worse sad story for the parents, families, and the child if they are molested or worse.

Johnsdad

All good voting citizens should know the recidivism rate of these @$*^)!# !@@*^)*% but alas no. Me. 3 wonderful angels I call daughters. Paths not crossing. Molester say lucky.
 
Top Bottom