• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

The NRA Wants Ex-Felons to Have Guns But Not Voting Rights

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The NRA Wants Ex-Felons To Have Guns But Not Voting Rights | ThinkProgress
The NRA Wants Ex-Felons to Have Guns But Not Voting Rights

The National Rifle Association wants convicted felons to be able to purchase firearms, yet its leaders are lambasting efforts to restore voting rights to the same people. “

If you know the NRA defends the rights of folks on the terrorist list then it all makes sense……..

'cause illegal aliens are not allowed to vote either………..so where’s your problem
 

THINK PROGRESS-far left propaganda

THE DEMS WANT FELONS TO VOTE FOR HILARY but DO NOT TRUST THEM WITH FIREARMS


so what is your point
 
The article merely says the NRA favors ex-felons being able to have their rights restored after a review so the article is a bit dishonest

It dives completely into the Moat of Mendacity with the claim that there is a "gun show loophole"

that claim is a threshold lie: if you claim there is a "gun show loophole" you are a liar and cannot be taken seriously on gun issues
 

Your constitutional rights should not be taken away without a trial.

All your rights should be restored once you served your time in prison and deemed safe enough to be in the general population.
 
If a felon is deemed to have one right restored, they all should be restored - end of the discussion.
 
Chomsky said:
If a felon is deemed to have one right restored, they all should be restored - end of the discussion.
Click to expand...

For the most part i agree, however what if his crime was gun related?
 
azgreg said:
For the most part i agree, however what if his crime was gun related?
Click to expand...
I believe Constitutional rights should only be abridged by a sitting judge, if at all.

If a guy does his time, he should be able to move on with his life.

If there's something so wrong or unusual with a person or his circumstances, then it should be up to a judge to decide this while applying due process, rather than be done summarily as it is done now.

But in general terms, when the prison system releases a person to society as 'rehabilitated', I believe they should re-start their lives (relatively) unencumbered.
 

I'm inclined to be a bit harsher. If a person committed murder I'm fine with them losing their 2A rights forever. Same goes for voter fraud, etc.
 
azgreg said:
I'm inclined to be a bit harsher. If a person committed murder I'm fine with them losing their 2A rights forever. Same goes for voter fraud, etc.
Click to expand...

well if you kill someone with a car, you often have your DL suspended for life so your point has merit
 

I'm leery of the source but, for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. It's a stupid position to take. The whole punishing people after they have come out of prison is ridiculous. They have either paid their time and get released or they haven't. I don't even like felony criminal records being a thing. All these things do is make sure that people who have made mistakes in their lives don't have much of a chance to pull themselves out of the hole, even if they want to.
 



about 15 years ago, NAACP counsel and Chaired Professor Pamela Karlan of Stanford, delivered the Taft Lecture on constitutional law at the U of Cincinnati Law school. I knew Pam pretty well in college and I attended her lecture. Her lecture was about re-enfranchising felons-a goal both the DNC and the NAACP was funding. Another attorney asked her why the DNC was behind it, and she noted that her studies found that ex-felons strongly support the Democrat party when they could and did vote. So I asked Professor Karlan if she was as willing to campaign for those supposedly rehabilitated felons to regain their second amendment rights. She beat around the bush a bit and then admitted that she did not support felons ever being able to own firearms again. And this was not just violent felons. All felons. So I guess both the DNC and the NRA have some inconsistencies on this issue
 
I think rights should be restored. However I am not sure someone straight out of prison should have their 2nd amendment restored who was charged with a crime involving a gun. I think there should be an option to have all your rights restored over a period of time. This is where instead of prison we rehabilitate. We need to get to the root of the problem. A lot of times it is drugs, alcohol, or anger management. I have seen too many people do things drunk they would never do sober. I know people that lash out when upset instead of walking away and thinking things through.

I had trouble sleeping when I was younger. I went years on less than 4 hrs sleep a night. I finally went to a psychiatric and after years of learning relaxation techniques I am sleeping 8hrs a night with ease. I can fall asleep in minutes now. Before the wheels would be turning in my head and I would go many nights without sleep. I know we all have our problems. The solution is to work towards solving them rather than punishing people for them.
 
Chomsky said:
If a felon is deemed to have one right restored, they all should be restored - end of the discussion.
Click to expand...

I agree. However I think the person should have to work towards the restoration of those rights. I think a person that uses a gun in a crime should have to prove they are now responsible and have resolved the issues that lead to the initial crime.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I agree. However I think the person should have to work towards the restoration of those rights. I think a person that uses a gun in a crime should have to prove they are now responsible and have resolved the issues that lead to the initial crime.
Click to expand...
That's reasonable I think, but I have Constitutional concerns with having to "prove" fitness for a "right".

I don't believe conviction of a crime should cause the loss of Constitutional rights. Maybe you let the guy out after he does his time, and throw him in for way longer if he makes the same mistake. That would work for me.
 
Chomsky said:
If a felon is deemed to have one right restored, they all should be restored - end of the discussion.
Click to expand...

So good to speak to you........ Just one question.............So the same should be true for the fellow on the Terrorist Watch list?
 
imyoda said:
So good to speak to you........ Just one question.............So the same should be true for the fellow on the Terrorist Watch list?
Click to expand...

when people are placed on that watch list only after there has been due process, including the target having the right to appear and be heard and to confront witnesses brought by the state against him, then maybe you would have a point. right now, being placed on that watch list is fraught with fraud, hearsay and often outright mistakes. The watch list is not sufficient to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights
 

They should get back both.
 

The source is a news aggregator. A web site that collects news reports form many sources. All of the fact material has links from where the information was taken..........They use materials freom well-know responsible and respected news outlets. It is IMHO the best news aggravator I have found to date.

You can check the site and form your own opinion..........


My comment was not directed at any person or group..........but was to underscore and point out the insanity or the NRA position............

And I agree with you........if you have paid your dues......so to speak.......you should be allowed to be treated accordingly
 

its funny you claim the NRA position-which you have misrepresented-they merely stated people should have an avenue to get their rights back-is insane yet you have nothing to say about the Democrats who want felons voting for Hilary but won't give ex cons their second amendment rights back. It merely shows that you are neither conservative nor objective. Your attack on the NRA is partisan hackery and its dishonest and hypocritical
 
imyoda said:
So good to speak to you........ Just one question.............So the same should be true for the fellow on the Terrorist Watch list?
Click to expand...
That's a tough one.

But if they're a citizen, I don't think I'd want their Constitutional rights infringed unless through due process in a court of law.
 
I think I'd agree with this.

Rights should only be infringed in the narrowest of circumstances (if ever!), and only through a court of law using due process.

The last thing we need is gov employees infringing the citizenry's Constitutional rights through administrative actions! :doh
 
Chomsky said:
That's a tough one.

But if they're a citizen, I don't think I'd want their Constitutional rights infringed unless through due process in a court of law.
Click to expand...




it only matters when we are talking about people who normally could buy a firearm/ I love seeing Bannerrhoid organizations screaming that the NRA opposes this. well given all it takes is one unconfirmed phone call to put you on that list-yeah I am glad the NRA fights that sort of fascism
 
Chomsky said:
That's a tough one.

But if they're a citizen, I don't think I'd want their Constitutional rights infringed unless through due process in a court of law.
Click to expand...

There is a very formal process to include a name on a terrorist watch list.......And is done as to not violate anyone constitutional right..........

If you Google "terror watch list criteria" it will list a number of web sites that outline the process.............Judge for yourself....
 

there are at least 2 dozen posters on this board-who if they had the power-would put every NRA member on that list
 
Fair enough.

But being placed on an administrative list is one thing.

Being placed on a list leading to the removal of an explicitly numerated Constitutional right may be quite another.

The whole key issue in the America with guns, is their Constitutional standing (for better or worse, depending on one's outlook).

But yeah, I would like to see what the process is, but if it don't involve full due process, including as Turtle stated 'the right to confront witnesses and defend oneself in a court of law', then I'm not buying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…